Cary Town Council - December 14_ 2006

Document Sample
Cary Town Council - December 14_ 2006 Powered By Docstoc
					                                 Cary Town Council Minutes
                                Thursday, December 14, 2006
                                          6:30 PM
                                      Council Chambers
                              316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C.

Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel,
Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison and Nels Roseland

A. COMMENCEMENT

   1.   Call to Order (Mayor McAlister)

Mayor McAlister called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

_________________________

   2.   Ceremonial Opening (Jennifer Robinson)

Mrs. Robinson provided the ceremonial opening.

_________________________

    3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)

Mayor McAlister announced the following proposed changes to the agenda:
    Item B.3.i., Walnut Street Detention Basin Project Condemnation Resolution, has been
       settled and may be removed from the agenda.
    At the request of the applicant, remove item H.1., Waterford Estates Subdivision –
       Request for Waiver of Thoroughfare Improvements; the applicant plans to submit a
       modified request and has asked that the item be placed on the January 11, 2007 council
       agenda.
    At the request of council member Roseland, remove item B.3.e., downtown Cary
       streetscape project, from this agenda and reschedule it for the January 11, 2007 council
       meeting, in order to give the council more time to review proposals.

ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to approve the agenda with the above amendments.
Mr. Roseland provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

B. CONSENT AGENDA

   1. Regular Consent Agenda (any regular consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be
      discussed at the end of the old/new business portion of the agenda, which is item H on
      this agenda)

        a. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on
           November 14, 2006 and the minutes of the aquatics work session held on
           November 8, 2006. (Town Council)

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________


                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 1
        b. Consideration of approval of the November 2006 tax report. (Mr. Bill Coleman)

November 14, 2006

The Wake County Board of Commissioners, in regular session on November 9, 2006, approved
and accepted the enclosed tax report for the Town of Cary.

It is hereby submitted for your approval.

Refunds of taxes, interest and penalties              $677.03
Relief of late list penalty                           11
Relief of late filed application                      1
Non-cash rebates                                      292

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        c. Consideration of approval of certificates of sufficiency and resolutions calling for
           public hearings on the following citizen initiated annexations. (Mr. Ricky Barker)

            (1) 06-A-34 (The Park at Langston, LLC)
                The property is located on Truelove Drive, 3,880 feet north of Optimist Farm
                Road and Bells Lake Road, and contains 14.29 acres. The associated rezoning
                case is 06-REZ-23 (Park at Langston).

Annexation Petition Number: 06-A-34
Property Address: 4027 Truelove Drive and other unaddressed properties
Wake County Parcel Number: 0679488538, 0679485780, 0679498326, 0679497051
Real ID Number: 0071350, 0071351, 0017768, 0082062
Petition Date: 9/25/2006
Proposed Effective Date: concurrent with rezoning case action

OWNERS:
The Park at Langston LLC
1402 Sunday Drive, Suite 116
Raleigh , NC 27607

LOCATION: 3,060' northwest of Optimist Farm Road and Bells Lake Road

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Residential-30 (Wake) (R-30 Wake)
Acreage: 14.29 plus 0.00 adjacent right of way = 14.29 total acres
% Contiguity: 43.47%
Contiguous to Corporate Limits: Yes
Proposed Use: Residential Subdivision rezoned for Residential-12 Conditional Use (R12CU)
Associated Rezoning Case: 06-REZ-23 (Park @ Langston)
Associated Development Plan: None
UTILITIES:
Water: On Site
Sewer: On Site

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Fairview


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 2
Voting District: C
Tax Value: $263,800
MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency and Resolution Ordering Public Hearing:
12/14/2006
Staff Recommendation:       Forward to public hearing on 1/25/2007 *

06-A-34

CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF ANNEXATION PETITION

I, the undersigned Town Clerk of the Town of Cary, do hereby certify that I have investigated the
sufficiency of Annexation Petition of

The Park at Langston LLC;
Wake County Parcel Identification #0679488538, 0679485780, 0679498326,
0679497051;
14.29 acres plus 0.00 acres of adjacent right-of-way;

as directed by the Town Council by resolution, and that my investigation reveals the
following:

1. The signers of the Petition are the owners of the real property within the area proposed for
   annexation.

2. The area is contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of Cary as defined by G.S.
   160A-31, or is appropriate for annexation as a noncontiguous area as defined by 160A-58.

This 12/14/2006.

06-A-34

RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
QUESTION OF ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO G.S. 160A-31

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cary has received an annexation petition of

The Park at Langston LLC;
Wake County Parcel Identification #0679488538, 0679485780, 0679498326,
0679497051;
14.29 acres plus 0.00 acres of adjacent right-of-way;

requesting the annexation of certain lands contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of
Cary; and

WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has certified to the Town Council the sufficiency of said Petition as
required by law;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North
Carolina that:

Section I. A public hearing on the question of annexation of the area described herein will be held
in the Council Chamber of the Town of Cary, 316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C. at 6:30 p.m. on
1/25/2007*.

Section 2. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows:


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Wake County Parcel Identification #0679488538, 0679485780, 0679498326, 0679497051

Section 3. Notice of the public hearing shall be published in the Cary News, a newspaper having
general circulation in the Town of Cary, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public
hearing.

ADOPTED 12/14/2006.

* All 2007 dates are proposed until officially adopted by Town Council

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Resolution 06-155 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

            (2) 06-A-37 (Albert Murray Council Heirs, ETAL)
                The property is located at 3620 Green Level Church Road West and 3610 and
                8425 Green Level Church Road and contains 19.54 acres. The associated
                development plan is 06-SB-019 (Singh Green Level Road West Subdivision).

Annexation Petition Number: 06-A-37
Property Address: 3620 Green Level Church Road West, 3610, 8425 Green Level Church
Road
Wake County Parcel Number: 0723023522 portion, 0723022038, 0723024260
Real ID Number: 0015178 portion, 0159931, 0047472
Petition Date: 10/13/2006
Proposed Effective Date: 1/25/2007 *

OWNERS:
Albert Murray Council HEIRS
C/O Rebecca Ann Prince EXECUTOR
3705 Green Level Road West
Apex , NC 27523-7503

Bonnie Council & William K. Hodge
3610 Green Level Road West
Apex , NC 27523-7500

Reba R Mills HEIRS
C/O Peggy E. Hatcher EXECUTOR
4011 NC Highway 55
Cary , NC 27519-8373

LOCATION: 130' south of the intersection of Green Level Church Road and Green Level West
Road

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Residential 40 (R-40) in a Conservation Residential Overlay District
Acreage: 19.54 plus 0.00 adjacent right of way = 19.54 total acres
% Contiguity: 0.00%
Contiguous to Corporate Limits: No
Proposed Use: Residential Subdivision


                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 4
Associated Rezoning Case: None
Associated Development Plan: 06-SB-019 (Singh Green Level Road West Subdivision)
UTILITIES:
Water: 16" DIP 4,850' north
Sewer: 8" PVC 5,300' north

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Morrisville
Voting District: A
Tax Value: $228,768
MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency and Resolution Ordering Public Hearing:
12/14/2006
Staff Recommendation: Forward to public hearing on 1/25/07 *

06-A-37

CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF ANNEXATION PETITION

I, the undersigned Town Clerk of the Town of Cary, do hereby certify that I have investigated the
sufficiency of Annexation Petition of

Albert Murray Council HEIRS C/O Rebecca Ann Prince EXECUTOR; Bonnie Council
& William K. Hodge; Reba R Mills HEIRS C/O Peggy E. Hatcher EXECUTOR;
Wake County Parcel Identification #0723023522 portion, 0723022038, 0723024260;
19.54 acres plus 0.00 acres of adjacent right-of-way;

as directed by the Town Council by resolution, and that my investigation reveals the following:

1. The signers of the Petition are the owners of the real property within the area proposed for
   annexation.

2. The area is contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of Cary as defined by G.S.
   160A-31, or is appropriate for annexation as a noncontiguous area as defined by 160A-58.

This 12/14/2006.

06-A-37

RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
QUESTION OF ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO G.S. 160A-58

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cary has received an annexation petition of

Albert Murray Council HEIRS C/O Rebecca Ann Prince EXECUTOR; Bonnie Council &
William K. Hodge; Reba R Mills HEIRS C/O Peggy E. Hatcher EXECUTOR;
Wake County Parcel Identification #0723023522 portion, 0723022038, 0723024260;
19.54 acres plus 0.00 acres of adjacent right-of-way;

requesting the annexation of certain lands contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of
Cary; and

WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has certified to the Town Council the sufficiency of said Petition as
required by law;




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North
Carolina that:

Section I. A public hearing on the question of annexation of the area described herein will be held
in the Council Chamber of the Town of Cary, 316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C. at 6:30 p.m. on
1/25/2007*.

Section 2. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows:

METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
Beginning at an existing iron pipe, said iron pipe being South 52°20’04” West 29,243.08 feet from
NCGS survey monument “Times”, said monument having NC grid coordinates (NAD 83) of
N=757,237.774, E=2,050,608.513, thence from said monument South 89°21’35” East 804.33 feet
to an existing iron pipe, thence North 00°48’50” East 28.91 feet to an existing axle, thence North
84°47’39” East 50.57 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence North 85°26’21” East 222.26 feet to a
point on the western right of way of Green Level Church Road (S.R. 1600) ( 60’ R/W), thence with
said right of way South 03°30’40” East 37.04 feet to a point, thence South 07°02’06” East 52.46
feet to a point, thence South 10°26’52” East 53.50 feet to a point, thence South 14°56’09” East
51.90 feet to a point, thence South 16°33’33” East 49.41 feet to a point, thence South 17°15’03”
East 50.30 feet to a point, thence South 17°49’53” East 99.99 feet to a point, thence South
17°30’45” East 86.04 feet to a point, thence leaving said right of way South 82°13’52” West
266.66 feet to an existing axle, thence South 02°06’09” West 159.61 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence South 20°07’33” West 241.57 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence South 74°22’33” West
36.08 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence South 09°54’21” East 44.70 feet to a new iron pipe,
thence South 81°38’49” West 225.00 feet to a new iron pipe, thence South 09°53’52” East 220.56
feet to a spike set on the northern right of way of Green Level Road West (S.R. 1605) (60’R/W),
thence with said right of way South 82°22’36” West 168.21 feet to a point, thence leaving said
right of way North 07°29’26” West 250.02 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence South 82°29’55”
West 98.82 feet to a new iron pipe, thence North 07°29’40” West 463.17 feet to an existing iron
pipe, thence South 82°30’56” West 270.07 feet to an existing axle, thence North 00°23’21” West
511.65 feet to the point and place of Beginning containing 19.270 acres more or less.

Section 3. Notice of the public hearing shall be published in the Cary News, a newspaper having
general circulation in the Town of Cary, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public
hearing.

ADOPTED 12/14/2006.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Resolution 06-156 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

        d. Consideration of adoption of a resolution endorsing the NC League of Municipalities’
           proposed mission statement, core values and strategic directions.

                           SUPPORTING THE INITIATIVES FOR
                    THE NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES

        WHEREAS, the North Carolina League of Municipalities has undertaken a strategic
visioning process to determine how to continue to meet the needs of its members as the League
approaches its second century of operation; and




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 6
        WHEREAS, the Strategic Directions Initiative Steering Committee studied the history of
the organization, the forces that shaped the League and the trends that are likely to occur as well
as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that face the League in the years ahead;
and

       WHEREAS the committee has talked with municipal elected and appointed officials and
League staff members to determine what members value about the League; and

         WHEREAS, the committee proposes to strengthen the League by (1) a mission
statement that makes explicit why the League exists; (2) core values that define how the League
lives its mission; and (3) a focus on strengthening member communication, participation and
engagement; strengthening the League’s governance capacity; and strengthening policy
development and representation of municipal interests in an increasingly regional, global and
intergovernmental world; and

         NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cary Town Council hereby endorses
the findings of the committee and encourages the North Carolina League of Municipalities Board
of Directors to adopt the recommendations and move the League forward to its preferred future.

      ADOPTED this 14th day of December, 2006.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Resolution 06-157 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

    2. Land Development Consent Agenda (any land development consent agenda item pulled
       for discussion will be discussed at the end of the land development discussion portion of
       the agenda, which is item F on this agenda)

        a. Rezoning 06-REZ-21 (Regency Planned Development District Amendment)
           Consideration of adoption of an ordinance to rezone land. The property is located on
           Regency Parkway, north of Glade Park Road, and contains approximately 21.32
           acres. The request is to amend the current planned development district. Council
           may refer this request to the November 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board
           meeting. In accordance with N.C.G.S. 160A-383, and based upon the
           recommendations and detailed information developed by staff and/or the Planning &
           Zoning Board contained in the case report, approval of this case by the Cary Town
           Council will officially adopt the individual rezoning report as evidence that consistency
           with the Comprehensive Plan has been thoroughly evaluated and that this is a
           reasonable action to further the community’s public interest in carrying out the
           Comprehensive Plan. (Ms. Jennifer Currin)

Background Information

Existing Zoning: Planned Development District (PDD)

Requested Zoning: PDD Amendment

Existing Zoning Conditions: Tract 7: 180,000 square feet office

Requested Zoning Conditions:
1. Add 60,000 square feet of office to Tract 7 for a total of 240,000 square feet


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 7
2. Reduce the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer from 100’ to 50’

Conformity with Land Use Plan Designation: Yes. The adopted land use designation is Office
and Institutional (OFC/INS).

Acreage: Approximately 21.32

Location: Regency Parkway (north of Glade Park Road)

Applicant:
Glenda Toppe
Jerry Turner & Associates, Inc.
905 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
gtoppe@jerryturnerassoc.com
(919) 851-7150

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Jennifer Currin, Planner II
316 N Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513
(919) 469-4342
jennifer.currin@townofcary.org

Changes since the Town Council Public Hearing: There have been no changes to the PDD
amendment since the Town Council public hearing.

Staff recommendation on the rezoning: The PDD amendment is consistent with the Town of
Cary Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is requesting the reduction to the Thoroughfare Corridor
Buffer along US 1 adjacent to Tract 7. Although the applicant is requesting a reduction of the
Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer from 100’ to 50’, the impact will be mitigated with supplemental
plantings. On Tract 7, the buffer is only separating the offices from US 1. Staff recommends
approval of this PDD amendment.

Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Board voted 9-0 to
recommend that Council adopt an ordinance allowing this request for the rezoning; it is consistent
with the current Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan and any other officially adopted plans that are
applicable. The Board determined this action to be reasonable and in the public interest.

Changes since the P&Z Board meeting: None

Summary of Requested Rezoning

                      REQUESTED LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
   Parcel           Acreage        Current     Proposed                       Maximum Building
                                 Maximum SF   Maximum SF                        Height (feet)
   Tract 7        Approx. 21.32    180,000      240,000                           6 stories

The maximum square feet of office currently approved for Tract 6 would remain unchanged to
allow 115,000 square feet of office. The current PDD document caps the square feet of office
between Tracts 6 and 7 to 295,000 square feet. This request would increase the maximum
amount of office space between Tracts 6 and 7 to 355,000 square feet. The applicant is also
requesting that the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer be reduced from 100’ to 50’.

A. Transportation
Existing Roadway Section: Regency Parkway; not constructed, 100’ right-of-way (ROW)


                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 8
Future Roadway Section: 2-3 lane collector road; 78’ ROW
Schedule: Not scheduled
Sidewalk Requirements: Sidewalk required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: Wide outside lane or striped bike lane required
Transit Requirements: No requirements

B. Traffic Impact Analysis: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared by a Town
traffic consultant. The Traffic Impact Study requires a left turn lane be installed at Regency &
Richelieu to enter Regency Parkway. All study intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) "D"
or better with proposed improvements.

C. Parks & Greenways: According to the approved Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources
Facilities Master Plan there are no parks or greenways issues related to this site.

Reference Information
Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: October 12, 2006
Action: Forwarded to the November 20 P&Z Board meeting

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: November 20, 2006
Action: P&Z Board recommended approval 9-0.

Town Council Action:
Date: December 14, 2006

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted October 26, 2006
(Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary):

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the
following, if applicable:

    1. Any issues with the size of the tract? The size of the tract is conducive to the land use
       being proposed.

    2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use,
       Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)? The request is compatible with the
       comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan currently designates this tract for office.
       No other changes are being proposed within the adopted PDD.

    3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community? The
       additional office square footage will help provide for the mix of uses that was originally
       envisioned for Regency Park. The amendment will also provide an increased tax base to
       the Town. Tract 7 is ideal for additional office development given its location adjacent to
       US 1 and its proximity to the interchange of US 1 & 64. The Tract is adequately buffered
       from any proposed or existing residential development. The regulations in the Town’s
       LDO will provide adequate protection to the adjacent properties.

    4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do
       they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts? Other tracts in the vicinity of
       Tract 7 are currently developed for office.




                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 9
    5. What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of the
       LDO are being requested and how are they justified? (PDD, new or amended)
       Applicants must list these items and/or clearly highlight them within the Planned
       Development document. The request is to reduce the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer
       District from 100 feet to 50 feet. This amendment also includes a request to reduce the
       Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer District from 100 feet to 50 feet. A significant portion of the
       frontage along US 1 adjacent to Tract 7 is significantly above the highway; therefore the
       views into the site are obscured by the cut slopes along US 1. Through a combination of
       grade difference and supplementary plantings, the intent of the requirements of the
       District will be met.

Development Plan Issues:
The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of this land use for these parcels of
land. Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development,
such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road
connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the rezoning process. However,
all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements
spelled out in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is
submitted.

Ordinance for Consideration

            06-REZ-21 Regency Park Planned Development District Amendment
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO
CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 21.32 ACRES LOCATED ALONG REGENCY
PARKWAY (NORTH OF GLADE PARK ROAD) OWNED BY TRIANGLE REGENCY LLC FROM
PDD TO PDD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
OFFICE SPACE

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY:

Section 1: The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning the area described as follows
(“Property”):
                                                          PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION
Property Owner(s)                  County Parcel Number(s) Real Estate ID(s) Area Acres
Triangle Regency LLC               0752704057 (portion)     0232862                 21.32
400 Ashville Ave STE 340                                    (portion)
Cary, NC 27511-6134
Total Acreage                                                                                21.32
                                                                                     (approximate)

Section 2: That the Property is rezoned from PDD to PDD Amendment subject to the conditions
set forth herein and in the Master Plan dated January 27, 2005 (and all supporting plans), which
is incorporated herein by reference, and all the requirements of the Cary Land Development
Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, policies and guidelines.
OPT (to reflect changes made at council): Section 3: The Master Plan shall incorporate the
following: ________________

Section 3/4: This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption but the PDD and Master Plan shall
not become effective until applicant has submitted to the Planning Department of a copy of the
Master Plan and all supporting plans incorporating all changes, if any that were required as
conditions of approval and such additional information as the Town Council may have required as
a condition of approval.



                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 10
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

The final adopted ordinance follows:

            06-REZ-21 Regency Park Planned Development District Amendment
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO
CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 21.32 ACRES LOCATED ALONG REGENCY
PARKWAY (NORTH OF GLADE PARK ROAD) OWNED BY TRIANGLE REGENCY LLC FROM
PDD TO PDD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
OFFICE SPACE

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY:

Section 1: The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning the area described as follows
(“Property”):
                                                           PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION
Property Owner(s)                   County Parcel Number(s) Real Estate ID(s) Area Acres
Triangle Regency LLC                0752704057 (portion)     0232862                 21.32
400 Ashville Ave STE 340                                     (portion)
Cary, NC 27511-6134
Total Acreage                                                                              21.32
                                                                                   (approximate)

Section 2: That the Property is rezoned from PDD to PDD Amendment subject to the conditions
set forth herein and in the Master Plan dated January 27, 2005 (and all supporting plans), which
is incorporated herein by reference, and all the requirements of the Cary Land Development
Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, policies and guidelines.
Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption but the PDD and Master Plan shall not
become effective until applicant has submitted to the Planning Department of a copy of the
Master Plan and all supporting plans incorporating all changes, if any that were required as
conditions of approval and such additional information as the Town Council may have required as
a condition of approval.

(Ordinance O-2006-29 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

    3. Operations Committee, December 11, 2006 (any committee consent agenda item pulled
       for discussion will be discussed at the end of the committee discussion portion of the
       agenda, which is item G on this agenda) (Mrs. Robinson)

        a. Town Funding for General Nonprofits (AD07-004)
           Committee unanimously recommended approval of a new Policy Statement, Town
           Funding of General Non-Profits.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Town Funding for General Nonprofits (AD07-004)
Consideration of adopting a policy statement formalizing the general nonprofit funding process
Speaker: Scott Fogleman

From: Scott Fogleman, Budget Director

                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 11
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Background
As part of the annual budget development process, the Town of Cary considers funding support
of general nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit organizations that encourage and support cultural
arts related activities are currently reviewed according to Town Council’s existing Policy
Statement 115, so cultural arts related nonprofits are not covered in the general nonprofit policy.

During the fiscal year 2007 budget development process, Town staff formed a committee to
review general nonprofit applications. Several funding scenarios were developed to assist Town
Council members in making final funding decisions as part of the adopted budget.

Town Council members requested that staff formalize the general nonprofit funding process
through an official policy for future years based on the approach used for fiscal year 2007. This
policy will inform all parties about the process being used including the total amount of funding
available each year as well as the key criteria being evaluated.

Discussion
The draft policy addresses key points such as eligibility, how the total amount of funding each
year will be determined, criteria used for reviewing applications, and the process used for funding
decisions.

The funding request form has been updated to collect information directly related to that
referenced in the policy itself. Since the detailed application may be adjusted from year to year
as necessary based on feedback from nonprofit organizations, the staff committee selected to
review them, the Town Manager, and/or members of the Town Council, it is not included as part
of the official policy. Applications are made available on request, are sent to anyone who has
previously requested funding, and will be posted on the Town’s Web site.

Fiscal Impact: In FY 2007, the Town Council approved the use of the per capita approach to
determine the total amount of funding allotted to fund general nonprofit organizations. Since the
Town of Cary Planning Department estimated population as of January 1, 2006 to be 113,126,
$114,000 was the total amount of funding split among the eligible organizations. Upon policy
approval, Town staff will use the population provided by the Town of Cary’s Planning Department
each year as of January 1st of the year the budget is being prepared. For the FY 2008 budget
year, the Town will use the population estimated as of January 1, 2007. The total amount of
funding would increase in future years as the estimated population increases.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Town Funding for General
Nonprofits Policy.

                                   POLICY STATEMENT 151
                              Town Funding of General Non-Profits

Prepared by: Scott Fogleman, Budget Director
Supersedes: N/A
Adopted by Council: 12/14/2006
Effective: 12/14/2006

PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to promote partnerships between the Town and general nonprofit
organizations for the benefit of Cary residents, to equitably and efficiently allocate resources to
strengthen organizations, and to provide sound and clear methods for decisions.


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 12
COVERAGE

This policy, upon adoption by the Town Council, shall be applicable to all requests for support
from general nonprofit organizations. “General” is considered to include those nonprofit
organizations that are not considered cultural arts related. Typically the “general” designation
includes those nonprofit agencies that provide human services.

POLICY

    1. Eligibility: Organizations serving Cary are defined as those with a 501(c)(3) designation;
       is a group which regularly comes together for purposes of promoting, providing or
       supporting services, and is one which is described in one or more of the following: uses
       a location within Cary’s corporate limits for its primary service place, has an office in
       Cary, has a majority of Cary residents in its service population, or conducts a majority of
       its activities and programs in Cary. Regional organizations which focus a significant
       program in Cary, but otherwise conduct business and operations outside of Cary, may
       also be considered for support or sponsorship for Cary-based services. Applications will
       be available on the Town of Cary’s website and at the Administration Department at
       Town Hall. Applications will also be distributed to those agencies that either requested
       funding in a prior year or after the prior year’s application deadline.

    2. General Funding Assistance: Organizations may apply to the Town of Cary for operating
       funding assistance, specific program costs, or for capital items necessary for successful
       execution of their mission. These requests will be handled as part of the annual budget
       year planning process. Funding awards of $1,000 or more may require an audited copy
       of financial statements per Town finance policy statement #112. As with all funding
       appropriations, Town Council action is required for approval of all nonprofit funding
       actually awarded.

    3. Funding Amount: The total amount of funding available for award to all general nonprofit
       organizations shall be equal to $1.00 (one dollar) for each person living in the Town of
       Cary as of January 1 of the preceding fiscal year, rounded to the next thousand. The
       population will be estimated by the Town of Cary Planning Department staff. Total
       funding will be split among the various qualifying general nonprofit organizations. If the
       total amount of qualifying requests is less than the funding available, not all of the funding
       will be distributed.

    4. Funding Criteria: The general nonprofit application will be maintained by the Town
       Manager’s office and will be aimed at collecting information related to the following:
          a. The number of Cary citizens directly served by the organization (generally, the
              larger the number of Cary citizens served, the greater the value to the
              community, but only benefiting a few individuals does not necessarily eliminate it
              from the possibility of being considered for Town of Cary funding).
          b. How well the mission and services of the organization match those of the Town
              of Cary
          c. What the impact on Town operations would be if the general nonprofit could no
              longer provide its services
          d. The level of Town resources necessary to provide the same level of benefits to
              the citizens and community of Cary as the general nonprofit currently provides
          e. How long the general nonprofit organization has been in existence (generally, a
              nonprofit that has been in existence longer has proven its value to the community
              and its ability to raise funds, but being a new nonprofit does not necessarily
              eliminate it from the possibility of being considered for Town of Cary funding)
          f. Whether or not an organization received funding in a prior year will not be a
              determining factor in the recommendation process. Each year is evaluated


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 13
                 independently of any prior year funding decisions. Therefore, an award one year
                 is not a guarantee of funding in any future year(s).

    5. Recommendation Process: The recommendation process will be managed and
       scheduled as part of the Town of Cary’s annual budget preparation cycle. Completed
       applications will be reviewed by a representative of the department most closely affiliated
       with each organization requesting funding. These staff representatives will meet as a
       group to discuss the requested funding levels of each organization and will reach a
       consensus on what they as a group believe to be the most efficient, effective, and
       equitable funding distribution given the completed applications and how well they address
       the funding criteria referenced above. The funding recommendations made by this group
       will be reviewed with the Town Manager for any adjustments and inclusion in the
       Proposed Budget. Following delivery of the Proposed Budget to the Town Council,
       nonprofit organizations will be notified of the amount of funding recommended for their
       organization. Typically this will occur by the end of May.

    6. Funding Decisions: The general nonprofit application packages received will be available
       for Council and public inspection in the Town Manager’s Office. Any adjustments that the
       Town Council makes to the recommended funding amounts included in the proposed
       budget can be made as part of the budget approval process. All agencies requesting
       funding will be notified of Town Council’s final funding decisions by the end of the first full
       week of the fiscal year (first full week of July).

    7. Funding Distribution: All final general nonprofit funding amounts will be distributed to the
       respective organizations by the first month of the fiscal year (July).

    8. Funding Usage: Funds distributed by the Town of Cary may only be spent as indicated in
       the nonprofit application for which the funds were awarded. Proof of the respective
       expenditures including actual receipts may be requested as verification by the Town of
       Cary. Town of Cary funding distributed to general nonprofit organizations may not be
       used for political activities.

The following was provided as informational purposes:

                                         Town of Cary
                               Non-Profit Funding Request Form
                                       Fiscal Year 2008

Name of organization:

Contact person regarding this request:

Mailing address:

Telephone number:

Email address:

Website (if applicable):

Amount of funding requested for fiscal year 2008:


1. Mission alignment - describe how well the mission of your agency aligns with the Town of
   Cary's mission and impacts the efficiency and effectiveness of the Town accomplishing its


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 14
    related municipal responsibilities. See “Illustration A” for a copy of the Town of Cary's current
    mission statement, focus areas, and goals and initiatives.

2. Major services: list and describe the major services your organization offers.

3. Benefits to Cary - list services that benefit Cary and its citizens specifically.

4. Cary citizens – how many Cary citizens have been directly served by the services indicated in
   number three during the past year. Please provide the total number served and how many
   unique individuals have been served if the numbers are different (i.e. some number of
   individuals may have been “served” multiple times). How do these numbers compare with
   the past several years? Please describe the reasons for any significant changes and/or
   trends.

5. Working with the Town - if your organization currently works with the Town in any way,
   describe that working relationship and how the services of the Town and/or your organization
   are enhanced or made more efficient by that relationship.

6. Other providers - identify other agencies providing services similar to your organization and
   explain how the services that organization provides differ from yours. If appropriate, give
   examples of how your organization coordinates/collaborates with other similar agencies.

7. Incorporation - what year was your organization incorporated? If you have not received
   assistance from the Town of Cary in the past, or have not yet sent a copy of your 501(c)(3)
   status notification letter, include a copy with your application.

8. Financial statements – provide a copy of your organization’s most recently audited financial
   statements with the audit letter included.

9. Fund balance – indicate what your organization’s fund balance was at the end of the most
   recently completed fiscal year. How many months of your organization’s current annual
   operating expenditures does this represent? (e.g. if your fund balance was $50 at the end of
   last year and your annual expenditures are $100, you have 6 months worth of annual
   operating expenditures in your fund balance)

10. Funds raised – describe your organization’s fund raising activities. What percentage of your
    agency’s funding for the coming year are you requesting from the Town of Cary?

11. Funds spent - provide an explanation of how the most recent Town of Cary contribution to
    your organization was utilized. Please be as specific as possible.

12. Funds to be spent - provide an explanation of how you propose to use the funds being
    requested for the coming year. Please be as specific as possible.

13. Impact statement - if your organization does not receive 100% of its requested level of
    funding from the Town of Cary, please describe the impact to your organization at each of the
    respective Town of Cary funding levels: (e.g. higher level of pursuit for donations from other
    sources, new program not initiated, existing program reduced/eliminated, direct reduction in
    the number of benefactors, etc.).
    67%:
    33%:
    0%:

14. Explain how your organization measures the success of its programs. For example, what
    performance measures are in place to help your organization measure success toward
    achieving objectives?

                                                                                   December 14, 2006
                                                                                            Page 15
15. Board of Directors - provide a list of each Board of Director’s name, position title and the
    expiration date of their respective terms.

16. Other information – in this area please provide any other pertinent information that you would
    like to be considered regarding your organization’s request.

17. Application must be signed by a duly authorized officer certifying that the application is
    accurate and complete and that if funds are awarded they will be spent as described in the
    application or as otherwise directed by the Town.

18. Mailing Instructions - include two individually stapled, three hole-punched copies of this
    complete application including all the materials requested herein. Packages must be
    postmarked or personally delivered by Friday, February 9, 2007 to the following address:

Town of Cary
Town Hall Campus
Budget Office - Kathy Lleras
316 North Academy Street
Cary, NC 27513

Illustration A

Mission Statement
At the Town of Cary we focus every day on enriching the lives of our citizens by creating an
exceptional environment and providing exemplary services that enable our community to thrive
and prosper.

Focus Areas and Goals and Initiatives:

FOCUS AREA I: COMMUNITY PLANNING - PLANNING FOR QUALITY OF LIFE

GOAL: ACHIEVE A WELL-PLANNED COMMUNITY USING INNOVATIVE AND PROACTIVE
      PLANNING APPROACHES AND TECHNIQUES.

        INITIATIVE:      Continue the implementation of a growth management program that
                         identifies and effectively deals with the rate/timing, amount, location,
                         cost, and quality of facilities and development.

        INITIATIVE:      Identify sufficient long–range water resources and develop plans that
                         address demand requirements.

        INITIATIVE:      Implement the housing program to meet community needs, as outlined in
                         the housing plan.

        INITIATIVE:      Develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive plan that addresses
                         transportation, parks, and public safety.

        INITIATIVE:      Revise the Town’s land use plan, as needed, to ensure that it reflects the
                         current policy directives of the Town Council.

        INITIATIVE:      Work to develop a local response that addresses environmental
                         concerns such as open space, water, wastewater, stormwater and solid
                         waste.

FOCUS AREA II: INFRASTRUCTURE - MAKING SURE WE’RE READY WHEN YOU ARE

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 16
GOAL:     ENSURE THAT ROADS, WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES, PARKS, AND
          OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS FOR THE EXISTING CITIZENS AND FOR THE
          FUTURE NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

          INITIATIVE:       Continue to build a consensus for standards of adequacy regarding
                            infrastructure and refine level of service standards to reflect the Town’s
                            regional goals and changing standards over time.

          INITIATIVE:       Continue the development of a fiscally responsible plan to implement
                            standards that balance citizens’ expectations with willingness to pay.

          INITIATIVE:       Develop an environmentally sound regional approach to infrastructure
                            related to water, wastewater and transportation.

          INITIATIVE:       Facilitate the availability of competitive broad-band technology services
                            to the citizens of Cary.

FOCUS AREA III: FINANCIAL CONDITION - MAKING SENSE WITH THE DOLLARS

GOAL:     ACHIEVE A STABLE AND STRONG FINANCIAL POSITION BY ACCURATELY
          ESTIMATING, PRUDENTLY ALLOCATING, AND MANAGING FINANCIAL
          RESOURCES.

          INITIATIVE: Create a long-term strategic financial plan for the Town that addresses
                      debt, financial position, revenues and expenditures.

          INITIATIVE: Continue the refinement and implementation of a performance
                      measurement process to provide better information for budgetary
                      decision-making and create a stronger link between the allocation of
                      resources and the expected results.

          INITIATIVE: Continue to refine tools used for short-term financial analysis and
                      decision-making.

FOCUS AREA IV: MUNICIPAL SERVICES – PROVIDING EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE TO
THE CITIZENS

GOAL: ACHIEVE A HIGH LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS IN A PROMPT, RELIABLE,
      RESPONSIVE, AND COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER

          INITIATIVE:       Regularly review operations to identify ways to deliver services more
                            efficiently and effectively and ensure that service levels meet citizens’
                            expectations.

          INITIATIVE:       Maintain a cost-conscious approach to operations in order to ensure
                            the sustainability of service provision.

          INITIATIVE:       Increase public involvement in Town government.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Policy Statement 151 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 17
        b. Recognition of Developer Funding for CVS – Morrisville (EN07-050)
           Committee unanimously recommended recognition of a payment of $48,500 from the
           developers of the CVS Pharmacy in Morrisville at the intersection of Davis Drive and
           Morrisville-Carpenter Road to the developer reimbursement revenue account and
           that this amount be appropriated to the Public Works – Operations contracted
           services account.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Recognition of Developer Funding for CVS - Morrisville (EN07-050)
Recognition of a payment of $48,500 from the developers of the CVS Pharmacy in Morrisville at
the intersection of Davis Drive and Morrisville-Carpenter Road
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, P.E. Director of Engineering
Prepared by: Dale W. Privette, P.E. Senior Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Construction of the CVS is ongoing at this intersection. The Town of Morrisville has required the
CVS developers to construct a right turn lane for southbound Davis Drive traffic at the CVS
driveway. Construction of this new lane conflicts with the Town of Cary’s underground fiber optic
communication cable and, therefore, the fiber cable must be relocated. Also, the CVS developers
have decided to place underground all the existing aerial utility cables along Morrisville Carpenter
Road along the CVS frontage. The Town of Cary’s fiber cable is one of these aerial cables that
will be relocated underground. CVS is also required to modify the existing traffic signal at this
intersection by placing a metal signal pole and associated wiring in that quadrant of the
intersection.

Town of Cary Public Works personnel will relocate these cables. Staff provided a cost quote to
the developers who agreed to fund these modifications. A payment in the quoted amount of
$48,500 was received on November 8, 2006.

Fiscal Impact: The Town is not expected to incur costs in excess of $48,500. If the actual costs
are less than estimated, the difference will be reimbursed to the developers.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the $48,500 payment by the CVS developers
for relocation of utility cables be recognized into the developer reimbursement revenue account
and that this amount be appropriated to the Public Works – Operations contracted services
account.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        c. Individual Plumbing and Irrigation Study Results (EN07-051)
           Committee unanimously recommended that this item be tabled until the January
           Operations Committee meeting and requested that staff investigate the possibility of
           installing pumps to increase water pressure in specific neighborhoods.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 18
Individual Plumbing and Irrigation Study Results (EN07-051)
Report on pressure study results and consideration of study closeout
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, PE, Engineering Director
Prepared by: Robert Hirt, Utility Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

On April 27, 2006 Council approved the appropriation of $100,000 to fund a study of individual
plumbing and irrigation systems on private homes where Town water main pressures were below
50 psi. Staff received ten requests from residents to have the analysis performed. Only one
request met the initial criteria of having a static pressure below 50 psi. Due to the low number of
requests and since they came from areas where staff had logged many complaints in the past, all
10 of the requests were accepted.

Of the 10 requests, three were located in the southern pressure zone and the remaining seven
were located in the western pressure zone. Four out of the ten requests were for an investigation
into the domestic plumbing pressure. Of those four locations, two had an irrigation system but
reported no operational problems. Three of the ten residents requested only an analysis of the
irrigation system and the remaining three asked for help with both the plumbing and irrigation
systems. The sources of some pressure losses were identified at all locations. All locations
experienced some pressure increases after recommended minor modifications were
implemented. Only two locations required more extensive work to increase residual pressures to
a level that would allow the irrigation devices to function within the manufacturer’s design range.

The first work performed at each location was to evaluate the service connection at the water
main in the street. One location had excessive pressure losses located between the water main
and the meter. Town staff replaced that water service line and alleviated the problem.

Excessive pressure losses observed in the private systems were eliminated at many locations by
adjusting or removing the pressure reducing valve from the plumbing system. Depending on
whether adjustments had already been made to the pressure reducing valve, removal of the valve
resulted in increased residual pressures between 1 psi and 13 psi.

Low domestic pressure issues were mitigated at one location by modifying the irrigation timer so
that it shut off earlier in the morning before water demand began inside the house.

Staff discussed other options with the owners such as increasing the pipe size from the meter to
the house, or installing a storage tank and pump system. These modifications are more
expensive and invasive, and were beyond the scope of this study.

Pressure losses in irrigation systems are more difficult to locate since every system is uniquely
designed and constructed. Staff examined two locations that were at the same elevation, they
were less than 100 feet apart, and the lots were nearly the same size. One owner complained
about the irrigation system performance while the other, who also has an irrigation system,
complained only about the pressure in the house. The water pressure coming from the Town
main is identical at both locations. The primary difference in the irrigation systems is that one has
only three zones while the other has nine. The systems have different manufacturers and were
installed by different companies, but both were installed prior to the creation of the western
pressure zone. In general, more zones results in fewer heads per zone and a higher residual
pressure per head.

In addition to design and construction issues, poor maintenance of the systems resulted in
excessive pressure losses at all the locations studied. In many cases, valve boxes and irrigation
heads were grown over with grass. Some owners could not locate critical system components.

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 19
Once they were found, many heads and valves either needed to be cleaned because dirt and
debris were hindering performance or replaced completely because they were damaged and
leaking. In most cases, after the leaking components were replaced, the system performance
returned to an acceptable level. The majority of the consultant’s field time was spent trying to
track down and pinpoint these maintenance-related problems.

A few of the irrigation systems experienced only a minor drop in performance as a result of the
new pressure zone. At these locations it was recommended to try different nozzles in the heads
to modify the spray pattern. It was also found that a new head, sometimes by a different
manufacturer, would result in a greater throwing distance. Some locations had irrigation heads
that no longer served any purpose either because a deck was built or plantings had grown over
the head and blocked the spray. Eliminating these heads resulted in a higher residual pressure
on the remaining heads in that zone.

There were two locations where at least one irrigation zone would not meet the manufacturer’s
designed performance level after maintenance problems were resolved. There were simply too
many heads on some zones resulting in a low residual pressure at each head. In these cases, it
was recommended that the overloaded zones be split and new zones created with fewer heads
per zone. This requires installing a new zone valve, laying new piping, and wiring the valve back
to the control panel.

Similar to the plumbing recommendations, other modifications were discussed to help reduce
pressure losses. Other modifications include increasing the diameter of the service line,
removing the irrigation pressure reducing valve (if applicable), and increasing the diameter of
pipes, valves, and backflow prevention device in the irrigation network. Again, these
modifications are more expensive and invasive, and were beyond the scope of this study.


Fiscal Impact: Out of the $100,000 appropriated for this effort under capital project WT1079
(Pressure Zone Control Valves), approximately $16,000 is estimated to be spent by the
consultant.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the study be closed out. Most irrigation related
performance problems should be addressed by the homeowner or a landscape professional.
Minor modifications can typically be made to irrigation systems so that they operate within the
manufacturer’s design range using the available water pressure supplied by the Town. Likewise,
minor modifications can be made to plumbing systems to reduce pressure losses and help the
plumbing components (i.e. shower, dishwasher, etc.) function at a higher performance level.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(NOTE: The motion to approve actually approves the committee’s request to table this
item until the January 2007 operations committee meeting.)

_________________________

        d. Contract Award –Western Wake SCADA (EN07-052)
           Committee unanimously recommended:
            Awarding a contract to the team of Brown & Caldwell and CITI for the Western
              Wake SCADA Project (SW1148) for $1,283,453.
            Transferring $343,047 from SW1092 to SW1148.
            Transferring $671,377 from SW1123 to SW1148.
            Transferring $228,630 from SW1124 to SW1148.
            Transferring $40,399 from SW1121 to SW1148.


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 20
               Sharing the costs with other WWRWMF Project Partners per previous
                agreements.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Contract Award – Western Wake SCADA (EN07-052)
Consideration of awarding a contract for the Western Wake SCADA Project
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, PE, Engineering Director
Prepared by: Jamie Revels, PE, Senior Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

The Western Wake Partners received proposals in September 2006 for planning and
implementation of the Western Wake SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) Project.
The facilities proposed by this project will provide a SCADA network linking all of the existing and
proposed Western Wake Wastewater Infrastructure Projects. The proposed SCADA system will
provide the ability to monitor and control the Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities
from the central control room located in the administration building of the proposed Western
Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The SCADA system will also provide limited ability to
monitor and control pump stations and other facilities from remote locations, such as the Public
Works Dept. Operations Center.         Proposals were received from three prospective SCADA
integration teams: Revere Controls, Lord & Company with CDM and Brown & Caldwell with CITI.

The Western Wake Policy Advisory Committee representing the Mayors and Town Managers of
the Project Partners met in September and delegated authority to choose a SCADA Integrator to
a selection committee composed of senior staff from all of the Project Partners. A twelve member
selection committee composed of senior staff from Apex, Holly Springs, Cary and Morrisville was
assembled to review the proposals. The selection committee considered each proposal for (a)
relevant experience of the firm including its personnel assigned to this project and their sub-
consultants, (b) project approach, (c) proposed schedule and (d) cost.

Lump sum cost data submitted by each SCADA integration firm has been presented in the
following table for review.
                     SCADA Integration Firm      Total Cost
               Brown & Caldwell with CITI        $1,283,453
               Revere Controls                   $1,382,523
               Lord & Company with CDM           $1,542,708

After meeting in October and thoroughly reviewing the proposals, the selection committee
unanimously recommended the team of Brown & Caldwell and CITI to be awarded the Western
Wake SCADA Project. In addition to providing the most competitive project cost, the SCADA
integration team of Brown & Caldwell and CITI demonstrated a long term track record of working
together as partners and successfully completing numerous similar projects. The Brown &
Caldwell/CITI team has included at least 2 nationally recognized experts on the project team
coupled with a strong presence in Wake County backed by the local staffs of both the Brown and
Caldwell and CITI local offices. Further, the Brown & Caldwell/CITI team demonstrated an
excellent understanding of the goals for this project reinforced by superior references.

As a further topic of consideration, the project manager appointed to lead the Brown and
Caldwell/CITI team has a working knowledge of the Western Wake Wastewater Management
Projects and has previously served as Project Manager for the West Cary Pump Station Project.
As such, the Project Manager appointed to lead the Brown & Caldwell/CITI team has a proven
record of effective collaboration with the stakeholders involved in other aspects of the Western

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 21
Wake Wastewater Management Projects. The selection committee further recognized that this
team provided the best overall approach to project management complete with project
management planning, scheduling and earned value analysis as a tool for project tracking.

In summary, the selection committee unanimously determined that the team of Brown and
Caldwell with CITI provided the Project Partners with the best project approach, most competitive
cost and the strongest local presence to implement the Western Wake SCADA Project.

Fiscal Impact: The contract for the Western Wake SCADA Project will be funded through the
contracted services account for the Western Wake SCADA Project, SW1148. Because there are
currently no funds available in project SW1148, existing funding from other projects must be
reallocated as shown in the staff recommendation section of this report.

There are no ongoing operating costs associated with this contract award. Operating costs will
be associated with the implementation of this project which is currently scheduled for completion
in 2011. Long term operation and maintenance costs will be reduced through improved worker
productivity and automation that will be achieved through the implementation of the SCADA
system.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the SCADA
integration team of Brown & Caldwell and CITI for the Western Wake SCADA Project at a total
value of $1,283,453. This award by Council represents a preliminary determination as to the
qualifications of the SCADA integration firm and no legally binding acceptance of this award will
occur until the Lead Agency, the Town of Cary, has executed a legally binding agreement.

Staff further recommends reallocating funding from other project accounts to fund the Western
Wake SCADA Project ( SW1148). The revenue associated with these reallocations will be
transferred to SW1148 from the source projects (see Table 1 below) in accordance with the
calculated partner funding responsibilities of each source project. The sum of the total funding
reallocations is equal to the current amount proposed for funding project account SW1148. (See
summary below.)

       Staff recommends transferring $343,047 from SW1092 to the SW1148 contracted
        services account to allocate funding sufficient to provide SCADA planning,
        implementation and connection of existing wholly owned Town of Cary infrastructure to
        the Western Wake SCADA system. This proposed funding transfer will provide SCADA
        integration services for connecting the Kit Creek Pump Station, Morris Branch Pump
        Station and the West Cary Pump Station to the proposed Western Wake SCADA
        network. The proposed funding transfer will not adversely affect the SW1092 or impact
        any ongoing project efforts. A summary of the tasks, pricing and suggested project
        account transfers is outlined in Table 1 below.

        Table 1: Task Outline with Brown & Caldwell/CITI Pricing
                          Total Expenditure Amount                     Project Accounts
                                                    Brown &
                                                  Caldwell with      Source       Transfer
         Item            Facility/Task             CITI Pricing     Project #     Project #
           1    Kit Creek Pump Station                 $108,222       SW1092        SW1148
           2    Morris Branch Pump Station             $108,222       SW1092        SW1148
           3    West Cary Pump Station                 $126,603       SW1092        SW1148
                Radio Survey, Cary Facilities
                                                         $40,399      SW1121        SW1148
          4     Only
          5     Beaver Creek Pump Station              $126,603       SW1123        SW1148
          6     Western Wake Regional Water            $399,457       SW1123        SW1148


                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 22
                       Total Expenditure Amount                      Project Accounts
                                                  Brown &
                                                Caldwell with      Source        Transfer
     Item              Facility/Task             CITI Pricing     Project #      Project #
            Reclamation Facility
            Radio Survey, Western Wake
                                                      $52,936       SW1123         SW1148
       7    Facilities
            SCADA network connection of
       8    Western Wake Facilities to                $92,381       SW1123         SW1148
            PWUT Operations Center
       9    Effluent Pump Station                    $136,249       SW1124         SW1148
            Effluent Pipeline River
                                                      $92,381       SW1124         SW1148
      10    Discharge
            TOTAL                               $1,283,453.00

   Staff recommends transferring $671,377 from SW1123 to the SW1148 contracted
    services account to allocate funding sufficient to provide SCADA planning,
    implementation and connection of the proposed Western Wake Wastewater Management
    Facilities that will be owned by the Project Partners. This funding transfer will provide
    SCADA integration services for connecting the proposed Beaver Creek Pump Station
    and Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility to the proposed Western Wake SCADA
    network. This funding transfer will also provide funding associated with conducting a
    radio survey of the proposed Western Wake Facilities to evaluate radio communications
    as a potential communications medium for the Western Wake SCADA network. Another
    additional cost will include connecting the Western Wake SCADA Facilities to a server
    stationed at the Operations Center. This SCADA connectivity will provide remote
    monitoring and data collection capabilities for the operations staff stationed at the
    Operations Center. The services scheduled for the Western Wake SCADA project were
    previously included in the scope of work for the Western Wake Wastewater Management
    Facilities and as such the transfer of funds from SW1123 will not adversely impact any
    ongoing project work associated with SW1123.

   Staff recommends transferring $228,630 from SW1124 to the SW1148 contracted
    services account to allocate funding sufficient to provide SCADA planning,
    implementation and connection of the proposed Western Wake Effluent Pump Station
    and River Discharge to the Western Wake SCADA network. The technology services
    scheduled for the Western Wake Effluent Pump Station and River Discharge were
    previously included in the scope of work for these projects and will not adversely impact
    any ongoing project work associated with SW1124.

   Staff recommends transferring $40,399 from project SW1121 to the SW1148 contracted
    services account to allocate funding sufficient to provide a radio survey of the North Cary
    Water Reclamation Facility, South Cary Water Reclamation Facility and the associated
    pump stations in the North Cary and South Cary basins. The transfer of funds from
    project account SW1121 to SW1148 for the radio survey contributes to the intended
    purpose of project account SW1121 and does not adversely impact ongoing project work
    planned for this project.

   For reference, cost share percentages have been shown in Table 2. The “Cary-only”
    infrastructure that will be included with this SCADA project outside of the Project Partners
    Interlocal agreement includes the Kit Creek Pump Station, Morris Branch Pump Station,
    West Cary Pump Station and radio survey of Cary facilities. The cost share percentage
    for all “Cary-only” SCADA has been allocated 100 percent to the Town of Cary.



                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                    Page 23
       The SCADA planning and implementation tasks included under the Project Partners
       Interlocal Agreement are the Beaver Creek Pump Station, Western Wake Regional Water
       Reclamation Facility, Effluent Pump Station, Effluent Pipeline River Discharge, Radio
       Survey of Western Wake Facilities and SCADA network connection to the Operations
       Center. In evaluating the most equitable cost share allocation for the Western Wake
       SCADA Project, the cost sharing plan previously approved for the Effluent Pump Station
       and Pipeline was determined to be the most representative of all the Project Partners as
       it relates to the planning and implementation of the SCADA technology services contract.
       As such, the cost share allocation structure previously approved for the effluent pump
       station and pipeline was applied equally to each of the Western Wake SCADA tasks as
       outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Payment Allocation by Task
                                                      Cost Share Allocation
                                                                  Holly
        Item           Facility/Task         Apex       Cary    Springs Morrisville
          1    Kit Creek Pump Station      0.0%        100.0% 0.0%          0.0%
               Morris Branch Pump
          2    Station                     0.0%        100.0%     0.0%           0.0%
          3    West Cary Pump Station      0.0%        100.0%     0.0%           0.0%
               Radio Survey, Cary
          4    Facilities Only             0.0%        100.0%     0.0%           0.0%
               Beaver Creek Pump
          5    Station                     25.6%       43.4%      24.8%          6.2%
          6    WWRWRF                      25.6%       43.4%      24.8%          6.2%
          7    Effluent Pump Station       25.6%       43.4%      24.8%          6.2%
               Effluent Pipeline River
          8    Discharge                   25.6%       43.4%      24.8%          6.2%
               Radio Survey, WW
          9    Facilities                  25.6%       43.4%      24.8%          6.2%
               SCADA network to
         10    PWUT Ops.                   25.6%       43.4%      24.8%          6.2%

      The resulting project totals that would be contributed by each of the Project Partners to
       the overall Western Wake SCADA Project are outlined in Table 3. The total Cary
       contribution includes funding under the Project Partners Interlocal Agreement in addition
       to SCADA technology services for Cary only infrastructure outside the Project
       Partnership.

       Table 3: Payment Amount by Each Project Partner for Western Wake SCADA Project
          1    Apex Cost                            $230,402
          2    Cary Cost                            $774,049
          3    Holly Springs Cost                   $223,202
          4    Morrisville Cost                      $55,800
               TOTAL                              $1,283,453

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

       e. Engineering Services Contract for Downtown Cary Streetscape Project (EN07-
          053)

                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 24
            Committee unanimously recommended awarding a contract for engineering services
            for the Downtown Cary Streetscape Project to Arcadis G&M of North Carolina Inc. for
            $2,485,000.

STAFF REPORT
Operations December 11, 2006

Engineering Services Contract for Downtown Cary Streetscape Project (EN07-053)
Consideration of awarding a contract for engineering services for the Downtown Cary
Streetscape Project
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, PE, Director of Engineering
Prepared by: Kyle Hubert, PE, Senior Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Staff received proposals on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 for engineering services related to the
design and construction administration of the Downtown Cary Streetscape Project. Design of the
Project will be based on the Downtown Cary Streetscape Master Plan which was adopted by
Town Council during a work session on Tuesday, July 25, 2006. Four proposals were received
from the following engineering firms: Arcadis G&M, of North Carolina Inc., Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. / Urban Resource Group, Mulkey Inc., and the team of Chas. H. Sells, Inc. &
Parsons Brinckerhoff.

A seven-member selection committee composed of senior staff was assembled to review these
proposals. The selection committee reviewed each proposal for relevant experience of the firm
and project team, project approach, demonstrated understanding of project scope, proposed
schedule and cost. On Monday, November 6th the selection committee met and agreed Arcadis
G&M, of North Carolina Inc., and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. / Urban Resource Group
submitted the most responsive proposals. The committee decided to request interviews with
these two firms to meet the proposed project teams and provide an opportunity for committee
members to ask questions. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. / Urban Resource Group was
interviewed on Tuesday, November 14th and Arcadis G&M, of North Carolina Inc. was interviewed
on Wednesday, November 15th.

Both firms have proposed a highly qualified project team, include a detailed project approach and
demonstrated understanding of the project scope and objectives. Both firms have members on
staff that worked with the Town to complete the Downtown Cary Streetscape Master Plan.
Proposed schedules of both firms include beginning construction in 2007 and estimated
construction duration of 18 – 24 months depending on final design. Arcadis proposed a lump
sum project cost of $2,485,000. Kimley-Horn proposed a lump sum project cost ranging from
$2,822,436 to 2,982,436 depending on level of effort negotiated for construction administration
services. [Mulkey’s cost was $1,924,295.59 while Sells and Parsons Brinkerhoff came in at
$2,934,120.]

After the interviews, the selection committee agreed overall that the proposal submitted by
Arcadis G&M, of North Carolina Inc. most satisfied the needs of this project and represented a
better value to the Town. The committee recommends that an engineering services contract be
awarded to the firm of Arcadis G&M, of North Carolina Inc.

Fiscal Impact
These services will be funded through existing funding within the Downtown Cary Streetscape
project (ST1130) which has an available balance of $3,493,781. There are no operating costs
associated with this contract award. However, operating costs will be associated after the


                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 25
construction of this project is complete. Allocation of construction funding is proposed for FY
2008.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that a design and construction administration
contract be awarded to Arcadis G&M, of North Carolina Inc. for $2,485,000. This award (by
Council) represents a preliminary determination as to the qualifications of this consulting firm and
no legally binding acceptance of this award occurs until the Town has executed a written
agreement.

Removed from this agenda and scheduled for January 11, 2007 council meeting.

_________________________

        f.   Funding transfer request for the Old Apex Road Widening Project (EN07-054)
             Committee unanimously recommended that $6,182 in revenue from the FY06 Traffic
             Signalization Project (ST1143) be transferred to the construction account of the Old
             Apex Road Widening Project (ST1105).

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Funding transfer request for the Old Apex Road Widening Project (EN07-054)
Consideration of a request to transfer funding in order to close the project
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, P.E. Director of Engineering
Prepared by: Dale W. Privette, P.E. Senior Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Construction of the widening of Old Apex Road at the intersection of SW Cary Parkway has been
complete since June 2006. The contractor has met all obligations and is now requesting final
payment. During the course of construction, it was discovered that soils unsuitable for use in the
construction of the additional lanes were present at several locations along the length of the
project. Extensive soil testing was required, leading to minor cost overruns that were not
previously anticipated. In order to make final payment to the contractor and close the project, an
additional $6,181.89 is needed in the project’s construction account. Since a large part of the
scope of this project involved modifications to the traffic signal at the intersection of Old Apex
Road and SW Cary Parkway, staff recommends transferring this amount from the ST1143 (FY06
Traffic Signalization) capital project account.

Fiscal Impact: Funding for construction utilized existing allocated funds available in capital
project ST1105 ($300,000). However, due to unanticipated costs, an additional appropriation of
$6,182, or 2 percent, is necessary to complete funding for this project. This funding is available
from the construction account of the FY06 Traffic Signalization Project (ST1143). Should this
transfer be approved, funding of $218,818 would still be available within the construction account
of ST1143 with no negative impact on the respective signal improvement projects funded via this
project. The transfer of $6,182 from ST1143 will bring the total project budget for the Old Apex at
Cary Parkway Intersection Improvements Project (ST1105) to $306,182.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that $6,182 in revenue from the FY06 Traffic
Signalization Project (ST1143) be transferred to the construction account of the Old Apex Road
Widening Project (ST1105).

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 26
_________________________

        g. Sale of Real Property (EN07-055)
           Committee unanimously recommended selling the areas needed for right of way,
           road construction related easements, and a sewer easement on a portion of the old
           landfill site on Holly Springs Road.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Sale of Real Property (EN07-055)
Consideration of a request to sell real property
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, P.E. Director of Engineering
Prepared by: Patrick Lee, PLS, Real Estate Manager
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

The Town of Cary has received a request to sell a portion of the property containing the old
landfill on Holly Springs Road to a local developer for a sewer easement and a road right of way
to a large 400-acre plus development to the northwest of the Town’s property. The right of way
encompasses 1.72 acres and the sewer easement is 0.19 acres. The Town has been
approached previously about this same corridor but the offer to purchase was withdrawn at that
time prior to a negotiated sale being reached. The proposed road right of way is on the north side
of middle Creek and the old landfill property is located on the south side of Middle Creek.

The following data pertains to the first map below:
         - the subject property is outlined in green;
         - tract to the north in red is part of the new development;
         - magenta lines depict an existing PEC transmission line easement;
         - proposed road R/W is shown in white;
         - landfill location is denoted by red-dashed line
         - streams in yellow, and;
         - river buffers in blue-shaded areas;




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 27
                                            PR
                                            PR O
                                             RO
                                             R
                                             R
                                             R
                                             R
                                             R
                                                PO
                                                PO
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                  SE
                                                   SE D
         PROPOSED




                                                    ED
                                                    E
                                                    ED
             SS
         NEW SS LINE
                                                          NE
                                                           EWW
                                                                 R
                                                                   /W
                                                                    W




                              OLD
                              LANDFILL
                              SITE




The next map shows the same property with the flood plain layer added:
                                            PR
                                             RO
                                             RO
                                             R
                                             R
                                             R
                                             R
                                               PO
                                               PO
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                P
                                                  SED




         PROPOSED
                                                   E
                                                   E
                                                   E
                                                   E




             SS
         NEW SS LINE
                                                          NE
                                                             W
                                                             W
                                                                 R
                                                                 R/
                                                                   /W
                                                                    W




                              OLD
                              LANDFILL
                              SITE




                                                                         December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 28
In addition to the request for the actual right of way, there are also a number of easements
incidental to the roadway construction that would encumber some of the residual Town-owned
property.

Staff proposes two options for this property. One is to sell just the right of way and easement
areas needed for the development of the adjacent properties to the Town of Holly Springs. They
will be the ultimate owner of the right of way anyway so this would cut out the middle man in the
transaction. It would also put Holly Springs in control of the drainage, slope and other easement
areas. This area would be slightly over 2 acres in size. The other option is to sell the entire tract
north of the flood plain to the Town of Holly Springs. They could then convey whatever portions
necessary for their own purposes. The acreage of this conveyance is approximately 14.7 acres
total but only 9.34 acres between the flood plain line and the western edge of the stream buffer
for the tributary running in a northward direction from Middle Creek. The estimated value for this
area is approximately $326,900. The estimated value of the right of way and easement areas is
$70,000. The advantage to selling the larger area is the $256,900 in additional revenue it would
bring. Selling just the land needed for the easement and right of way gives the Town more
flexibility in the future. Holding onto this property makes it available for wetlands mitigation or
other, yet unforeseen, uses.

Staff is also working with the Town of Holly Springs to convey ownership of the old landfill site
and will return to the Cary Town Council at a later date to provide an update on this conveyance.
Holly Springs is amenable to continuing dialogue to make this happen.

Fiscal Impact: This is a positive fiscal impact in that the Town will receive payment for the land
areas conveyed.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends selling a 1.72 acre portion of the old landfill site on
Holly Springs Road, the areas required for a road right of way and a 0.19 acre sewer easement.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        h. Progress Energy Request for Easement on Town Property (EN07-056)
           Committee unanimously recommended approval of a request by Progress Energy for
           an easement on Town property located at the intersection of Green Level Church
           Road and Green Level Road West.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Progress Energy Request for Easement on Town Property (EN07-056)
Consideration of request by Progress Energy for an easement on Town property located at the
intersection of Green Level Church Road and Green Level Road West
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, P.E. Director of Engineering
Prepared by: Yulonda Moore, Real Estate Specialist
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Progress Energy is requesting an easement from the Town of Cary for the installation of new
facilities to handle the increasing development in the western area of Cary. Progress Energy
needs to obtain an easement across the Town of Cary property which is located on the
southeastern corner at the intersection of Green Level Church Road and Green Level Road West

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 29
and is formerly known as the Johnson property. Power poles will be located approximately one
foot behind the road right of way. Construction on the new feeder line is expected to begin in
early January 2007. Installation will not affect development of this property. The Town has
requested a one-time exemption for any costs Progress Energy may incur to move this line when
Green Level Road West is widened and the company has agreed. Staff is proposing that this
easement be granted without compensation since it is a distribution line only.

Fiscal Impact: There will be no fiscal impact to the Town due to this easement.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends granting an easement on Town property located at
Green Level Church Road and Green Level Road West to Progress Energy for an electrical
distribution line.




                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 30
December 14, 2006
         Page 31
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        i.    Walnut Street Detention Basin Project Condemnation Resolution (EN07-061)
              Committee unanimously recommended approval of a condemnation resolution for the
              Walnut Street Detention Basin Project.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Walnut Street Detention Basin Project Condemnation Resolution (EN07-061)
Consideration of approval of a condemnation resolution for the Walnut Street Detention Basin
Project
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, P.E., Engineering Director
Prepared by: Patrick Lee, PLS Real Estate Manager
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Staff has been working with the property owners at 1208 Walnut Street to secure a 1.32-acre site
to be subdivided from this property for the Walnut Street Detention Basin. Staff has had
numerous conversations and correspondences with the property owners and was hopeful that a
settlement could be reached. We are continuing to work together with the property owners to
facilitate their understanding of the project in the hope of reaching an amicable settlement to this
acquisition; however, in the interest of not delaying the project, staff is requesting that the Town
Council adopt a resolution of condemnation at this time.

Staff will continue to work with the property owners in an effort to strike a mutually agreeable
settlement. The Condemnation Resolution will be provided to the Town Council prior to the
December 14, 2006 meeting.

The property is located at 1208 Walnut Street and the owner and owners’ address is:
Victoria Voight
Exec. of the Estate of Ruth Lewis
2808 Vestry Way
Raleigh, NC 27613-6517

Fiscal Impact: The Town will incur the cost of eminent domain proceedings which are estimated
to be between $1600 and $5000.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Authorizing
Condemnation.

                      A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION
             TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH H. LEWIS

WHEREAS, the governing body of the Town of Cary hereby determines that it is necessary and
in the public interest to acquire certain property owned by the Heirs of Ruth H. Lewis for the
following public purpose:

To protect the public health, to provide the public with an adequate and sound storm water and
erosion control management system, and to improve such system to meet the need for expanded

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 32
or upgraded services, the Town of Cary is condemning the herein described real property
interests, specifically, to construct and maintain the Walnut Street Detention Basin Project.

WHEREAS, the proper officials or representatives of the Town of Cary have been unable to
acquire the needed interest in this property by negotiated conveyance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE TOWN OF
CARY, THAT:

1. The Town of Cary shall acquire by condemnation, for the purposes stated above, the real
property interest in a portion of certain tracts described in Deed Book 2026 at page 54.

The property interest areas taken are more particularly described as follows:

FEE SIMPLE:

BEGINNING at a point in the southern R/W of Walnut Street, said point being the northwest
corner of a certain tract as recorded in Deed Book 2026 page 54, Wake County Registry,
proceeding thence with said R/W S 46°08’11” E 253.05’, thence S 43°39’07” W 369.83’ to an
existing iron pipe in the southern line of aforementioned tract, thence N 00°36’01” W 280.78',
thence N 25°02’48” E 179.00’ to the point and place of BEGINNING and containing 1.324 acres.

2. The attorneys representing the Town of Cary are directed to institute the necessary
proceedings under NCGS § 40A-1, et. seq. as authorized by NCGS § 40A-3(b) (4) and/or other
appropriate statutory provisions and local acts to acquire the property herein described.

This item was settled and was removed from the agenda.

_________________________

        j.   Reappointment to the Cary Fire Department Local Relief Fund Board of
             Trustees (FD07-002)
             Committee unanimously recommended reappointment of Fred Cobb to Local
             Fireman’s Relief Fund Board of Trustees.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Reappointment to the Cary Fire Department Local Relief Fund Board of Trustees (FD07-02)
Consideration of the reappointment of Fred Cobb to Local Fireman’s Relief Fund Board of
Trustees
Speaker: Allan Cain

From: Allan Cain, Fire Chief
Prepared by: Allan Cain, Fire Chief
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

REVIEW: The General Assembly established a fund in 1907 known as the State Relief Fund for
firefighters. Cities, town, sanitary districts, rural fire districts, and other political subdivisions
(hereafter referred to as "cities") with an organized fire department may be eligible to receive
funds to support a local firemen's relief fund. Every insurance company doing business in a fire
district is required to report to the Secretary of Revenue each year an account of all premiums
collected and received from all fire and lightning insurance business done within that district and
pay the tax levied. (G.S. 105- 228.5(d) (4).


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 33
The Fireman’s Relief Fund may be used for the following purposes:
(1)     To safeguard any fireman in active service from financial loss, occasioned by sickness
        contracted or injury received while in the performance of his duties as a fireman.
(2)     To provide a reasonable support for those actually dependent upon the services of any
        fireman who may lose his life in the fire service of his town, city, or State, either by
        accident or from disease contracted or injury received by reason of such service. The
        amount is to be determined according to the earning capacity of the deceased.
(2a)    To provide assistance, upon approval by the Secretary of the State Firemen's
        Association, to a destitute member fireman who has served honorably for at least five
        years.
(3)     To provide for the payment of any fireman's assessment in the Firemen's Fraternal
        Insurance Fund of the State of North Carolina if the Board of Trustees finds as a fact that
        said fireman is unable to pay the said assessment by reason of disability.
(4)     To provide for benefits of supplemental retirement, workers compensation, and other
        insurance and pension protection for firemen otherwise qualifying for benefits from the
        Firemen's Relief Fund as set forth in Article 85 of this Chapter.
(5)     To provide for educational benefits to firemen and their dependents who otherwise qualify
        for benefits from the Firemen's Relief Fund.

A related law was passed establishing a Local Relief Fund so that it could be administered on a
local level. The following is a summary of the law that outlines the make up and duties of the
local branch of trustees.

To be eligible to participate, a city must a) have a fire department under the control of the mayor
or city governing body, b) have in serviceable condition fire equipment valued at $1,000 or more,
and c) enforce the fire laws to the satisfaction of the insurance commissioner (G.S. 58-84-5).

In each eligible city, a five-member Board of Trustees administers the relief fund. Two of the
trustees are elected by members of the local fire department; two are named by the mayor and
city governing body, and one by the insurance commissioner. The chief of the local fire
department is a nonvoting ex officio member of the board, except where he/she is elected as a
regular member. The trustees select their own chairman, secretary, and treasurer; the latter two
positions may be held by the same person. The treasurer shall give a good and sufficient surety
bond in a sum equal to the amount of moneys in his hand, to be approved by the insurance
commissioner.

The insurance commissioner pays 3 percent of the funds collected from the fire insurance
companies to the treasurer of the State Firemen's Association. An additional 2 percent goes to
the State Department of Insurance. The remaining 95 percent is turned over to the various cities,
towns, and other political subdivisions, which in turn pay the funds to the treasurers of the
respective local relief funds (G.S. 58-84-25).

Boards of Trustees are required to keep records of all funds received and disbursed and to
render reports to the State Firemen's Association. Each year, the Cary Fire Department Local
Fireman’s Relief Fund disperses a supplemental retirement benefit to its retired fire fighters.

Currently, Fred Cobb serves as Treasurer of the Cary Fire Department Relief Fund Board of
Trustees. He is a citizen of the Town of Cary, residing at 105 Maumee Court, and a senior vice
president with the NC State Employee’s Credit Union. Mr. Cobb has served on the Cary Fire
Department Local Relief Fund Board of Trustees since January 2000.

In order to meet the requirements of the NC General Statues, Town Council must appoint a
trustee for a two-year period ending December 31, 2008.

Fiscal Impact: N/A



                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 34
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends re-appointment of Mr. Fred Cobb to the Cary Fire
Department Local Relief Fund Board of Trustees for a two-year term beginning January 1, 2007
and ending December 31, 2008.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        k. Fire Stations – Generator Upgrade (FD07-003)
           Committee unanimously recommended that $103,995 in unrestricted general capital
           reserve fund balance be transferred to the Fire Stations – Generator Upgrade Project
           (FD1024) and be allocated to the contracted services account.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Fire Stations – Generator Upgrade (FD07-03)
Consideration of request for additional funding for Fire Stations – Generator Upgrade
Speaker: Allan Cain

From: Allan Cain, Fire Chief
Prepared by: Allan Cain
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Emergency generators at fire stations 1, 2, 3 and 4 were originally designed only to provide
partial electrical power demand for the station. In FY 2004, the Fire Department received capital
funding to upgrade the generators to ensure full station operability during power outage situations
(cut lines, ice storms, hurricanes, etc.). Engineered Designs, Inc. has conducted an electrical
needs assessment and developed the engineering specifications for the project. With the
assistance of Apogee, Inc., staff has developed a bid specification, conducted a pre-bid
conference and advertised for bids in September 2006. Staff provided bid packages to six
vendors. The Town received two bids with Gregory Poole Power Systems (GPPS) as the lowest
responsible bidder with an adjusted bid of $467,721. The other bidder was Bitting Electrical, Inc.
with a bid of 546,531. The project’s current unencumbered balance is $346,540. Project cost
exceeds funding by $121,181.

In an effort to reduce project cost, Apogee, Inc. and staff have value engineered project
specifications and the Fire Department has reduced the project’s scope by eliminating the
generator at the Fire Administration Building. It has been decided that command decisions and
operations that would have taken place at the Administration Building can be performed either at
one or more of the fire stations or at the Operations Center on James Jackson Avenue instead.
These cost reductions equal $17,186. Staff is requesting $103,995 in additional funds in order to
award the bid and complete the project.

Fiscal Impact: The additional $103,995 is to be funded by a transfer from unrestricted general
capital reserve fund balance.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that $103,995 in unrestricted general capital reserve
fund balance be transferred to the fire station generator project (FR1024) and be allocated to the
contracted services account to complete scope of the project as amended above.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.



                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 35
_________________________

        l.   Ordinance Amendment Regarding Hotel Guest Registers (PD07-009)
             Committee unanimously recommended adoption of an ordinance requiring hotels and
             motels to maintain guest registers.

Staff Report
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Ordinance Amendment Regarding Hotel Guest Registers (PD07-009)
Consideration of adoption of an ordinance requiring hotels and motels to maintain guest registers
Speaker: Scott Cunningham

From: Scott Cunningham, Police Chief
Prepared by: Sgt. Steve Fonke
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

It is requested that the council amend the Town Code requiring guest registration.

The proposed ordinance amendment follows:

                                    Ordinance Amendment
                                      Town of Cary, NC

An Ordinance Amendment of the Town of Cary, North Carolina amending Chapter 22 of the Cary
Code of Ordinances, Section 80 by adding an ordinance requiring hotels, motels, and the like to
number sleeping rooms and maintain guest registers as follows:

                                     Chapter 22
                       OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 22-80. Hotel guest registration.

(a)     Definitions.

        Innkeeper. Any person engaged in the ownership or operation of hotels, motels,
        inns, tourist homes, tourist camps and similar types of businesses and persons
        who rent private residences and cottages to transients (hereafter jointly “hotel”).
        The term innkeeper includes clerks and other employees and agents of the hotel
        owner or operator.

        Guest. Any person renting or otherwise using or inhabiting a sleeping room or
        living room unit in a hotel.

(b)     Numbering of rooms.
        Every innkeeper shall at all times number and designate all sleeping room or living
        room units in the hotel in a plain, conspicuous manner. Such number or
        designation shall be placed on the outside of each sleeping room or living room
        unit, and no two units shall bear the same number, unless also clearly designated
        as to building, wing, or other identifier.

(c)     Guest Register.
        Every innkeeper shall at all times keep and maintain on the premises of hotel a
        guest register in which shall be inscribed the name and home address of each



                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 36
        guest and shall contain such guest’s vehicle description and license plate state
        and number.

        Upon registration, the innkeeper shall require all guests to provide a valid driver’s
        license or identification card from within the U.S., Canada or U.S. Territories, U.S.
        Military identification, or a valid passport. The corresponding identification
        number and type of identification shall be recorded in the register.

        The innkeeper shall write opposite each guest name the number of each room or
        unit assigned to and occupied by such guest, together with the date when such
        room or unit is rented, and shall sign the register. No person shall be allowed to
        occupy any sleeping room or living room unit in a hotel unless all of the aforesaid
        entries have been made in such guest register.

        (i)      The innkeeper shall keep and maintain all guest registers a manner that
                 provides quick and easy reference to the number of each room or unit
                 assigned, and the name of the guest assigned to that room or unit, together
                 with the date when such room or unit is rented.

        (ii)     The information required by this section shall be maintained by the
                 innkeeper for one year from the date of rental, and shall be available and
                 subject to inspection in a reasonable manner and time by any law
                 enforcement officer or by an official of the Fire Department with territorial
                 jurisdiction while in the performance of his or her duties, with proper
                 identification, without a court order.

        (iii)    The guest vehicle parking area of any hotel shall be accessible in a
                 reasonable manner at all times to any law enforcement officer or by an
                 official of the Fire Department with territorial jurisdiction while in the
                 performance of his or her duties.

Adopted: 12/14/06

Effective: 12/14/06

Fiscal Impact: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Ordinance 06-019 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

        m. Amendments to the Code of Ordinances regarding Animals and Noise (PD07-
           010)
           Committee unanimously recommended adoption of an ordinance amendment to the
           Town Code Sec. 6-71 and Sec. 22-105.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Amendments to the Code of Ordinances regarding Animals and Noise (PD07-010)
Consideration of adoption of an ordinance amendment to the Town Code Sec. 6-71 and Sec. 22-

                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 37
105
Speaker: Scott Cunningham

From: Scott Cunningham, Police Chief
Prepared by: Captain Don Corr
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager


In order to respond to citizen concerns regarding nuisance animals, the Police Department
recommends that the ordinances which address animals be amended. The amendments will
address the procedures and guidelines and put all of the animal noise ordinances together in one
place to better enable the Animal Control Team to address these citizen concerns.


An Ordinance Amendment of the Town of Cary, North Carolina amending Chapter 6 of the Cary
           Code of Ordinances, Animals, as follows regarding Nuisance Animals:

                                           Chapter 6
                                           ANIMALS

Sec. 6-71. Nuisance animals:

(a) Prohibited generally; exceptions. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep, possess,
harbor or maintain an animal in such a manner as to annoy or disturb rights and privileges
common to the public or to annoy or disturb persons in the enjoyment of private property. By way
of example and not of limitation, the following are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and
are, therefore, unlawful:

        (1)     Getting into or turning over waste or garbage containers.

        (2)     Walking on or sleeping on automobiles of another.

        (3)     Damaging the real or personal property of anyone other than its owner.

        (4)     Repeatedly being or running at large.

        (5)     Being maintained in an unsanitary condition so as to be offensive to sight or
                smell.

        (6)     Not being confined to a building or secure enclosure while in estrus.

        (7)     Being vicious or chasing, snapping at, attacking, or otherwise molesting others
                including, pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle passengers, or domestic animals.

        (8)     Allowing or permitting an animal to make frequent or long continued sounds,
                including barking, whining, screeching, calling, howling or yowling in an
                excessive, continuous, habitual or untimely fashion, or to make other noise in
                such a manner so as to result in a serious annoyance or interference with the
                reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring premises (“annoying sound”).
                Any such sound which is made for more than fifteen (15) minutes during
                any thirty (30) minute period shall be deemed to be an annoying sound.
                Any person owning, using or possessing premises affected by an annoying
                sound (“person annoyed by sounds”) shall follow the procedures specified
                in subsection f. below. lodging such complaint shall be responsible for pursuing
                available judicial remedies by filing such action with the appropriate judicial

                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 38
                 authority.

        (9)      Being housed or restrained less than ten feet from a public street, road or
                 sidewalk such that in the discretion of the chief, the location of the animal poses
                 a threat to the general safety, health and welfare of the general public.

        (10)     By virtue of number or type, being offensive or dangerous to the public health,
                 safety, or welfare.

        (11)     Being diseased or dangerous to the health of the public.

(b) Complaint and notice. Except as to (a)(8) above, upon their own initiative or upon receipt of
a detailed written and signed complaint being made to the animal control unit by any of the town
residents that any person is maintaining a nuisance animal, the animal control unit may cause the
owner of the animal or animals in question to be notified that a complaint has been received and
may cause the situation complained of to be investigated and a report and findings thereon to be
reduced to writing by the investigating animal control officer.

(c) Abatement. If the written findings of the investigating animal control officer indicate that the
complaint is justified, then the chief shall cause the owner or keeper of the animal or animals in
question to be so notified in writing, served by personal delivery or by certified mail, return receipt
requested, and ordered to abate such nuisance within a reasonable time not to exceed seven
days after notification, and may issue a citation for the violation. The chief may specify the
particular abatement measures that must be taken, which measures may include, but are not
limited to, a requirement that the animal be penned, or that a secure enclosure be erected or
improved. In the event the owner of the animal is unknown and cannot be ascertained, the notice
and order, along with a general description of the animal, shall be published in a local newspaper.

(d) Impoundment upon failure to abate. If any person actually or constructively receiving notice in
the manner herein described shall fail or refuse to abate the nuisance upon order of the chief
within the specified time, the chief may cause the animal or animals in question to be seized and
impounded in accordance with the provisions of section 6-134.

(e) Redemption; destruction. If the owner shall so request in writing within five days of the
impoundment, an animal that has been impounded may be redeemed upon the owner's
execution of a written agreement to comply with the abatement order and payment of all sums
due hereunder. If no such written request is made, or if such a request is made, but a written
agreement to comply with the abatement order is not delivered to the chief within five days of the
impoundment, then the animal(s) shall be deemed abandoned and disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of section 6-137.

(f) Annoying sounds. A person annoyed by sounds shall follow the procedures specified
below.

        (i)      Upon receipt of a detailed written and signed complaint by a person
                 annoyed by sounds, the animal control unit shall provide written notice to
                 the owner or possessor of the premises on which the animal making
                 annoying sounds is maintained (“animal owner”) that a complaint has been
                 received about the animal’s annoying sounds. The notice shall detail the
                 complaint and may make suggestions on ways to correct the situation.
        (ii)     Upon receipt of such notice of complaint, the animal owner shall cure the
                 violation. If the violation is not cured, or if a second complaint is made to
                 the animal control unit about the same animal within any six (6) month
                 period, the animal control unit shall cause the animal possessor to be
                 served by an order to abate the annoying sounds within a reasonable
                 period of time, not to exceed seven (7) days (“Abatement Order”). Such

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 39
                notice shall be served by personal delivery or by certified mail, return
                receipt requested.
        (iii)   If the original complainant, or any other affected person notifies the animal
                control unit that the animal owner has failed or refuses to abate the
                annoying sounds as provided in the Abatement Order, the animal control
                unit shall investigate and may issue a civil citation for the violation in the
                amount of two hundred dollars ($200). Such citation shall be collected in
                the manner set forth in Sec. 6-132.
        (iv)    If the annoying sounds continue after issuance of the citation, the
                complainant should pursue the action by going to the magistrate and filing
                a summons against the animal possessor. Nothing in this section shall
                prevent a private citizen from bringing an action at any time against an
                animal possessor.

An Ordinance Amendment of the Town of Cary, North Carolina amending Chapter 22 of the Cary
           Code of Ordinances, Article IV, Division 2, Particular Sounds Prohibited:

Sec. 22-105. Particular sounds prohibited.

        The following acts and activities, among others, are hereby declared to be unreasonably
loud and disturbing sound levels in violation of section 22-102. This enumeration shall not be
construed to be an exclusive list of activities or acts which violate section 22-102:

        (1)     The sounding of a railroad locomotive whistle or horn for the period of time
                beyond that which is reasonably necessary to warn or alert others at road
                crossings at grade level of some real or potential danger.

        (2)     The use of any gong, bell or siren upon any motor vehicle.

        (3)     The keeping of any animal or bird which makes frequent or long continued
                sounds, such that a reasonably prudent person would recognize as likely to
                unreasonably disturb the comfort or repose of persons in the vicinity.

        (43)    The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler except to give
                notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger.

        (54)    The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary
                internal combustion engine, motor vehicle or motor boat engine, except through a
                muffler or other device which effectively prevents unreasonably loud and
                disturbing or explosive sounds therefrom.

        (65)    The use of any mechanical device operated by compressed air unless the
                sounds created are effectively muffled and reduced.

        (76)    The sounding of any chime, bell or gong attached to any building or premises
                which disturbs the quiet or repose of any person in the vicinity thereof.

        (87)    The shouting and crying of peddlers, barkers, hawkers and vendors which
                disturbs the quiet and peace of a residential neighborhood.

        (98)    The firing or discharging of any kind of gun and the firing, discharge or ignition of
                squibs, firecrackers, gunpowder or other pyrotechnics, except with a permit as
                set forth in section 22-108, which shall be subject to the approval of the chief of
                police, provided that squibs, firecrackers and other pyrotechnics may only be
                fired, discharged or ignited at public events.


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 40
Fiscal Impact: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendments.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Ordinance 06-020 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

        n. Graffiti Removal Ordinance (PD07-011)
           Committee unanimously recommended approval of an ordinance to facilitate the
           removal of graffiti on public and private property throughout the Town of Cary.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Graffiti Removal Ordinance (PD07-011)
Consideration of an ordinance to facilitate the removal of graffiti on public and private property
throughout the Town of Cary
Speaker: Scott Cunningham

From: Sgt. Randy Byrd, Police Department
Prepared by: Officer Chris Byers, Police Department
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

During the past year there has been an increase in graffiti throughout the Town including in
apartment complexes, in and around public parks, schools, and retail areas. Studies have
documented that graffiti is a common way for gangs to communicate various messages, including
challenges, warnings and announcements of ‘accomplishments’ or planned deeds. A town
ordinance would help address this emerging trend by requiring the removal of graffiti on private
property and setting penalties for property owners who fail to remove graffiti on their property.
The Town already removes graffiti from public property. This ordinance will support the Town’s
Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative.

      THIS ORDINANCE AMENDS CHAPTER 22, SECTION 53 OF THE CARY CODE OF
         ORDINANCES BY ADDING A GRAFFITI ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT GRAFFITI AND
                             TO REQUIRE ITS REMOVAL

        Whereas, the Town of Cary Policy Department has reported that there is a growing threat
to the public safety and welfare from the growing presence of street gangs in the Town; and

           Whereas, studies in communities across the United States have documented that gang
graffiti is a common way for gangs to communicate their messages; and

        Whereas, the Town Council finds and determines that the amount of gang style graffiti
found in the Town has increased, and

        Whereas, the Town Council finds and determines that graffiti is, in addition to being a
means of communication for gangs, destructive to the rights of property owners and a public eye-
sore, and contributes to blight and the deterioration of property and businesses, thus being a
public nuisance impairing the quality of life for citizens.




                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 41
        NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
CARY:

       Section 1. The Code of Ordinances, Town of Cary is amended by adding a new Section
22-53 entitled ‘Graffiti” as follows:

§22-53 – GRAFFITI

(a) Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Section.

        Graffiti means any inscription, word, writing, drawing, figure, mark of paint, ink, chalk, dye
        or other similar substance, etching, engraving or other defacement (collectively
        ‘defacement’) by a graffiti implement or chalk or by the application of any material, gum
        label, paper, fabric or other matter (collectively “matter”) with adhesive or other substance
        which is intended to make the application of the matter permanent or difficult to remove,
        on public or private property. Graffiti does not include temporary, easily removable
        chalks or other water soluble markings which are used in connection with traditional
        children’s activities such as drawings of bases for ball games, hopscotch and similar
        activities, nor does it include temporary, easily removable markings used in connection
        with any lawful business or public purpose or activity and markings used to denote the
        location of underground utility infrastructure and those used in conjunction with
        establishing survey control data and location points by survey crews.

        Graffiti Implement means any aerosol paint container or paint applicator or brush,
        indelible marker containing ink or other pigmented liquid that is not water soluble, stick on
        label, paint stick, etching equipment or any other device capable of defacing or leaving a
        visible mark on public or private property.

        Paint means paint, wax, epoxy or similar substance capable of being applied to a surface
        and leaving a defacement.

        Property Owner(s) means the owner as defined in Section 1-2 and such owner’s agent or
        manager, or any other person in lawful control or possession of property if known to the
        Town. The owner of the property shall be deemed to be those persons whose names
        appear on the tax records as having an interest in the property.

        Public or private property means public or private buildings, sidewalks, streets,
        structures, walls, equipment and other similar things and places.

(b) Placing Graffiti Prohibited

        It shall be unlawful for any person to place graffiti upon the surface of any public or
        private property.

(c) Removing Graffiti Required

        (1) Removal by Perpetrator.

               It shall be unlawful for any person placing graffiti on public or private property to fail
               to remove such graffiti or cause such graffiti to be removed within seventy-two (72)
               hours after notice from the town. If graffiti is applied by a person under the age of
               eighteen (18) years of age, the parents or legal guardians of such minor shall be
               responsible for removal of the graffiti with seventy-two (72) hours after notice from
               the town.



                                                                                   December 14, 2006
                                                                                            Page 42
(2) Removal by Property Owner

     It shall be unlawful for any Property Owner to fail to remove or effectively obscure
     any graffiti upon property they own, manage, or are in lawful control or possession
     of within five (5) business days after receiving written notice from the Town to
     remove such graffiti (“Notice to Remove”). Notice to Remove shall be sent by
     certified mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery, to the Property
     Owner(s). The Notice to Remove shall provide:

          (i)   the street address or other description of the property sufficient for
                property identification;
          (ii) a description and general location of the graffiti;
          (iii) a statement that the property is a public nuisance due to the existence of
                the graffiti;
          (iv) a statement that the graffiti must be removed or effectively obscured
                within five (5) business days after receiving Notice to Remove and that if
                the nuisance is not so abated within that time the town will abate the
                public nuisance at the cost of the Property Owner as set forth herein;
          (v) Information identifying any graffiti removal assistance available through
                the Town; and
          (vi) information concerning procedures for appeal of the Notice.

(3) Removal by Town

     If the Town has provided Notice to Remove under (c)(2) above and Property
     Owner fails or refuses to remove or effectively obscure graffiti upon their property,
     then, in addition to other enforcement actions hereunder, the Town is authorized to
     remove the graffiti as provided herein at the expense of Property Owner. If the
     expenses of removing or obscuring the graffiti is not paid by the Property Owner
     within thirty (30) days of receipt of a statement for the cost of such removal or
     obscuring, the Town may sue in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover all
     such expenses, including all administrative personnel costs, attorney’s fees and
     costs related to enforcing this section, and the Town may record a lien in the public
     records of Wake County, which lien shall be for all such expenses, and the amount
     of the lien shall bear interest from the date of recording.

(4) Appeals.

     Any Property Owner who receives a Notice to Remove may appeal the Notice
     within five (5) business days of receipt of Notice to the town manager. The appeal
     shall be in writing and shall state with specificity the reasons for the ten (10) days
     of receipt of the Appeal Notice, and shall render a decision within a reasonable
     time after the hearing date. If, on appeal, the manager or designee determines that
     the graffiti is a public nuisance and must be removed, the manager shall establish
     a new date for such removal or obscuring.

(5) Emergency Removal.

     If the Town determines that any graffiti is a danger to the health, safety or welfare
     of the public and is unable to provide notice by personal service after at least two
     attempts to do so, then forty-eight (48) hours after either (i) mailing of the notice
     described in subsection 2 above by certified and first class mail or (ii) the posting of
     the notice in a conspicuous place on the property, the Town may remove or cause
     the graffiti to be removed or obscured at its expense.

(6) Removal/Obscuring

                                                                        December 14, 2006
                                                                                 Page 43
              The Town shall not clean, paint or obscure or repair any property containing graffiti
              more extensively than where the graffiti itself is located. The Town shall not be
              required to restore the area that contained graffiti, or any obscured area, to its
              original condition including conditions of color, texture, and finish. Notwithstanding
              the preceding, if the Town Manager determines in writing that a more extensive
              area is required to be repainted or repaired in order to avoid an aesthetic
              disfigurement to the neighborhood or community, the Town of Cary or its
              authorized private contractor is expressly permitted to perform the work necessary
              to do more extensive repainting or repairing.

(d) Enforcement/Remedies

        (1)   Civil penalties.

              Violation of subsections (b), (c)(1), or (c)(2) shall subject the offender(s) to a civil
              penalty in the amount of $100.00. In the event there is more than one violation
              within any 30 day period, then the civil penalty shall be increased for each
              additional violation over one during such period, as follows. The date of the first
              violation shall establish the beginning date for the initial 30 day period. The next
              violation within that 30-day period shall be considered the second violation. Any
              violations that follow within that 30-day period shall be numbered sequentially. The
              penalty shall be:
                         Second offense within same 30-day period: $250.00
                         Third offense within same 30-day period: $500.00
                         Fourth offense within same 30-day period: $750.00
                         Fifth and any subsequent offense within same 30-day period: $1,000.00

              Once the 30-day period has run from the "first violation," the next violation shall be
              considered to be a first violation for the purposes of establishing a new 30-day
              period. Each subsequent violation that follows more than 30 days from the previous
              first violation shall be a new first violation for the purpose of establishing a new 30-
              day period. In the event there are more than six violations within any 12-month
              period, then each violation after six shall subject the violator(s) to a civil penalty of
              $1,000.00.

              Violators shall be issued a written citation which must be paid within seven (7) days
              from the issue date and time to the Town of Cary Finance Department. The Town
              is authorized to file suit on behalf of the Town to collect any unpaid citations, and
              the police chief, or designee, is authorized to verify and sign complaints on behalf
              of the town in such suits. Any police officer may issue a citation for violations of
              this article.

        (2)   Criminal penalty.

              In addition to or in lieu of civil penalties or other remedies, violation of subsection
              (b) of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a
              violation of this section shall be fined not less than $250.00 for a first offense and
              $500.00 for a second or subsequent offense. In addition to any other remedy, the
              court shall order any person convicted of a violation of subsection (b) to make
              restitution to the victim and/or to the Town of Cary for the damage or loss suffered
              by the victim and/or to the Town of Cary as a result of the offense. The court may
              determine the amount, terms, and conditions of the restitution.

(e) Right of Entry on Private Property.



                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 44
        Prior to entering upon private property or property owned by a public entity other than the
        Town of Cary for the purpose of this section, the Town shall make a reasonable attempt
        to secure the consent of the property owner or manager for release of the Town from
        liability for property damage or personal injury. If the property owner or manager fails to
        remove the offending graffiti within the time specified herein, or the Town has requested
        consent to remove or paint over the offending graffiti and the property owner or
        responsible party has refused consent for entry on terms acceptable to the Town and
        consistent with the terms of this section, the Town shall commence abatement and cost
        recovery proceedings for the graffiti removal according to the provisions specified herein.

(f) Severability.

        The provisions of this section shall be deemed severable. If any portion of this section is
        deemed unconstitutional, it shall not affect the constitutionality of any other portions of
        this ordinance.

Fiscal Impact: The Town is currently paying for the removal of graffiti on public property as part
of the Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative. The costs to remove graffiti on private property are
undetermined. If the Town has to remove graffiti on private property then the ordinance allows for
the recovery of these funds through civil action. It also permits the recovery of funds through any
determined violator.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed graffiti removal ordinance.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Ordinance 06-021 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

        o. Planning Department Staffing Changes (PL07-013)
           Committee unanimously recommended upgrading the Planner I position from
           temporary, full-time status to a permanent position.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Planning Department Staffing Changes (PL07-013)
Consideration of upgrading the Planner I position from temporary, full-time status to a permanent
position
Speaker: Philip Smith

From: Jeff Ulma, AICP, Planning Director
Prepared by: Philip E. Smith, Planning Manager
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

BACKGROUND:
The Planning Department has undergone a recent reorganization which, in part, adjusted
positions to provide for upward mobility, address workload issues, and place greater emphasis on
project implementation and downtown redevelopment. In particular, the number of site plan and
subdivision plans (development plans) has increased, reaching over 400 plan submittals this past
year. These numbers include plans that can be approved administratively by staff and those that
require Town Council review.


                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 45
Due to this increase in workload in current planning activities, the permanent Planner I position
originally assigned to comprehensive planning efforts was shifted to manage current planning
responsibilities. The temporary, full-time position assisting with current planning was then shifted
to handle comprehensive planning responsibilities.

Similarly, the number, variety, and complexity of projects and activities in the Comprehensive
Planning Division continue to grow. For example, this temporary position is responsible for
conducting demographic research (including population estimates and housing statistics);
administering the Neighborhood Improvement Grant Program, the “Cool Pool” carpooling
program, and the Sidewalk Request program; and providing needed support and assistance to
Senior Planners in their projects.

As a temporary position without Town benefits, it is difficult to attract and retain professional
employees to perform these necessary and important tasks. It is proposed that this position be
moved from temporary status to permanent status beginning immediately following a hiring
process.

Fiscal Impact: It is estimated that this Planner I position will cost $50,750 for salary and
benefits. Additionally $2,170 is required to set up the position with a computer and software. On
an on-going basis, $600 annually will be needed for the computer lease. The Planning
Department budget already contains $25,000 for use for temporary staffing positions. It is
proposed that these funds be applied towards the personnel costs of a permanent Planner I
position. Accordingly, for the remainder of FY2007, the cost of the position will be funded from
the department’s lapsed salary funds which will require no additional budgetary funds to complete
FY2007. For future years, the financial impact of the permanent position is reduced by using
$25,000 already allocated annually in the Department’s budget for a temporary position. In FY
2008, the net additional fiscal impact is expected to be approximately $26,350.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Town Council approve the upgrade of the
Planner I position from temporary status to a permanent position, utilizing lapsed salary funds
within the Planning Department budget with no additional fiscal impact in FY 2007, and a net
impact of approximately $26,350 in FY 2008.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        p. FY 2007 Sidewalk Priority List (PL07-014)
           Committee unanimously recommended that projects #1-#10 be designed and
           constructed within the $1 million budgeted for FY2007 and that Policy Statement 135
           be amended to allow fifty percent of the annual sidewalk project budget to be
           allocated to staff-recommended, high-priority sidewalk projects.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

FY 2007 Sidewalk Priority List (PL07-014)
Consideration of the FY 2007 Sidewalk Priority List
Speaker: William Hartye

From: Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Planning Director and Tim Bailey, PE, Engineering Director
Prepared by: William A. Hartye, Planner
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 46
BACKGROUND: For the eleventh straight year, staff has rated sidewalk projects requested by
citizens based on the criteria shown on the following rating sheet.




                                                                         December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 47
FY 2007 SIDEWALK PRIORITY LIST
TOWN OF CARY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

                                                                                PED.     PED.                                   GREEN-    EX.
                                                      Curb     ADT       ADT*                      SCHOOL    PARK   SHOPPING                        TRANSIT
        SIDEWALK                                                                USE*     USE*                                   WAY       S/W
 Rank                  FROM:         TO:              and      *         *                         **        **     **                              **
        ON:                                                                     ****     ****                                   **        ***
                                                      Gutter         4      2                            5      4          4                               2
                                                                                     5       2.5                                     4          3
  1     NW             Havensite     north to            Y      5                 8                   9       9        7            9      10         10
        Maynard        Ct            Carrousel Ln
        Road
  2     Old Apex       High          Murphy Dr.          Y      5                 8                   8       8        10           8      10         10
        Rd. (West      House Rd.
        side)
  3     NE Maynard     Harrison      E. of Gregory       Y      8                 8                   8       9        10           8      10         10
        Rd.            Pointe        Dr.
  4     SW Cary        Tarbert Dr.   Existing            Y      10                3                   4       10       10          10      10         10
        Pkwy.                        sidewalk
        (west side)
  5     Ederlee Dr.    Pelegrine     Regency             Y      5                 7                   7       10       8           10      10         10
                       Place         Forest Dr.
                                     (gaps)
  6     SW Cary        Laura         West                Y      10                3                   5       10       10           8       9         10
        Pkwy. (west    Duncan        Chatham St.
        side)          Rd.
  7     SW Corner      Corner        south to            N      10                5                   6       6        10           9      10         10
        of                           existing
        Kildaire/Ten                 sidewalk
        Ten
  8     Westlake       Optimist      south to            Y      2                10                  10       10       1            8      10         10
        Rd.            Farm Rd.      existing
                                     sidewalk
  9     NW Cary        Thorpe Dr.    Silveridge Ct.      N      4                10                   6       10       5            9      10         10
        Pkwy.
        (south side)
  10    James          Op. Center    west to NW          Y      2                10                   7       6        10           7      10         10
        Jackson                      Cary Pkwy
        Avenue



                                                                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                                                                     Page 48
                                                                          PED.     PED.                                   GREEN-    EX.
                                                Curb     ADT       ADT*                      SCHOOL    PARK   SHOPPING                        TRANSIT
       SIDEWALK                                                           USE*     USE*                                   WAY       S/W
Rank                 FROM:        TO:           and      *         *                         **        **     **                              **
       ON:                                                                ****     ****                                   **        ***
                                                Gutter         4      2                            5      4          4                               2
                                                                               5       2.5                                     4          3
11     Old Apex      Murphy Dr.   W. Chatham       Y      5                 8                   8       8        10           8      10         10
       Rd. (West                  St.
       side)
12     SW Cary       Old Apex     Tarbert Dr.      Y      10                3                   4       10       10          10      10         10
       Pkwy.
       (west side)
13     Weston        across       E. of Black      Y      10                5                   5       9        8           10      10         10
       Parkway       from 8000    Creek
                     Weston       Greenway
                     Pkwy
14     SW Cary       Inverleigh   Waldo Rood       Y      1                 4                   5       10       8           10      10         10
       Pkwy. (west   Dr.          (gaps)
       side)
15     Harrison      Harrison     Weston           Y      1                 6                   7       5        10           7      10         10
       Oaks          Ave.         Pkwy.




                                                                                                                      December 14, 2006
                                                                                                                               Page 49
The list includes sidewalk project requests carried over from previous years, as well as new
requests from citizens within the last fiscal year. A petition is required for all sidewalk requests on
residential roads. The petition must have signatures of support from at least 70 percent of all
residents directly affected by the proposed sidewalk project.

The adopted FY 2007 Street Capital Improvements Budget includes $1,000,000 for sidewalk
construction.

The following projects are recommended by staff for construction based on pre-design
construction cost estimates. These projects will help to improve pedestrian safety throughout the
Town by providing connections to existing sidewalks, access to Town of Cary parks and
greenways, schools, pedestrian corridors to shopping centers and missing links in the Town’s
sidewalk network. Staff recommends the following sidewalk projects for approval (on the linked
maps, existing sidewalk connections are shown in solid red lines, with proposed/funded
connections highlighted in blue lines and the FY 2007 sidewalk priority list recommendations
highlighted in dashed red lines):

    1. NW Maynard Rd. from Havensite Ct. to Carrousel Ln.




                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 50
2. Old Apex Rd. from High House Rd. to Murphy Dr.




                                                    December 14, 2006
                                                             Page 51
3. NE Maynard Rd. from Harrison Pointe to east of Gregory Dr.




                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                         Page 52
4. SW Cary Parkway from Tarbert Dr. to existing sidewalk




                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                    Page 53
5. Ederlee Dr. from Peregrine Place to Regency Forest Dr.




                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                     Page 54
6. SW Cary Parkway from Laura Duncan Rd. to West Chatham St.




                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                        Page 55
7. SW Corner of Kildaire Farm Rd. and Ten-Ten Rd.




                                                    December 14, 2006
                                                             Page 56
8. Westlake Rd. from Optimist Farm Rd. to existing sidewalk




                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                       Page 57
9. NW Cary Parkway from Thorpe Dr. to Silveridge Ct.




                                                       December 14, 2006
                                                                Page 58
10. James Jackson Ave. from Town Operations Center to NW Cary Parkway




                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                           Page 59
In an effort to ensure high priority locations with missing pedestrian amenities are considered as part
of the sidewalk list, staff also recommends amending the existing sidewalk policy to allocate a
general target of fifty percent of each year’s budget to staff-recommended sidewalk projects. Fifty
percent of the annual sidewalk budget would remain available for resident requests (please see
attached sidewalk policy with highlighted proposed revisions).

Fiscal Impact: The $1,000,000 for sidewalk improvements was appropriated by council as part of
the FY2007 budget (Project ST1147). No additional funding is necessary.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends 1) that projects #1-#10 be designed and
constructed within the $1,000,000 budgeted for FY 2007 and 2) approval of the proposed
amended Policy Statement 135 which will allow fifty percent of the annual sidewalk program
budget to be allocated to staff-recommended, high priority sidewalk projects, all projects to be
subject to Council approval.

                                    POLICY STATEMENT 135
                                     SIDEWALK REQUESTS

Prepared by: Ricky Barker
Supersedes: 5/26/2005 7/28/2005
Adopted by Council: 7/28/2005 12/14/2006
Effective: 7/28/2005 12/14/2006

Purpose

To adopt an official policy pertaining to sidewalk construction requests from citizens along
residential and collector streets through residential areas. Staff will continue to take individual
citizen requests for sidewalks along thoroughfares and in non-residential areas to provide for
safer and more enjoyable non-motorized travel. Staff may recommend sidewalks outside of
the petition process for consideration by Town Council. A general target of fifty percent of
funding shall be established for allocation of funds for citizen requests, with the remaining
fifty percent of funds allocated for staff recommended projects.

Coverage

This policy upon adoption by the Town Council shall be applicable to all sidewalk construction
requests until such time that the policy statement is altered, modified, or rescinded by the Town
Council.

Policy

The Town Council of the Town of Cary hereby establishes the following policy to ensure that
sidewalk requests along residential and collector streets through residential areas receive the
support of the community.

A. Citizens may submit requests for sidewalk construction to the Planning Department. In order
   for a sidewalk request to be considered, a petition shall be submitted with the request. Staff
   will provide the requestor with a map and addresses of the “area of influence.” The sidewalk
   request requires 70% acceptance by homeowners within the “area of influence.”

B. Assuming the request meets the qualifying criteria the request will be placed on the Town’s
   Annual Sidewalk Priority List. Requests that are placed on the Town’s Annual Sidewalk
   Priority List will be rated once a year based on the criteria included on the attached Sidewalk
   Rating Sheet. Staff will estimate construction costs, rate, and rank all sidewalk requests
   received yearly and present an annual sidewalk priority list to Town Council for approval of
   projects that can be constructed with the budgeted funds from the current Capital

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 60
    Improvements Budget. Some locations will be divided into multiple phases when the
    construction costs become excessive and where a logical breaking point can be determined.

C. Staff may also recommend sidewalk projects in an effort to ensure high priority
   locations in need of pedestrian facilities are considered as part of the annual sidewalk
   priority list. Staff will focus requests on priority projects such as missing sidewalk links
   along major residential roadways, connections to greenways, schools and activity
   centers and locations requiring maintenance and/or ADA (American Disability Act)
   compliance. Staff recommended sidewalk requests will be compiled annually, along
   with citizen-initiated requests, and incorporated into the rating and approval process
   described in Section B above.

    Qualifying Criteria:

    1. Streets along which sidewalk is to be installed shall be paved and have curb and gutter
       along both sides. Streets without curb and gutter will be considered with a lower priority.
    2. There shall be at least six (6) feet of right-of-way between the back of curb and the
       adjoining property line.
    3. The sidewalk shall be installed in accordance with the Town of Cary Standard
       Specifications and Details.

                                 SIDEWALK RATING SHEET
Date:                  _____________________________________________________
Rated By:              _____________________________________________________
Sidewalk On:           _____________________________________________________
From:                  _____________________________________________________
To:                    _____________________________________________________

         Criteria                              Measure                         Weight        Rating
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)   ADT Scale (See Below)                 ___         4*
                              Scale of 1 - 10
                              1 - No Worn Path/No
Current Pedestrian Use        Pedestrians                           ___           5*
                              10 - Worn Path/Many
                              Pedestrians
School Proximity              Scale #1 (See Below)                  ___            5
Public Park/Recreation
                              Scale #1 (See Below)                  ___            4
Facility Proximity
Development Activity
                              Scale #1 (See Below)                  ___            4
Center Proximity
Greenway Proximity            Scale #1 (See Below)                  ___            4
Existing Sidewalk
                              Scale #2 (See Below)                  ___            3
Proximity/Connectivity
Mass Transit Stop
                              Scale #1 (See Below)                  ___            2
Proximity
                              Scale of 1 - 10
Other Factors (Right-of-
                              1 - Most Problems
Way, Curb & Gutter,                                                 ___            3
                              10 - Fewest Problems
Utilities, Topo, Etc.)
                              (Determined Subjectively)
                              Indicate Number of
Consecutive Years on
                              Consecutive Years the Specific        ___            2
Priority List
                              Location has been on the List
                                                                                Total:




                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 61
ADT SCALE                                  SCALE #1                       SCALE #2
 10  > 18,000 Vehicles / Day               10 0 – 0.25 mile               10 0 – 0.1 mile
 9   16,000 – 18,000                        9  0.25 – 0.5 mile             8  0.1 – 0.2 mile
 8   14,000 – 16,000                        8  0.5 – 0.75 mile             6  0.2 – 0.3 mile
 7   12,000 – 14,000                        7  0.75 – 1 mile               4  0.3 – 0.4 mile
 6   10,000 – 12,000                        6  1 – 1.5 miles               2  0.4 – 0.5 mile
 5   8,000 – 10,000                         5  1.5 – 2 miles               0  > 0.5 mile
 4   6,000 – 8,000                          4  2 – 3 miles
 3   4,000 – 6,000                          3  3 – 4 miles
 2   2,000 – 4,000                          2  4 – 5 miles
 1   < 2,000                                1  > 5 miles
                                          If ADT Not Available:
                                   Residential Street or Cul-De-Sac = 1
                                           Collector Street = 2

Marginal Access Street = 3


*Note: For sidewalk requests on streets with existing sidewalk on one side, Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) and Current Pedestrian Use weights will be reduced by half.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Policy 135 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

        q. Relocation and Preservation of the Waldo Rood House (PL7-017)
           Committee unanimously recommended approval of relocating the Waldo Rood
           House to 114 East Park Street, partial restoration of the structure, and an
           appropriation of $85,000 from General Fund Fund Balance for the move and partial
           restoration.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Relocation and Preservation of the Waldo Rood House (PL07-017)
Consideration of information for the relocation and preservation of the Waldo Rood house;
identify funding source
Speaker: Philip Smith

From: Jeff Ulma, AICP, Director, Planning Department
Prepared by: Philip Smith, Planning Manager
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Background: The Waldo Rood house, located at 114 West Waldo Street, was built around 1873
for the family of Dr. S. P. Waldo who was Town’s third practicing physician and owner of Cary’s
first drug store. The house is considered historically significant because of its age and
association with Dr. Waldo as well as being an example of the Gothic Revival style. It is one of
only two board and batten houses in Cary and one of the few remaining examples of this unique
style in Wake County. It has been vacant for more than thirty years. The 1,374 square foot



                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 62
house and 2.3 acre property was purchased by the Methodist church in 2001. The church has
offered to gift the house to the Town if relocated off of the site.

In April 2005, the Town allocated $35,000 from the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) to relocate the house. This amount was based on preliminary, informal quotes ranging
from $22,000 to $34,000 to move the structure to a location in the general area of Town Hall
campus while a permanent location is identified.

In February 2006, the Town Council received the Civic and Cultural Arts District Study which
identified a potential permanent location for the Waldo Rood House in the Downtown Art Park. It
is envisioned that the house would serve as an interpretive or information center for the
downtown and the park. Land is still being acquired for the park and the schedule for final site
planning is still uncertain. Meanwhile the Town and the church have negotiated several target
dates for moving the house with the latest one being February 2007. With this deadline
approaching, the house must be moved to a temporary location if it is to be saved. A second
move to its permanent location will be required once the park has been designed.

In May of 2006, a formal RFP was issued by the Town to move the structure to a temporary
location at the Dixon Avenue Recycling Center. Although several firms expressed interest in the
job, only one firm submitted a quote of $88,000 which called for the house to be cut into three
pieces and then reassembled. Another firm withdrew their interest stating they could not
guarantee the house could stand up to the move and therefore did not have confidence the move
would be successful.

Staff was not comfortable with the one bid received and was also concerned over the ability of the
house to withstand the two moves. Accordingly, the Town asked Capital Area Preservation
(CAP) for assistance with the project. CAP was to evaluate the cost and conditions of the one bid
received by the Town, identify other house movers, evaluate the structural integrity of the house,
evaluate possible temporary sites, evaluate other alternatives to moving the house such as
(deconstruction and reconstruction) and examine the feasibility of partially rehabilitating the house
at its permanent location without plumbing, electricity and heating/air conditioning to save costs.
The CAP report has now been received with positive results. In summary the CAP report finds:

       Relocation of the house with full rehabilitation is preferable to the other options evaluated
        (i.e. partial rehabilitation or deconstruction).
       It is CAP’s opinion that the house does have the structural integrity to withstand the
        move.
       CAP identified the firm of K.B. Bunn and Son, Inc. house movers to submit a bid. The
        firm is experienced in moving historic structures and provided a bid of $40,000.
        However, the Town would be responsible for additional costs of preparing the temporary
        location, tree removal, and temporary utility line relocation.

Temporary Site Considerations
CAP evaluated several possible sites for the temporary location of the Waldo Rood House and
suggests Town-owned property at 114 East Park Street as the shortest route and most cost-
effective site. It has the additional advantages of being in close proximity to its permanent
location thus simplifying the subsequent move. Staff does have concerns regarding placing a
deteriorated structure within an established neighborhood. The house is currently screened by
existing vegetation but would be exposed and more vulnerable to possible vandalism on Park
Street. It was hoped that a fund-raising campaign could be undertaken to restore the house but
at this location staff feels some preliminary restoration would need to occur very quickly to avoid
complaints from the neighbors and accelerated deterioration of the structure. Staff suggests that
these preliminary restoration costs be included in the budget for the relocation.




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 63
An alternate temporary site at the recycling center on Dixon Avenue was also evaluated. It has
the advantages of being very secure and well screened from surrounding development but was
considered cost prohibitive because of the distance and the need to cross the railroad tracks.

Fiscal Impact: As indicated, $35,000 has been allocated from the Community Development
Block Grant for this project. Illustration A provides the estimated budget for this project.
Approximately $120,000 will be needed to move the house and partially restore it for security and
appearance purposes. Once a permanent site is identified, it is estimated that an additional
$145,000 will be needed to move it to its permanent foundation and complete the historic
restoration. In addition to the $35,000 already allocated from CDBG, an additional appropriation
of $85,000 must be made before undertaking the initial move. The future need for $145,000 may
be identified in future budget years as part of the overall development budget for the Downtown
Art Park or through a private fundraising effort.

Additional CDBG funding is one option for the $85,000 that is needed now and may be made up
by drawing from another project by means of a Council amendment to the 2006-2007 CDBG
Annual Action Plan budget. Funds could be transferred from the Housing Rehabilitation budget
of $65,000 and from the Urban Park budget of $100,000 or the entire $85,000 could be
transferred from the Urban Park budget. To avoid impacting these previously-funded CDBG
projects, $85,000 may also be transferred from General Fund Fund Balance.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends relocating the Waldo Rood House to 114 East Park
Street, partial restoration of the structure, and an appropriation of $85,000 from General Fund
Fund Balance to move and partially restore the structure.




                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 64
Illustration A
                                       Proposed Budget
                                  Waldo Rood House Relocation


                                     Estimated Cost                    Comments
Predevelopment Costs
Feasibility Study by CAP                        $3,000 Completed and paid

Temporary Site Preparation Costs
Demolition of Existing House at                           Approximately $11,000 but already in
114 Park Street                                       $ - the Engineering Department budget
Grading, Backfill, Leveling of
Site                                            $2,000

Relocation Costs
                                                       Volunteer labor; cost is for equipment
Cleaning House of Debris                          $400 and disposal
Tree removal along route                        $2,800Source: CAP
Progress Energy line relocation                 $4000*
Time Warner Cable line                                 *These are estimates. Exact costs were
relocation                                      $6000* not
Bell South line relocation                      $6000* available at agenda deadline.
Town of Cary Fiber Optics line
relocation                                       8000*
Relocation by K.B. Bunn and
Sons                                           $40,000 Per Bid
Clearing of any remaining                              Estimate to clean and repair property at
Debris from Church's property                   $3,000 114 Waldo Street after move

Restoration Costs
First Phase (Exterior)
Restoration                                    $34,350 1,374 sq ft x $25 per sq ft

Contingency (10%)                              $10,655

TOTAL COSTS - PHASE 1                         $120,205

Future Costs
Relocation to Permanent Site                   $10,000Estimate
Second Phase Restoration                      $116,7901,374 sq ft x $85 per sq ft
Contingency/Inflation (15%)                    $19,019

TOTAL FUTURE COSTS -
PHASE 2                                       $145,809

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST                          $266,014




                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 65
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        r.   Budget Adjustment for Ritter Park Renovation (PR07-015)
             Committee unanimously recommended approval of a budget adjustment to place all
             appropriated funds related to Ritter Park renovations into the Ritter Park Renovation
             Project (PR1060).

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Budget Adjustment for Ritter Park Renovation (PR07-15)
Consideration of a budget adjustment to place all appropriated funds related to Ritter Park
renovations into the Ritter Park Renovation Project (PR1060)
Speaker: Mary Henderson

From: Mary G. Henderson, Director, PRCR
Prepared by: Paul A. Kuhn, Parks Planner, PRCR
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

The Ritter Park Renovation Project is being developed in three phases. Phase I focuses on
renovating the existing playground. (Bids have been received on Phase I and construction will
begin this fall).

Phase II focuses on the following additions/upgrades to the park: creation of an informal
lawn/open area, construction of additional parking near the picnic shelter, installation of a bocce
court; replacement of stone walkways with concrete throughout the park; storm drainage
improvements; placement of additional lighting for safety. Phase III focuses on the addition of the
Town’s first spraypark to the Ritter Park facility.

Table 1 (below) details the current budget for each phase of the Ritter Park improvements totaling
$805,500 (Note: Phase I has been bid and is beginning to be constructed.)

        Table 1 – Total Project Cost by Phase
                                          Phase      Budget & Design Fees          Bid Amount
                           Phase I – Playground                  $259,000          $244,225.16
                         Phase II – Renovations                  $371,500                 TBD
                           Phase III - Spraypark                 $175,000                 TBD
                                           Total                 $805,500

Fiscal Impact: There is no additional fiscal impact related to these transfers. Funding for these
improvements has been appropriated within three separate capital projects over multiple fiscal
years.




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 66
Table 2 – Appropriation to Date Summary
                                      Total Project-       Portion of Total Project-      Total Project-
  Project #           Project Name          to-Date         to-Date Appropriations              to-Date
                                     Appropriations        Approved for Ritter Park           Balances
                         Ritter Park
   PR1060                                  $635,500                         $635,500             $339,197
                        Renovations
                Park and Greenway
   PR1071                                  $269,400                           $30,000            $211,776
               Renovations – FY03
                Park and Greenway
   PR1086                                  $200,900                         $140,000             $184,751
               Renovations – FY04
  TOTALS                                 $1,105,800                         $805,500             $735,724

To facilitate administration/management of all phases of the Ritter Park work, staff recommends
that the Ritter Park portions of PR1071 ($30,000) and PR1086 ($140,000) be transferred into the
PR1060 Ritter Park Renovations project. These transfers will bring appropriations to date within
the PR1060 Ritter Park project to $805,500. As encumbrances/expenditures to date within
PR1060 total $296,304, the available project balance for PR1060 will total $509,196 once these
transfers are complete.

Operating Impacts: The new features to be implemented at Ritter Park (lawn/open area, parking
area, picnic shelter, bocce court, lighting and spraypark) will have associated annual operating
costs. Staff estimates that these costs will have minimal impact to the facilities management
operating budget. These impacts will be clearly identified and included in annual operating
budget requests as the various phases of the improvements come on line.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends consolidating all currently appropriated portions of
the Ritter Park improvements work into the Ritter Park Renovations Project (PR1060). To
accomplish this consolidation, the following transfers are recommended:

    1) Transfer $30,000 in unrestricted revenue from the PR1071 Park and Greenway
       Renovations – FY03 project to the construction account of the PR1060 Ritter Park
       Renovations project
    2) Transfer $140,000 in park bond revenue from the PR1086 Park and Greenway
       Renovations – FY04 project to the construction account of the PR1060 Ritter Park
       Renovations project.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        s. 2007 Town of Cary Official Meetings (TC07-002)
           Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the dates/times specified for
           2007 Town of Cary Official Meetings.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

2007 Town of Cary Official Meetings (TC07-002)
Consideration of adoption of the dates/times specified for 2007 Town of Cary Official Meetings
Speaker: Sue Rowland

From: Sue Rowland
Prepared by: Sue Rowland



                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 67
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

The proposed Calendar Year 2007 meeting schedule follows. This schedule takes into account
Town-observed holidays, Jewish holidays, and all other events for which the clerk was made
aware.

                           Economic Development Commission
                Conference Room #10035, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, noon
 Meets as needed; public notice will be prepared at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
 For planning purposes ONLY, the following schedule has been developed IN THE EVENT
  A MEETING IS NEEDED! Appropriate public notice will be issued to provide at least 48
    hours notice of the meeting and will give the date, time, location and purpose of the
  meeting. Commission members and staff should keep these dates open in the event we
              need to schedule meetings on these dates throughout the year.
January 16, 2007                                  February 20, 2007
March 20, 2007                                    April 17, 2007
May 15, 2007                                      June 19, 2007
July 17, 2007                                     August 21, 2007
September 18, 2007                                October 16, 2007
November 20, 2007                                 December 18, 2007

                          Information Services Advisory Board
                Conference Room #10035, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 6 p.m.
January 4, 2007                                February 1, 2007
March 1, 2007                                  April 5, 2007
May 3, 2007                                    June 7, 2007
July 5, 2007                                   August 2, 2007
September 6, 2007                              October 4, 2007
November 1, 2007                               December 6, 2007

                Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Advisory Board
              Conference Room #11130, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 5:15 p.m.
January 8, 2007                                 February 5, 2007
March 5, 2007                                   April 9, 2007
May 7, 2007                                     June 4, 2007
July 2, 2007                                    August 6, 2007
September 10, 2007                              October 1, 2007
November 5, 2007                                December 3, 2007

                                   Athletic Committee
   Specific conference rooms are noted below and all are located at 316 N. Academy St.,
                                      Cary, 6:30 p.m.
 Meets as needed; public notice will be prepared at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
 For planning purposes ONLY, the following schedule has been developed IN THE EVENT
  A MEETING IS NEEDED! Appropriate public notice will be issued to provide at least 48
    hours notice of the meeting and will give the date, time, location and purpose of the
   meeting. Committee members and staff should keep these dates open in the event we
               need to schedule meetings on these dates throughout the year.
January 9, 2007, Conference Room 21275            February 13, 2007, Conference Room 11130
March 13, 2007, Conference Room 11130             April 10, 2007, Conference Room 21275
May 8, 2007, Conference Room 11130                June 12, 2007, Conference Room 21275
July 10, 2007, Conference Room 21275              August 14, 2007, Conference Room 11130
September 11, 2007, Conference Room 11130         October 16, 2007, Conference Room 11130
November 13, 2007, Conference Room 21275          December 11, 2007, Conference Room 11130

                                                                       December 14, 2006
                                                                                Page 68
                                  Cultural Arts Committee
            Specific conference rooms and addresses are noted below, 6:30 p.m.
January 9, 2007, Conference Room 11130, 316       February 13, 2007, Old Cary Elementary, 101 Dry
N. Academy St., Cary                              Ave., Cary, NC
March 13, 2007, Page Walker Arts and History      April 10, 2007, Conference Room 11130, 316 N.
Center, 119 Ambassador Loop, Cary                 Academy St., Cary
May 8, 2007, Page Walker Arts and History         June 12, 2007, Conference Room 11130, 316 N.
Center, 119 Ambassador Loop, Cary                 Academy St., Cary
July 10, 2007, Conference Room 11130, 316 N.      August 14, 2007, Page Walker Arts and History
Academy St., Cary                                 Center, 119 Ambassador Loop, Cary
September 11, 2007, Koka Booth Amphitheatre,      October 16, 2007, Page Walker Arts and History
8003 Regency Parkway, Cary                        Center, 119 Ambassador Loop, Cary
November 13, 2007, Conference Room 11130,         December 11, 2007, Page Walker Arts and
316 N. Academy St., Cary                          History Center, 119 Ambassador Loop, Cary

                                Greenway Committee
                 Conference Room 11130, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 6 p.m.
January 18, 2007                               February 15, 2007
March 15, 2007                                 April 19, 2007
May 17, 2007                                   June 21, 2007
July 19, 2007                                  August 16, 2007
September 20, 2007                             October 18, 2006
November 15, 2007                              December 20, 2007

                                Teen Advisory Committee
         Cary Senior Center, Room 302, 120 Maury O’Dell Place, Cary, NC, 5:30 p.m.
January 16, 2007                               February 20, 2007
March 20, 2007                                 April 17, 2007
May 15, 2007                                   June 19, 2007
July 17, 2007                                  August 21, 2007
September 18, 2007                             October 16, 2007
November 20, 2007                              December 18, 2007

                             Planning and Zoning Board
                 Council Chambers, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 6:30 p.m.
January 22, 2007                              February 19, 2007
March 19, 2007                                April 16, 2007
May 21, 2007                                  June 18, 2007
July 16, 2007                                 August 20, 2007
September 17, 2007                            October 15, 2007
November 19, 2007                             December 17, 2007




                                                                         December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 69
                        Planning and Zoning Board Work Sessions
                Conference Room 21275, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 7 p.m.
 Meets as needed; public notice will be prepared at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
 For planning purposes ONLY, the following schedule has been developed IN THE EVENT
  A MEETING IS NEEDED! Appropriate public notice will be issued to provide at least 48
    hours notice of the meeting and will give the date, time, location and purpose of the
 meeting. Board members and staff should keep these dates open in the event we need to
                  schedule meetings on these dates throughout the year.
January 8, 2007                                   February 12, 2007
March 12, 2007                                    April 9, 2007
May 14, 2007                                      June 11, 2007
July 9, 2007                                      August 13, 2007
September 10, 2007                                October 8, 2007
November 5, 2007                                  December 10, 2007

                              Public Art Advisory Board
               Conference Room 11130, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 6:15 p.m.
January 17, 2007                              February 21, 2007
March 21, 2007                                April 18, 2007
May 16, 2007                                  June 20, 2007
July 18, 2007                                 August 15, 2007
September 19, 2007                            October 17, 2007
November 14, 2007                             December 19, 2007

                                 Sister Cities Commission
         Page Walker Art and History Center, 119 Ambassador Loop, Cary, 7:30 p.m.
January 18, 2007                                 February 15, 2007
March 15, 2007                                   April 19, 2007
May 17, 2007                                     June 21, 2007
July 19, 2007                                    August 16, 2007
September 20, 2007                               October 18, 2007
November 15, 2007                                December 20, 2007

                             Town Center Review Commission
                 Conference Room 10035, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 6 p.m.
 Meets as needed; public notice will be prepared at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
 For planning purposes ONLY, the following schedule has been developed IN THE EVENT
  A MEETING IS NEEDED! Appropriate public notice will be issued to provide at least 48
    hours notice of the meeting and will give the date, time, location and purpose of the
  meeting. Commission members and staff should keep these dates open in the event we
              need to schedule meetings on these dates throughout the year.
January 10, 2007                                  February 14, 2007
March 14, 2007                                    April 11, 2007
May 9, 2007                                       June 13, 2007
July 11, 2007                                     August 8, 2007
September 5, 2007                                 October 10, 2007
November 14, 2007                                 December 12, 2007




                                                                       December 14, 2006
                                                                                Page 70
                                Utility Board of Adjustment
                 Conference Room 10035, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 3 p.m.
 Meets as needed; public notice will be prepared at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
 For planning purposes ONLY, the following schedule has been developed IN THE EVENT
  A MEETING IS NEEDED! Appropriate public notice will be issued to provide at least 48
    hours notice of the meeting and will give the date, time, location and purpose of the
 meeting. Board members and staff should keep these dates open in the event we need to
                  schedule meetings on these dates throughout the year.
January 12, 2007                                  February 9, 2007
March 9, 2007                                     April 13, 2007
May 11, 2007                                      June 8, 2007
July 13, 2007                                     August 10, 2007
September 7, 2007                                 October 12, 2007
November 9, 2007                                  December 14, 2007

                               Zoning Board of Adjustment
                 Conference Room 10035, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 7 p.m.
 Meets as needed; public notice will be prepared at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
 For planning purposes ONLY, the following schedule has been developed IN THE EVENT
  A MEETING IS NEEDED! Appropriate public notice will be issued to provide at least 48
   hours notice of the meeting and will give the date, time, location and purpose of the
 meeting. Board members and staff should keep these dates open in the event we need to
                   schedule meetings on these dates throughout the year.
January 8, 2007                                  February 12, 2007
March 12, 2007                                   April 9, 2007
May 14, 2007                                     June 11, 2007
No meeting in July                               August 13, 2007
September 10, 2007                               October 8, 2007
November 5, 2007                                 December 10, 2007

                               Operations Committee
                 Council Chambers, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 4:30 p.m.
January 4, 2007                               February 1, 2007
March 1, 2007                                 April 5, 2007
May 3, 2007                                   June 7, 2007
July 5, 2007                                  August 2, 2007
September 6, 2007                             October 4, 2007
November 1, 2007                              December 6, 2007

                         Planning and Development Committee
                 Council Chambers, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 11:30 a.m.
January 18, 2007                              February 15, 2007
March 15, 2007                                April 18, 2007
May 17, 2007                                  June 21, 2007
July 17, 2007                                 August 16, 2007
September 20, 2007                            October 18, 2007
November 15, 2007                             December 20, 2007




                                                                       December 14, 2006
                                                                                Page 71
                                    Town Council
                 Council Chambers, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 6:30 p.m.
January 11, 2007                              January 25, 2007
February 8, 2007                              February 22, 2007
March 8, 2007                                 March 22, 2007
April 12, 2007                                April 26, 2007
May 10, 2007                                  May 24, 2007
June 14, 2007                                 June 28, 2007
July 26, 2007                                 Only one meeting in July
August 9, 2007                                August 23, 2007
September 11, 2007                            September 27, 2007
October 11, 2007                              October 25, 2007
November 8, 2007                              Only one meeting in November
December 13, 2007                             Only one meeting in December

                               Town Council Work Sessions
               Conference Room 10035, 316 N. Academy St., Cary, 4:30 p.m.
 Meets as needed; public notice will be prepared at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
 For planning purposes ONLY, the following schedule has been developed IN THE EVENT
  A MEETING IS NEEDED! Appropriate public notice will be issued to provide at least 48
    hours notice of the meeting and will give the date, time, location and purpose of the
meeting. Council members and staff should keep these dates open in the event we need to
                  schedule meetings on these dates throughout the year.
January 9, 2007                                   January 23, 2007
February 6, 2007                                  February 20, 2007
March 6, 2007                                     March 20, 2007
April 10, 2007                                    April 24, 2007
May 8, 2007                                       May 15, 2007
May 22, 2007                                      June 5, 2007
June 12, 2007                                     June 26, 2007
July 10, 2007                                     July 24, 2007
August 7, 2007                                    August 21, 2007
September 18, 2007                                September 25, 2007
October 2, 2007                                   October 23, 2007
November 13, 2007                                 November 27, 2007
December 11, 2007                                 December 18, 2007

Fiscal Impact: For the meetings that occur at town hall after normal operating hours, we pay
public works staff approximately $26 per hour to staff the facility. On average, we have
approximately 30 hours of meetings each month at town hall that are conducted outside of
regular working hours. The estimated fiscal impact for the calendar year 2007 (January through
December) is $9,360.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the 2007 schedule of meetings for the
Town of Cary.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        t.   Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment Follow Up (EN07-047)
             Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the Brown and Caldwell report
             and staff’s proposed follow up actions.


                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 72
STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment Follow Up (EN07-047)
Follow up to recommendation of the Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment
Speakers: Tim Bailey and Kim Fisher

From:           Tim Bailey, P.E., Director of Engineering
                Kim Fisher, PE, Director of Public Works and Utilities
Prepared by:    Steve Brown, P.E., Associate Director of Engineering
                Robert (Rob) Bonné, Utilities Director
                Mike Bajorek, Public Works Director
Approved by:    William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:    Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

The engineering firm of Brown and Caldwell was hired to conduct an assessment of the causes
and impacts of the June 23, 2006 wastewater spill at the Swift Creek pump station. Major goals
of this assessment were to formulate recommendations on how this incident could have been
avoided and how the Town can prevent such an occurrence from happening again. This report
included twenty such recommendations. Another goal was to identify how the Town can address
short and long term environmental impacts of this incident. On October 10, 2006, Brown and
Caldwell presented their final report entitled “Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill
Assessment” to the Town Council. (The full report is attached to and incorporated in the
October 10, 2006 work session minutes.) Since then staff has been studying the
recommendations and environmental impacts and evaluating the best approach to address each.

The Town has a long track record of successful, cost-effective completion of complex, high-
quality utilities projects. The Town is also recognized throughout the state as a leader in
regulatory compliance and innovation in environmental stewardship. Town staff who are
engaged in utilities functions cover a broad range of fields of expertise. This is a particular
strength of our organization. The Town of Cary has received many awards and recognitions for
its utility operations including:

    *   Wastewater Collection System Management, Maintenance and Operations program is
        recognized by the state as a model program in our region
    *   Partnership for Safe Water (has re-qualified multiple times)
    *   EPA Region 4 Maintenance Award for the North Cary Water Reclamation Facility (twice)
    *   Several of the Town’s operations and maintenance staff have received statewide
        outstanding achievement awards.

However we recognize that there is always room for improvement, and this incident and report
have provided an opportunity to look beyond ‘business as usual’. This staff report approaches
the challenges by building on our past successes and strengths of our organization. In the spirit
of continuous improvement and objective self-assessment we have evaluated each
recommendation and offer the following proposed actions to address each.

Staff has thoroughly reviewed Brown and Caldwell’s recommendations and agrees that some
degree of action is justified for each, as described in this staff report. Some recommendations
that address similar topics are grouped together where a common proposed action is anticipated.
Each proposed action identifies staff who will be responsible for understanding the substance of
the recommendation, the basis upon which it was formed, the alternative means of meeting the
expectations and implementing the best means for the Town to address it. For this staff report,
the twenty recommendations are grouped generally into four categories:

    1. Policies and Procedures – to be addressed through policies and procedures that guide
       management of Town resources;

                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 73
    2. Capital Projects – to be addressed through development and implementation of capital
       projects;
    3. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) – to be addressed through utility system
       operations and maintenance policies, practices and/or training; and
    4. Environmental Impacts – to be addressed through participation in environmental
       studies, partnerships and/or initiatives.

Policies and Procedures

Recommendations No. 1, 9 and 14 are best addressed together:

Recommendation No. 1: Require involvement of the Town Engineering Department, working in
collaboration with [the Utility System Maintenance group of the Public Works and Utilities
Department], in planning, design, and construction of projects involving critical operating facilities.
Recommendation No. 9: Define roles and responsibilities, including areas of overlap, for
participants in construction project. Consider facilitated partnering (during planning, design, and
construction) to enhance formal communications and to solicit personal commitments to
maintaining critical operations.
Recommendation No. 14: Document procedures for interdepartmental collaboration on project,
delineating roles, responsibilities, and expectations for team members.
Proposed Action: Assignment of project manager for each capital project is made by the
director of the department that requested the funding. The responsible department is identified
during the budgeting process. In light of this recommendation, the Associate Director of
Engineering and the Utilities Director have been working together to make sure proper staff
oversight is in place for all current utility projects and that the most qualified staff members are
assigned as project managers.

For the long term, staff will develop a new standard procedure under the direction of the Town
Manager to clarify roles during implementation of all capital construction projects. The procedure
will provide Town-wide guidance for implementation of capital projects, including scoping, design,
construction, start-up and record keeping and will provide umbrella guidance on who manages
which projects and when. This procedure will be completed by spring of 2007. It will be the
responsibility of each department director to ensure this procedure is followed. They will also
make determinations when unusual situations or conflicts occur.

Utilities projects will typically be managed by the Engineering Department if they are design and
construction-oriented or involve complex engineering work such as computer modeling or a
project master plan. If projects are involve strategic water resource planning, complex treatment
practices, operational or maintenance issues, the Public Works and Utilities Department will
typically manage them. Using the new procedure, the Associate Director of Engineering and the
Utilities Director will also annually evaluate each new utility project as the new capital budget is
prepared to determine who would most appropriately manage it.

Regardless of who manages the project, Utilities Division staff who will eventually be responsible
for the operation and maintenance of a capital facility currently participate substantially in the
design development, attend construction progress meetings and make periodic site visits,
especially as construction nears completion, to help ensure the facility will become an effective
part of the Town’s utility infrastructure. This practice will continue and be made explicit in the new
standard procedure. This practice has proven very effective and is a large reason the Town has
been so successful in its utility operations. This model has also been used effectively for Parks
and Fire projects.

Formal facilitated Partnering has been used successfully during the construction phase of a
number of large and complex capital construction projects. A trained facilitator helps the project
management team of Town staff, construction contractors and design professionals work together
to identify issues that are key to the project’s success and resolve potential conflicts before they

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 74
can cause delays, claims and cost increases. This practice will continue to be used where
deemed advantageous to the success of critical projects. The new standard procedure will
provide guidance on incorporating Partnering into the design phase of complex projects.

Recommendation No.10: Provide contracting mechanism to ensure geotechnical engineering
resources are available to the Town and its consultants and contractors throughout the
construction project. Require that apparent changes in groundwater and/or soil conditions be
referred to the geotechnical resource for assessment.
Proposed Action: Geotechnical engineering consultants are typically engaged for each
construction project to verify the quality and strength of new materials (concrete, asphalt,
masonry and steel) provided by contractors and to provide consultation on soils and subsurface
issues that may arise during construction. The Engineering Department currently maintains lists
of on-call consultants for various specialty services to quickly respond to the needs of projects.
Geotechnical engineering is being added to this list of topics. The new capital project standard
procedure will address appropriate use of these services by all departments. Written monthly
project reports will be required of geotechnical consultants. The Associate Director of
Engineering and the Utilities Director will ensure their respective staffs utilize these services on
current utility projects as required to ensure project success.

Capital Projects

Recommendations No. 3 through 8 are best addressed together:

Recommendation No. 3: Require a Sequence of Construction, a Maintenance of Facility
Operations plan, and an Emergency Plan to be prepared and in place by engineer and contractor
before construction work on critical operating facilities commences.
Recommendation No. 4: For critical operating facilities, conduct necessary excavation and
exposure of subsurface facilities during the design period to assess condition and confirm
location and constraints on construction.
Recommendation No. 5: For projects in construction, emphasize the importance of accurate
record drawings to the designers and contractors.
Recommendation No. 6: For modifications to existing facilities, confirm that record drawings for
subsurface conditions, at a minimum, are accurate.
Recommendation No. 7: For projects in construction, emphasize the importance of accurate
record drawings to the designers and contractors. Clearly tie acceptability of record drawings to
payment; consider line item for payment of acceptable record drawings.
Recommendation No. 8: Clearly communicate through design documents and construction
documents the criticality and constraints for construction.
Proposed Actions: The Engineering Department has long used a project management checklist
to facilitate thorough and successful project execution. It will be reviewed and strengthened as
necessary with these comments in mind. Particular attention will be paid to ensuring that
thorough record drawings are acquired for all critical construction projects, and that adequate
plans are in place for maintenance of operations at existing facilities near construction work.

In the short term, The Associate Director of Engineering is systematically reviewing the Town’s
engineering services and construction contract language provisions to ensure that they:

    *   adequately require design engineers to identify and address construction sequencing and
        protection and maintenance of operation of critical utility facilities during construction;
    *   require designers to identify critical utility components that may be in close proximity to
        construction activities and provide sufficient site investigations, including subsurface
        investigations, to thoroughly identify and locate critical system components that could be
        harmed during construction activities;
    *   require construction contractors to provide adequate protection of key facilities during
        construction and have an emergency action plan and related equipment available prior to
        commencing work tasks near critical utility components;

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 75
    *   strengthen construction contract provisions that require contractors to protect existing
        utility facilities during construction;
    *   for both new construction and modifications to existing facilities, ensure that contract
        provisions require both designers and construction contractors to thoroughly record and
        document ‘as-built’ conditions, especially concealed and subsurface facilities;
    *   clarify the requirement for separate payment line-items for provision of adequate record
        drawings where this is not already addressed.

    Where changes are required to clarify or strengthen contract provisions, they will be made in
    consultation with the Town’s Procurement Manager and the Town Attorney. Additionally, the
    Associate Director of Engineering will verify that the Town’s standard ‘request for proposals’
    form includes the necessary provisions to require selected engineering consultants to
    address these issues in their designs. Design professional’s responses to these RFP’s serve
    as the basis of any subsequent contract executed with them.

    For the long term, the Town Attorney is currently working on a project to update and
    standardize the provisions of the Town’s professional services contracts. This will also
    address an update to our construction contract language as well. Use of these various
    contract provisions must become a performance issue for all staff undertaking the design and
    construction of capital facilities. The capital project standard procedure will provide guidance
    to determine the appropriate level of precision put into surveying locations of critical and
    concealed work, to ensure that Town resources are effectively applied. On the highest
    criticality buried pipeline locations, for example, survey-grade GPS records may be required.

Recommendation No. 11: Conduct a surge analysis for the Swift Creek Pump Station for both
the repaired facility as well as for the final configuration of the existing and expanded facilities.
Provide for peer review of the surge analysis.
Proposed Action: The engineering firm of Hazen and Sawyer is being engaged to conduct
these surge analyses which are expected to be completed in January 2007. Engineering and
PWUT staff will review of the analysis and provide additional information on the performance of
existing and expanded facilities as flow increases over time. This information will identify any
limitations of these facilities, provide guidance on timing of future capital improvements and
possibly identify new improvements that may be required to ensure safe and successful operation
of this facility into the future. Based on the results of this study, the Director of Public Works and
Utilities will consult with the Engineering Department and recommend the scope of any necessary
facility improvements. These improvements could either be funded through an existing capital
project, a request for new funding, or through a FY08 capital budget request.

Recommendation No. 12: Perform a condition assessment for the existing force main,
particularly in the area of existing air/vacuum valves and the discharge location to determine if
there is evidence of corrosion.
Proposed Action: the Town currently has an extensive program to video inspect and
rehabilitate gravity sewer lines. Engineering and PWUT work together to gather information and
establish priorities for this work. This current approach will be applied to inspection of force
mains and to provide rehabilitation where warranted. A new project will be requested through the
FY08 budget process to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the condition of all force mains
larger than 8-inches and their corresponding air/vacuum release valves and discharge manholes.
The Engineering Department will be responsible for overseeing related design and construction
activities.

Additionally, a parallel force main is eventually planned for the Swift Creek pump station. The
current CIP shows it being constructed in 2010. The Associate Director of Engineering and the
Public Utilities Director will work together through the FY08 capital budget process to determine if
construction of this parallel pipeline should be accelerated or built as planned.

Recommendations No. 15 and 16 are best addressed together:

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 76
Recommendation No. 15: Construct protection improvements at flood-prone critical facilities.
Recommendation No. 16: Install pumping connections for temporary bypassing at existing
critical pumping stations.
Proposed Actions: The Associate Director of Engineering and the Public Utilities Director are
working together to identify pump stations and any other key facilities that may be prone to
flooding in severe weather, and to prioritize recommended improvements. Utilities staff has
already begun to develop a priority table of pump stations that could benefit from this type of
work. They will also identify key pump stations that would benefit from installation of permanent
bypass pump connections, similar to that installed at Swift Creek. These design features have
already been installed at other recently constructed or expanded critical pump stations, and plans
had already been discussed to add them at other locations. Typically these locations are at large
stations at the termini of our service area where other provisions to convey flow are difficult or
cost-prohibitive. Where needed, these improvements will be incorporated into current capital
projects, or new capital improvements will be requested as necessary.

Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

Recommendation No.2: Perform a criticality review of facilities and then an engineering
inspection and assessment of critical facilities to determine if there are facilities that may be at
risk due to condition or environment.
Proposed Action: The Public Works Director is leading a work team to identify critical facilities
in the collection and distribution systems with the greatest potential to impact utility services if
they fail or malfunction. This work is being conducted in coordination with Recommendation No.
13, to implement a NIMS-based emergency response system. This work team will consist of key
staff from Public Works and Utilities and Engineering who are thoroughly familiar with the Town’s
utility systems. This work team will develop a database of these facilities, their potential failure
modes, likely risk exposures, available redundancies, possible emergency response scenarios
and contingency plans needed to prevent adverse environmental impacts and minimize loss of
services. This team shall incorporate availability of temporary pumps and piping into the plan.
The team will look at 51 critical elements of the utility system as described in the “Public Works
Management Practices Manual” and conduct a systemized evaluation of current policies,
procedures, and practices. This is a complex and lengthy item to complete. As tasks are
completed, periodic progress reports will be made as appropriate depending upon whether they
involve funding, policy changes or standard procedure revisions.

The report references concerns raised in staff interviews about the future sustainability of the
preventive maintenance programs due to the number of vacancies in staff positions and the
growing backlog of priority work. It further states "... the Town needs to evaluate resources
available versus the resources needed to sustain the high performance levels established.” Staff
concurs with the recommendation for the need to evaluate resources to meet the needs of a
growing system. This evaluation is done each year and identified needs included in the
department's budget request. It should be noted that over the past three years, all nine of the
requested wastewater-related positions submitted by the department have been approved.
Furthermore, preliminary review of FY 2008 personnel needs indicate a potential need to add an
easement maintenance team, but additional staff will not be required in area of infrastructure
maintenance and repair.

After a thorough analysis of maintenance schedules and records, there is no evidence of a
growing backlog of priority maintenance items. An audit of preventive maintenance work orders
revealed a compliance rate of over 99% and all regulatory maintenance requirements have been
met or exceeded. Similarly, a review of critical corrective repairs indicated no backlog. The Town
of Cary Utilities' divisions are very interested in the critical review of operations by objective
experts. To this end the Town has invested in four critical objective assessments of Utilities'


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 77
division operations. The Utility System Maintenance Division is the last to be comprehensively
evaluated, and this evaluation is currently underway. The consultant, after months of critical
review of all aspects of our operations, said Cary is a tough place to evaluate because it is
difficult to find any areas at all for improvement in the operations and maintenance of the facilities.
Staff followed up with Brown and Caldwell regarding the statements in the paragraph quoted
above. Brown and Caldwell said that the paragraph was generated based on one interview.

While the availability of qualified employees increase and decrease based on market conditions,
managers within this function have clear priorities and are able to accomplish preventive, planned
and emergency work as required. It should also be noted that at the time of the Brown and
Caldwell interviews, several entry levels positions were being held open due to an upcoming
reduction in force within the Solid Waste Management Division.

Recommendation No.13: Continue and complete NIMS-based training and implement NIMS
[National Incident Management System] specific to the Town’s needs.
Proposed Action: The Public Works and Utilities Director will develop this plan and identify all
staff who must take this training. The Public Works Director will provide adequate training for all
required staff. This plan shall require adequate educational efforts to ensure the training is
effective, not just geared toward ‘passing the test’. This training will be completed by Summer
2007. Standard Procedure 109, “Response Procedure for Wastewater Emergencies” has been in
place since 1999 to guide response to sewer spills. This document covers many contingencies
and has proven effective in the past. The Public Works Director has conducted a thorough
review of this procedure and implemented changes/improvements from the Swift Creek lessons
learned after-action meetings. These changes/improvements include documenting third-party
resources for emergency assistance, documenting staff roles and responsibilities during
emergency response, and developing mutual assistance agreements with neighboring
jurisdictions.

Recommendation No.17: Purchase one or more trailer-mounted, engine-driven, self-priming
pumping systems for use with temporary bypassing connections at critical pumping stations.
Proposed Action: PW/UT staff will determine the most appropriate equipment to meet this
need. If additional funding is required, a staff report will be developed by PWUT for Council’s
consideration. The pumping equipment will complement the piping acquired as directed by
Council in September 2006. The pumping equipment will speed up the response time to
wastewater emergencies. PWUT staff will also develop and implement a standard procedure for
utilizing this portable piping and pumping equipment. As part of this work, the Utility Systems
Maintenance Division Manager will conduct a survey of the Town’s pump stations, inventory of
portable pumps and piping and accessories, and develop an emergency pumping plan for each
pump station.

Environmental Impacts

Recommendation No. 18: Develop and implement a regionally coordinated management plan to
mitigate eutrophication.
Proposed Action: The Lake Wheeler water quality study committee was formed as a response
to the closing of Lake Wheeler due to several episodes of poor water quality over the past few
years. The Utilities Director is serving on this committee. The committee is focused on
bacteriological contamination in Lake Wheeler and may take up other issues like eutrophication
and other chronic problems in Lake Wheeler in later study phases. The objectives of the current
work effort are:

    *   Identify if Swift Creek or other creeks are significant sources of e. coli and enterococci in
        Lake Wheeler;
    *   Identify if lake or riparian sediments are potentially significant sources of e. coli and
        enterococci contamination;

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 78
    *   Describe the spatial distribution and quantity of e. coli and enterococci contamination in
        the water and sediment of Lake Wheeler.

Wake County and Raleigh have hired a consultant to assist with water quality sampling of the
water column and lake bottom. In addition, the consultant will perform the complex laboratory
and statistical analyses to determine the source of the bacterial contamination that has been a
problem in the lake for several years. Since receipt of the Brown and Caldwell study, the Lake
Wheeler water quality study committee has identified more effective methods of tracing
bacteriological contamination than using caffeine as an indicator. This is an ongoing study which
will end when the conclusions as to the source of the contaminants are determined. Staff will
update the council at appropriate intervals regarding progress of this work and future study issues
requested for study by the group.

Recommendation No. 19: Conduct a spatial survey of Lake Wheeler bottom sediments to
determine whether the west side of Lake Wheeler is an ongoing source of pathogens or if it
contains very high concentrations of objectionable materials.
Proposed Action: The Public Works and Utilities Director has engaged a consultant, George
Pesacreta, PhD, PG, to perform the study of objectionable materials as outlined in
recommendation number 19. The spatial survey of sediments will be accomplished as part of
Raleigh/Wake County Lake Wheeler Study discussed above. This study will include video
investigations of the lake bottom sediments. A report is expected in early 2007 from Dr.
Pesecreta. This report will identify any material found in the sediments and attempt to link that
material to the spill if applicable by comparing the stream up and down stream of the June
sewage spill. This information will be utilized in the long term study identified in the response to
number 18, above.

Recommendation No. 20: Conduct a hydraulic gradient study of groundwater wells near Lake
Wheeler to confirm the working assumption that groundwater moves away from the water table
towards the stream valley deep wells within 500 feet of the lake.
Proposed Action: The Environmental Specialist in the Engineering Department is leading an
effort to conduct a Lake Wheeler Hydrogeological Study that will address impacts to potable
water wells within 500 feet of the lake. Proposals are currently being evaluated for this report. It
is expected to be completed in late March 2007 depending upon the progress of the associated
field work. Permission will be required from private property owners, including the City of
Raleigh, to access areas to conduct this study. A staff report will be presented to Council after
completion of this report to discuss the results.

Fiscal Impact: Except where noted, proposed actions will be taken within the limits of existing
funding and staffing. Where new expenditures are needed to address recommendations, funding
will be requested through future staff reports to Council or through the budget process.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council accept the Brown and Caldwell report,
and accept the proposed actions described in this staff report. Since the work described herein
covers a broad range of topics and some tasks may take time to complete, staff’s
recommendation is for a general acceptance of the proposed actions. More detailed actions may
be required in the future as described in this staff report. The following table summarizes
responsibilities for completing each of the actions proposed in this staff report:




                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 79
 No.   Report Recommendation          Lead Department               Task Manager
  1    Engineering Collaboration                           Associate Director of Engineering,
                                      Engineering/PWUT
       with PWUT                                                   Utilities Director
  2    Criticality Review of
                                        Public Works             Public Works Director
       Facilities
  3    Require a Sequence of
       Construction, a
       Maintenance of Facility           Engineering       Associate Director of Engineering
       Operations Plan, and an
       Emergency Plan
  4    Confirm Location and
                                         Engineering       Associate Director of Engineering
       Constraints on Construction
  5    Importance of Accurate
                                         Engineering       Associate Director of Engineering
       Record Drawings
  6    Confirm that Record
                                         Engineering       Associate Director of Engineering
       Drawings are Accurate
  7    Tie Acceptability of Record
                                         Engineering       Associate Director of Engineering
       Drawings to Payment
  8    Communicate Criticality
       and Constraints for               Engineering       Associate Director of Engineering
       Construction
  9    Define Roles and                                     Director of Engineering, Public
                                      Engineering/PWUT
       Responsibilities                                      Works and Utilities Director
 10    Ensure Geotechnical
                                                            Director of Engineering, Public
       Engineering Resources are         Engineering
                                                             Works and Utilities Director
       Available
 11    Conduct Surge Analysis         Public Works and
                                                           Public Works and Utilities Director
                                           Utilities
 12    Condition Assessment for                             Director of Engineering, Public
                                      Engineering/PWUT
       the Existing Force Main                               Works and Utilities Director
 13    NIMS-Based Training              Public Works            Public Works Director
 14    Procedures for
                                                            Director of Engineering, Public
       Interdepartmental              Engineering/PWUT
                                                             Works and Utilities Director
       Collaboration
 15    Flood Protection at Critical                        Associate Director of Engineering,
                                      Engineering/PWUT
       Facilities                                                  Utilities Director
 16    Temporary Pumping                                   Associate Director of Engineering,
                                      Engineering/PWUT
       Connections                                                 Utilities Director
 17    Purchase Trailer-Mounted
                                        Public Works                Utilities Director
       Pumps
 18    Plan to Mitigate
                                        Public Utilities            Utilities Director
       Eutrophication
 19    Survey of Lake Wheeler
                                        Public Utilities   Public Works and Utilities Director
       Bottom Sediments
 20    Hydraulic Gradient Study of
       Groundwater Wells Near            Engineering           Environmental Specialist
       Lake Wheeler

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________



                                                                        December 14, 2006
                                                                                 Page 80
        u. 2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (FN07-002)
           After presentation of the 2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and
           statements by Cherry Bekaert & Holland auditor Eddie Burke, committee
           unanimously recommended that the report be entered into the Town Council record.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (FN07-02)
Presentation of the fiscal year 2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Speaker: Karen Mills

From: Karen A. Mills, Finance Director
Prepared by: Michelle W. Price, Controller
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Staff has prepared the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (the "CAFR"), and Cherry,
Bekaert & Holland LLP, certified public accountants, has completed the audit of the Town of
Cary's financial statements for fiscal year 2006. This report to Council is intended to officially
present the CAFR to the Town Council, provide the auditors an opportunity to address Council to
make a required statement and comment on the audit process, and to respond to any questions
from Council members.

The CAFR was submitted to the Local Government Commission, a division of the State of North
Carolina Treasurer’s office, in accordance with the October 31st deadline.

The accounting process leading to the completion of the CAFR and the preparation of the report
itself are the responsibility of the Town of Cary. Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP reviewed the
work of the Town of Cary staff in order to express an opinion on the fairness of the presentation in
accordance with accounting and reporting standards. Based on their observations and work
experiences at the Town of Cary, in a positive reflection of the Town’s day to day procedures and
internal controls over financial transactions, Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP did not issue a
management letter to the Town regarding any suggested changes or improvements in the Town’s
internal control or accounting procedures.

As required by auditing standards, the auditors issued an informational letter to the Town Council
that further describes their responsibilities and includes additional detailed information regarding
the audit. The letter reflects a passed adjustment for $2.3 million regarding development fee
credits. At June 30, accounting records reflected the credit as an expired liability; however,
Council had approved an extension of the expiration date of the credit voucher through a
Planning and Development Committee meeting. As a result of this oversight, the Accounting
Division now reviews all Council agendas for action with financial impacts.          Previously the
division had only monitored the Operations Committee for budget amendment and financial
issues. The letter requires no response or action by Council.

The CAFR is broken into five sections to disclose both the audited financial statements as well as
supplemental financial information beyond minimum financial reporting requirements.
    The report begins with an introductory section that includes components such as a
       managerial overview of the Town, organizational chart, Town history and a listing of
       Town officials.
    The financial section begins on page 17 and contains the audit report and the audited
       financial statements of the Town.          The audited financial statements include a
       management discussion and analysis of the financial position and the results of activities
       for fiscal year 2006. The statements also include three additional components, or
       presentations, of the financial position and results. The first presentation is an entity-wide

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 81
        perspective for all activities of the Town combined to provide the reader with a broad
        overview of the Town’s finances, similar in format to a financial statement of a private-
        sector business. The second presentation includes the fund financial statements that
        focus on the individual components of the Town’s government such as the General Fund
        and the Utility Fund. The third component is the notes to the financial statements that
        provide explanatory detail that is integral to the understanding of the Town’s financial
        position and results.
       Supplementary financial information begins on page 101 to provide further detail to the
        consolidated information in the fund financial statements.
       The statistical section beginning on page 143 includes data on financial trends, revenue
        capacity, debt capacity, demographic and economic, and operating information. This
        section is intended to enhance the reader’s understanding of the financial reports.
       The compliance section begins on page 199 to report federal and state grants and
        awards and revenue bond covenant compliance as well as auditor opinions on the
        Town’s compliance with award and covenant requirements.

Staff has also prepared a summary of key financial results reflected in the report.

After Council acceptance of the report, copies of the CAFR will be provided to the rating agencies
and other interested parties, and a copy will be placed in the Cary Library. Staff will also present
the CAFR and additional financial data to national information repositories so that Town of Cary
bond holders and persons interested in investing in Town of Cary debt on the secondary market
will have current financial information. In addition, the CAFR will be submitted to the Government
Finance Officers’ Association with an application to again earn the Government Finance Officers'
Association Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting for the report.

Fiscal Impact: Presentation of report only. No fiscal impact.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council minutes reflect the presentation of the
fiscal year 2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

CHERRY BEKAERT & HOLLAND
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
& CONSULTANTS

The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Town of Cary, North Carolina

Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council:

We have audited the financial statements of the town of Cary, North Carolina (the “Town”) for the
year ended June 30, 2006, and have issued our report thereon dated September 29, 2006. As
required by auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS), we
are providing you with the information shown below relative to the conduct of our audit. This
report is intended solely for the use of the Audit Committee and management of the Town and is
not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

OUR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER GAAS, OMB CIRCULAR A-133 AND THE STATE SINGLE
AUDIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Our responsibility under GAAS is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, but not
absolute, assurance that the financial statements of the Town are free of material misstatement
and are fairly presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America. Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, not absolute assurance
and because we did not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that
material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us.

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 82
In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Town’s internal control over financial
reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion
on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial
reporting. We also considered internal control over compliance with requirements that could have
a direct and material effect on a major federal and State program in order to determine our
auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and
report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and the State
Single Audit Implementation Act.

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether Town’s financial statements are free of
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,
regulations, contracts and grants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material
effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on
compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit. Also, in accordance with
OMB Circular A-133 and the State Single Audit Implementation Act, we examined, on a test
basis, evidence about the Town’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements
described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Compliance
Supplement and the Audit Manual for Governmental Auditors in North Carolina applicable to each
of its major federal and State programs for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the Town’s
compliance with those requirements. While our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion,
it does not provide a legal determination on the Town’s compliance with those requirements.

INDEPENDENCE

We are familiar with Rule 101 of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct, and its
interpretations and rulings. As far as the Town is concerned, our firm has been, for the period
covered by the financial statements under report and thereafter to date, in fact independent as
contemplated by such Rule.

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. In
accordance with the terms of our engagement letter, we will advise management about the
appropriateness of accounting policies and their application. Note 1 to the financial statements of
the Town contains a summary of significant accounting policies. During the year ended June 30,
2006 the Town was required to adopt the following financial accounting policies.

GASB Statement No. 42 “Accounting and Financial Reporting for Impairment of Capital
Assets and for Insurance Recoveries”, became effective for the Town on July 1, 2005. This
statement established accounting and financial reporting standards for the impairment of capital
assets. Under the statement a capital asset is considered to be impaired when its service utility
has declined significantly and unexpectedly. Capital assets meeting the definition of impairment
under this statement must be written down to fair market value. We evaluated the Town’s capital
assets for impairment during our audit and did not identify any situation that required existing
assets to be written down.

GASB Statement No. 46 “Net Assets Restricted by Enabling Legislation—an amendment of
GASB Statement No. 34” became effective for the Town on July 1, 2005. This Statement
specified the accounting and financial reporting requirements if new enabling legislation replaces
existing enabling legislation or if legal enforceability is reevaluated. This Statement also required
that governments disclose the portion of total net assets that is restricted by enabling legislation.
This statement did not have any impact on the Town during the year.

GASB Statement No. 47 “Accounting for Termination Benefits” became effective for the
Town on July 1, 2005. This Statement required that employers disclose or include a description

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 83
of any termination benefit arrangements, the cost of the termination benefits (required in the
period in which the employer becomes obligated in that information is not otherwise identifiable
from information displayed on the face of the financial statements), and significant methods and
assumptions used to determine termination benefit liabilities. This statement did not have any
impact on the Town during the year.

We noted no transactions entered into by the Town during the year that were both significant and
unusual, and of which, under professional standards, we are required to inform you, or any
significant transactions for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.

MANAGEMENT JUDGMENTS AND ACCOUNT ESTIMATES

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management
and are based upon management’s current judgments. Certain accounting estimates are
particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the
possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current
judgments.

Management’s estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts, depreciable lives used for
depreciation, and Incurred But Not Reported Claims liability for its self insurance plan is based on
an analysis of historical collection trends, current customer relations, credit sales levels, industry
factors and current and anticipated economic conditions, and the category of individual capital
assets. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates to
determine that they seemed reasonable in relation to the financial statements of the Town for the
year ended June 30, 2006, taken as a whole. While the procedures used by management and
the amount of these estimates seem reasonable at this time, there will usually be differences
between the estimates and actual results and these differences may be material.

SIGNIFICANT AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS

For purposes of this letter, professional standards define an audit adjustment as a proposed
correction f the financial statements that, in our judgment, may not have been detected except
through our auditing procedures. An audit adjustment may or may not indicate matters that could
have a significant effect on the Town’s financial reporting process (that is, cause future financial
statements to be materially misstated).

We propose an adjustment to increase the accounts payable $792,330. We felt the increase was
desirable in order to make the accounts payable adequate as of June 30, 2006, based on our
evaluation of June 30, 2006 accounts payable detail and disbursements made by the client
subsequent to year end. Management agreed with us and made the adjustment.

SUMMARY OF AUDIT DIFFERENCES

Included as an attachment to this letter is a summary of uncorrected financial statements
misstatements aggregated during our audit of the Town’s financial statements for the period
ended June 30, 2006 whose effects management believes are immaterial, both individually and in
the aggregate to the financial statements taken as a whole. These adjustments consisted of one
in the amount of $2,287,786 to reverse revenue recognized on an expired developer credit that
had not actually expired and one in the amount of $34,043 to recognize a subsequent
disbursement that should have been accrued at June 30, 2006.

OTHER INFORMATION IN DOCUMENTS CONTAINING AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Our responsibility for other information in documents containing the Town’s financial statements
and our report thereon does not extend beyond the financial information identified in our report
and we have no obligation to perform any procedures to corroborate other information contained

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 84
in these documents. We have, however, read the other information included in the Town’s
annual report and no matters came to our attention that cause us to believe that such information,
or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its
presentation, appearing in the financial statements.

CHERRY, BEKAERT & HOLLAND, L.L.P.

Raleigh, North Carolina
September 29, 2006

                   Summary of Uncorrected Financial Statement Misstatements

                                                                  Effect of Current Year Differences
                                                 Journal entry needed to correct misstatement – Dr.
                                                                                                (Cr.)
                             Assets     Liabilities     Equity              Revenue        Expense
1   Revenue                                                                 2,287,786
       Deferred                        (2,287,786)
    Revenue
To remove overstatement of revenue (Development credits).

2   Expense                                                                                 34,043
       Accounts                               (34,043)
    payable
To properly accrue FY06 liability

                                       Key Financial Results

Entity-wide:
As shown on page 33, on an entity-wide basis under accounting standards similar to those of
private business, Town net assets are $954.1 million, an increase of $105.6 million from the FY
2005 balance of $848.5 million. Of this increase, $39.4 million resulted from the merger of the
Town of Cary’s water and sewer utility system with the Town of Morrisville water and sewer utility
system. Additionally, $47.9 million was related to street and utility infrastructure constructed and
donated by developers or acquired through annexations. Total net assets of the Town include
the Town’s investment in capital assets, restricted assets and other non-cash assets, therefore
the majority of total net assets is not available for appropriation for operations or capital spending
and should not be compared to traditional analysis of fund balance in the General Fund. A five
year trend of the detail of changes in entity- wide net assets is a new table in the statistical
section beginning on page 147 of the CAFR.

Governmental funds:
Under more conventional governmental accounting used most for analysis and planning, the
governmental fund activities and results are summarized beginning on page 38. The balance
sheet shows that the General Fund fund balance at June 30, 2006 was $68.6 million which is a
$3 million increase from $65.6 million at June 30, 2005. A table showing ten year historical
comparisons of fund balance is included in the statistical section on page 150.

The final amended budget for the General Fund for fiscal year 2006 authorized a $11.6 million
appropriation from fund balance, so the actual $3 million increase is $14.6 million better than
budgeted. The $14.6 million budget variance was a result of revenues that exceeded budget by
$7 million (a 7.6% variance) and a $6.3 net positive budget variance (7.0%) in actual
expenditures compared to budgeted expenditures. The remaining $1.3 million variance was
primarily the result of accounting standards that require capital leases to be shown as a financing
source although the leases did not provide cash resources to the Town. The Budgetary

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 85
Comparison Statement that begins on page 45 of the CAFR provides details that are summarized
below.

The $7 million positive revenue variance primarily resulted from:
       $1.3 million in property taxes,
       $3.0 million in permits and fees and
       $1.4 million in investment earnings.

The property tax assessed value increased 5% in fiscal year 2006 compared to fiscal year 2005.

The $6.3 million positive expenditure variance primarily resulted from:
       $1.5 million in budgeted interest expense for debt that has not yet been incurred,
       $1.0 million in affordable housing authorization that was not spent,
       $0.9 million savings spread over 13 general government functions, (4.4%)
       $1.5 million savings in public safety functions (5.2%),
       $2.3 million savings in public works functions (10.2%), and
       $0.6 million savings in parks, recreation and cultural resources (7.1%),
       net of $1.5 million in planned expenditure budget savings.

General Fund capital spending increased $8 million in fiscal year 2006 to $45.3 million compared
to $37.4 million in fiscal year 2005. Details of spending by project fund are shown beginning on
page 106. Street spending in 2006 decreased slightly from 2005 and parks and recreation
project spending more than tripled with construction of the USA Baseball facility at Thomas
Brooks Park. $33.2 million remains designated for future spending in the governmental capital
project fund.

Proprietary funds:
Page 120 of the CAFR shows that Utility System Operations earned $7.5 million income before
capital transfers and contributions in fiscal year 2006. By comparison, Utility System Operations
gained $3.2 million before capital transfers and contributions in fiscal year 2005. The utility
safely met the debt service coverage ratios specified by the revenue bond covenants as detailed
on page 227.

Comparisons on a budgetary basis differ slightly from results under accrual accounting principals,
but provide meaningful insight for comparing fiscal years. These schedules begin on page 122.
Total revenues were budgeted to increase $4.2 million from fiscal year 2005 actual results,
primarily based on a 17% sewer rate increase implemented for fiscal year 2006 and the addition
of Morrisville utility customers beginning April 1, 2006. Actual revenues were 3% greater than
budget.

Continued analysis on a budgetary basis shows that utility system operations expenditures had
an overall increase of approximately $2.9 million which is primarily the result of purchased
wastewater treatment services from Durham, increased debt service and the addition of
Morrisville utility customers.

Although fund balance is not technically reported under proprietary accounting for the utility fund,
staff computes fund balance for utility operations in a manner similar to the general fund to gauge
the amount of equity that is truly available for appropriation, emergency funding requirements,
etc. Utility system operational fund balance increased $6.8 million from $25.2 million at June 30,
2005 to $32 million at June 30, 2006.

Utility capital spending decreased to $16.6 million in fiscal year 2006 compared to $21 million in
fiscal year 2005 as the North Cary Water Reclamation Facility expansion, thermal biosolids dryer
and pump station expansions neared completion.




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 86
Debt:
General fund debt service held steady fiscal year 2006. Total debt service expenditures were
$1.5 million less than budgeted because a bond sale was postponed and associated interest
expense was not incurred. The sale occurred early in fiscal year 2007. The Utility Fund incurred
$2.4 million in 2006 in new debt obligations to the State of North Carolina for the thermal biosolids
dryer revolving loan.

Federal and State grants and awards:
Pages 199-201 outline fiscal year 2006 spending under grant programs. Total grant funded
spending decreased to $8 million due to near completion of the Thermal Biosolids Dryer and the
Fiber Optic Traffic Signal System. The Town benefited $7.9 million from 23 different state and
federal grant awards in 2006.

Overall summary:
Both the general fund and the utility system operations fund balances increased and further
strengthened the Town’s financial position which will help to ensure the maintenance of the
Town’s exceptionally strong bond ratings and future financial flexibility.

The CAFR is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit A.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        v. Cary Aquatic Center Plan Development Process (PR07-014)
           Committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed approach and
           schedule for the site selection and development of the Cary Aquatic Center.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Cary Aquatic Center Plan Development Process (PR07-14)
Consideration of the proposed approach and schedule for the site selection and development of
the Cary Aquatic Center
Speaker: Mary G. Henderson, PRCR Director

From: Mary G. Henderson, PRCR Director
Prepared by: Mary G. Henderson, PRCR Director
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Introduction
At the work session on November 8, 2006, Town Council voted to pursue a regional aquatics
venue concept for the Town. This decision was conditional upon a private group—Friends of the
Town of Cary Aquatics Center—making a commitment to and creating a fundraising plan to
contribute at least $5 million of the facility’s expected $30 million capital cost. Council approved
an aquatic facility that would include an outdoor recreation pool, an indoor recreation pool, and an
indoor 50 meter-by-25 yard competition pool with spring board diving and seating for 1,000
spectators. A detail of the facility components and cost estimate is included in Attachment 1
herein. The estimate does not include the cost of land. While no specific location was identified
for this facility, the Town Council directed staff to analyze vacant sites of at least 15 acres in the
north Cary area, including but not limited to a 30-acre parcel owned by the Town across from its
existing North Cary Park near the intersection of Cary Parkway and Norwell Boulevard. Council
directed Town staff to develop a proposal for how to proceed with the project, starting with a site
analysis process plan and present to Council in December 2006.

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 87
Proposed Plan Process
In order to initiate the project, staff recommends that a Request for Proposals be developed and
released so that a design team can be hired. Staff proposes two distinct phases for the project.
Phase I would include identifying a preferred site in north Cary, completing a space program for
the aquatic facility, providing preliminary project cost estimates, and completing a master plan of
the facility on the preferred site. During Phase I staff will return to Council for final site selection
and to approve the master plan for the proposed aquatic center.

The composition of the design team will consist of an architectural firm and, at a minimum,
engineering consultants as well as an expert in the field of aquatics. It is expected that the Town
will contract directly with the architectural firm as the project lead. (If Council directs staff to
proceed w/ Phase II, it is intended that the design team will be contracted to also complete Phase
II.)

Phase I will include the following tasks:
    Site Identification: The consultants will analyze selected sites that the Town has
        identified as potential sites for the Cary Aquatic Center, and recommend a site for the
        facility.
    Programming/Concept: This phase of the work will consist of refining the list of program
        spaces for the new aquatic facility.
    Schematic Design: Documentation shall consist of preliminary building plans, sections
        and elevations, study models, perspective sketches, electronic modeling, or combinations
        of these media.
    Cost Estimation - Preparation of cost estimates will be ongoing throughout Phase I.
    Master Plan: The consultant(s) will develop a master plan for the aquatic center site.
        This step will include alternative studies with a preliminary cost estimate for the selected
        alternative.

Phase II will include design development, bidding, and construction administration as follows:
 Construction Documents: Completion of construction drawings based on the approved
   Program Plan
 Permits - All necessary permits and approvals will be obtained during Phase II.
 Cost Estimate – A final cost estimate will be developed based on approved plans.
 Site Plan Review - The consultant will be responsible for submitting to the Town of Cary for
   site plan review and obtaining approval.
 Administer bidding and construction - The consultant will be responsible for development of
   specifications and a bid document.
 Business Plan – The aquatic professional will complete a final business plan to include a fee
   structure analysis that will address cost recovery related to the operational, maintenance, and
   capital renewal expenses for the Center.
 Move-in/Contract closeout – The consultant will be required to provide construction contract
   closeout documentation including operations and maintenance manuals, certificates,
   warranties, inspection reports, shop drawings, and drawings of record.

Private Fundraising
Staff has met once since the work session with Hill Carrow, Friends of the Cary Aquatic Facility,
to initiate discussions about the development of the fund-raising plan. The plan is being
developed to secure both individual and corporate dollars. It is recommended that the fund
raising plan, as developed by Friends of the Cary Aquatic Facility, be presented to Council for
approval at the time that the design team recommendation is also presented to Council for
approval. Progress reports will be provided, unless otherwise requested by Council, at each time
that the project is presented to Council for review and consideration as recommended below.




                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 88
Public Input
As with all Town projects, public input will be an important element of the planning process.
Opportunities for public input during Phase I are recommended as follows:
    1. Public input meeting to comment on the site selection.
    2. PRCR Advisory Board review and recommendation of site.
    3. Public input meeting to refine programming.
    4. PRCR Advisory Board review and recommendation of Master Plan.
During Phase II, the following opportunities are recommended:
   1. Public input meeting prior to final site plan approval.
   2. Public input meeting to comment on the business plan.
   3. PRCR Advisory Board review and recommendation of the business plan.

Next Steps
Staff recommends that the project be brought to Council in the time frame estimated below for
further consideration as the following tasks are completed:
     1. Council approval of the design team, fund-raising plan (April 2007).
     2. Council approval of site selection, update on private fund-raising, and related additional
         appropriation of land costs if necessary (August 2007).
     3. Council approval of the Master Plan at the conclusion of Phase 1, contract for Phase II
         design, and update on private fund-raising (October 2007).
     4. Bid Award (October 2008).

The entire planning, design and ultimately construction of the Cary Aquatic Center is expected to
take approximately three years and be completed in late 2009.

Fiscal Impact: Capital costs are estimated to be $30 million (details provided in Attachment 1
herein). Staff recommends that the Town contract with the design team for Phase 1 initially, and,
upon direction to move forward with the project, contract with the design team for Phase II.
Capital costs and the business will be refined as the project proceeds. The annual operating
cash flow, as previously presented to Council, is expected to be approximately negative
$300,000.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed phasing, process, and
schedule for the Cary Aquatic Center as presented.

ATTACHMENT 1
Detailed Cost Estimate

Unit                                                                      Sq. Ft.        Opinion of
                                                                                              Cost

Demolition                                                                                      $0

Public Spaces                                                              8,130        $1,641,500
        Lobby                                                              1,500
        Control / Cashier                                                    180
        Administrative Offices (2)                                           250
        Vending / Concession Area                                            800
        Restrooms M/W (2)                                                  1,000
        Locker Rooms                                                       4,000
        Family Changing Room (2)                                             400

Aquatic Center                                                            41,155       $12,649,050
       50 Meter X 25 Yard                                                 12,750
         Bulkhead                                                              1


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 89
Unit                                                                   Sq. Ft.      Opinion of
                                                                                         Cost
            Moveable Floor                                                  1
            Springboard Diving                                              4
            Spectator Seating (1000)                                    6,000
            Meet Management Review                                        750
          Competitive Natatorium                                       22,155
          Recreation Pool                                               5,800
            Participatory Play Feature                                      1
            Current channel                                                 2
            Vortex                                                          1
            Waterslide                                                      1
            Spa                                                           200
          Leisure Natatorium                                            9,500
          Storage                                                       1,000
          Pool Mechanical Room                                          2,500

Fitness                                                                 2,250       $380,500
          Fitness Area                                                  2,000
          Fitness Control Desk                                            200
          Fitness Storage                                                  50

Administrative Support                                                  1,670       $288,500
       Director Office                                                    200
       Superintendent Office                                              120
       Supervisor Office (2)                                              250
       Intern Workstations                                                400
       Work Room                                                          350
       Conference Room                                                    350

Building Support                                                        2,780       $446,500
        Building Mechanical                                             2,000
        Electrical                                                        500
        Janitor                                                           100
        Elevator                                                           80
        Elevator Machine                                                  100

Efficiency                                                             11,197      $1,679,550
        Circulation and Walls (20%)                                    11,197

Total Building Construction Costs                                      67,182     $17,085,600

Site Construction Costs (parking lot, landscaping, utilities, walks)               $1,679,550

Furnishings & Equipment                                                              $500,000
Subtotal                                                                          $19,265,150

Inflation (2 year)                                                       10%       $1,926,515

Contingency                                                              10%       $2,119,167

Indirect Costs                                                            9%       $2,097,975

Outdoor Aquatics                                                                   $4,260,000

                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 90
Unit                                                                       Sq. Ft.        Opinion of
                                                                                               Cost

Total Estimated Project Costs:                                                          $29,668,806
Say                                                                                     $29,669,000

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        w. Roadside Maintenance Staffing Changes (PWUT07-011)
           Committee unanimously recommended increasing the level of roadside maintenance
           on Davis Drive, Green Level to Durham Road, Tryon Road, High House Road and
           McCrimmon Parkway, adding four new positions (Facilities Maintenance Worker I,
           Facilities Maintenance Worker II, Facilities Maintenance Worker III, and a Facilities
           Work Expeditor), and appropriating $143,865 ($63,295 for salaries/benefits and
           $80,570 for capital outlay) from General Fund Fund Balance. Committee also
           recommended converting three temporary positions to regular positions,
           appropriating $22,000 from General Fund Fund Balance for the additional personnel
           costs related to this change.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 11, 2006

Roadside Maintenance Staffing Changes (PWUT07-11)
Consideration of modifying current roadside maintenance level of surface and staffing
Speaker: Mike Bajorek

From: Robert K. (Kim) Fisher, P.E., Director of Public Works and Utilities
Prepared by: Mike Bajorek, Public Works Director
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Solid Waste Staffing Update
In the FY 2006 budget, Council approved phasing in collection modifications in both solid waste
and recycling. This resulted in the elimination of 17 positions during that budget year. Through a
comprehensive re-training program and a hiring freeze throughout the Public Works Department,
all at risk solid waste employees were able to be reassigned into other positions.

In April 2006, Council approved a plan which accelerated the purchase of all the new solid waste
collection vehicles. This decision substantially condensed the time period in which 15 additional
positions would be eliminated. If current delivery dates are met, staff anticipates new automated
and commingled collection vehicles will be placed in service by March 2007. On this schedule,
we project approximately 12 additional employees will be released at that time through a
reduction in force.

Roadside Maintenance Update
Currently, the Facilities Maintenance Division of the Public Works and Utilities Department
maintains 5,557,000 square feet of roadside medians/shoulders. This work is separated into two
distinct levels of service. Our “Cary Parkway” level of service consists of a 5 work-day cycle
which includes mowing, edging, litter control, and weed control. In addition, this service level also
includes seasonal turf fertilization, over-seeding, mulching, and pruning of trees and shrubs. This
service is provided to 1,022,000 square foot of medians/shoulders of Cary Parkway only. The
annual cost of this service is approximately $102,200 or $0.10/square foot.


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 91
Staff also maintains the 4,535,000 square feet of additional medians/shoulders on 25
thoroughfares throughout the town. These thoroughfares are maintained at what staff refers to as
our “Maynard Road” level of service. This level of service consists of a 7 work-day cycle and
includes mowing, edging of curb & gutter, and litter control. Mulching and pruning are done on a
seasonal basis. The annual cost of this service level is approximately $140,000 or $0.03/square
foot.

In addition, there are five major roads in Cary – Davis Drive, Green Level to Durham Road, Tryon
Road, High House Road (west of Davis Drive) and McCrimmon Parkway – for which landscape
maintenance is currently provided by NCDOT. The “NCDOT” level of service consists of only
three mowings per growing season. In each of these cases, construction activity has recently
been completed or traffic volumes have substantially increased over the past few years. These
roads have a total of over 1,108,000 square feet of medians and shoulders.

Roadside Maintenance Opportunity
With the solid waste modifications and additional pressures on our roadside maintenance
function, staff has developed three options for Council’s consideration.

Option One            Maintain current square feet of median/shoulder with existing staff.
(no change)           Keep current “Maynard Road” (7 work-day cycle) level of service.
                      NCDOT continues to maintain Davis Dr, Green Level to Durham Rd,
                       Tryon Rd, High House Rd, and McCrimmon Parkway.
Advantages                                    Disadvantages
 Current LOS for town maintained                 Some high traffic volume thoroughfares
   thoroughfares remain unchanged                  receive turf maintenance services
 No additional cost ramifications                 substantially lower than others in Town.
                                                  12 solid waste collection employees are
                                                   released in reduction in force action

Option Two             Maintain current service levels on median/shoulder and address
                        maintenance modifications in FY 2008 budget process.

Advantages                                       Disadvantages
 Current turf maintenance level of service         Some high traffic volume thoroughfares
   for thoroughfares throughout town remain          receive turf maintenance services
   unchanged.                                        substantially lower than others in Town
 No additional cost ramifications in FY2007.        and modifications.
 Opportunity to discuss and prioritize             If approved, turf maintenance
   service level modifications during budget         modifications will not go into effect until
   process.                                          summer 2007.
                                                    12 solid waste collection employees are
                                                     released in reduction in force action in
                                                     March 2007.
                                                    Four (4) new employees hired in late
                                                     July/early August if turf maintenance
                                                     modification is approved.




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 92
Option Three           Approve personnel and equipment to increase roadside
                        maintenance on thoroughfares currently being maintained by
                        NCDOT to the “Maynard Road” service level.

Advantages                                        Disadvantages
 All thoroughfares will be maintained at the        Decision to modify service level made
   “Maynard Road” LOS starting in Spring              outside of budget process.
   2007.                                             Mid-year appropriation required to fund
 Four solid waste collection employees               new personnel ($63,295 prorated salaries
   transferred into turf maintenance instead of       and benefits) and equipment ($80,570).
   being released in the reduction in force.

Staff requested a proposal from our current general turf maintenance contractor for providing
Option Three. After reviewing a statement of work and the Town’s preliminary cost projections,
the contractor declined to pursue the project.

Conversion of long term temporary employees to regular status
Over the past year, public works staff has audited its use of temporary staff. This review revealed
that for the most part, the Town relies on temporary personnel to accomplish peak seasonal
workloads. However, in the area of roadside turf maintenance, staff discovered temporary
employees are working year round. These positions were originally developed to support the
roadside program during the peak growing periods. However, as the roadside level of service
increased to include year round edging, litter collection, mulching and pruning, the need for these
positions year round became necessary. Currently, these temporary roadside positions have
been staffed by long term temporaries. After coordinating with the Human Resources
Department, the need to change three long-term “temporary” positions to regular-full time has
been recognized and is recommended to take effect in January 2007.

Fiscal Impact:
Roadside Maintenance: Approving personnel and equipment to increase roadside maintenance
on thoroughfares currently being maintained by NCDOT to the “Maynard Road” service level
(OPTION THREE) will result in the addition of four new positions (Facilities Maintenance Worker
I, Facilities Maintenance Worker II, Facilities Maintenance Worker III, and a Facilities Work
Expeditor). In FY 2007, $63,295 will be required to fund these personnel. In future years,
approximately $189,885 will be required annually. In addition, $80,570 will be required for a one-
time capital outlay for the purchase of equipment.

Temporary to regular employees: Converting three temporary roadside workers to regular
positions will require $22,000 in FY 2007. In future years, approximately $43,858 in additional
funding will be required.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve increasing the level of roadside
maintenance on specified NCDOT roads to the “Maynard Road” level of service (Option 3) and
the appropriation of $143,865 ($63,295 for salaries/benefits and $80,570 for capital outlay) from
General Fund Fund Balance.

Staff also recommends approving the conversion of three temporary positions to three
regular/full-time Landscape Maintenance Worker I (Grade 11) positions and appropriate $22,000
from General Fund Fund Balance for the additional personnel costs.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________


                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 93
        x. Coronado Way Water Contamination Study Results (PWUT07-012)
           Committee unanimously recommended that the Coronado Way Study Results be
           entered into the Town Council record.

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee, December 6, 2006

Coronado Way Water Contamination Study Results (PWUT07-12)
Results of the Coronado Way water contamination study
Speaker: Mike Bajorek

From: Robert K. (Kim) Fisher, P.E., Director of Public Works and Utilities
Prepared by: Mike Bajorek, Public Works Director
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

On September 21, 2006, the Town commissioned the consulting firm of Camp Dresser & McKee
(CDM) to evaluate the August 18th Coronado Way water system contamination event.

CDM concluded while there are several ways coliform bacteria could be introduced into the
distribution system, it is evident from the testing prior to and during the event that the
contamination was localized. Based on this determination, CDM concentrated their study on the
following possible causes:
 Un-permitted plumbing work at 107 Coronado Way and the removal of an RV from the yard
     early on Saturday, August 19, 2006.
 Bacterial growth or re-growth from the green garden hose connected to the outside faucet at
     107 Coronado Way that tested positive for total coliform (TC+).
 A crack found in the piping to the faucet at 104 Coronado Way from which the original sample
     was taken.
 Contamination originating from a pipe break, pressure transient, or other source within the
     distribution system such as the cleaning and lining work of a nearby sewer line.
 Sampling or laboratory error.

CDM concluded the cracked pipe found at 104 Coronado Way and the un-permitted construction
activity on 107 Coronado Way suggest the high potential for localized coliform contamination of
samples collected at those points but only low potential for causing more widespread
contamination of the distribution system of the Town’s water supply. Immediately following
discovery of the contamination, the system was extensively flushed and the chlorine dose
increased for protection of public health. This occurred before CDM’s investigation actually
started and conditions had changed due to time, the Town’s actions, and other factors such as
the relocation of the RV from 107 Coronado Way. As a result, the exact cause of contamination
could not be conclusively determined.

The report points out that even though the Town has an exceptional compliance record for
bacteriological contamination, less than 1% (only 6 of 1,200 compliance samples) TC+ in the
calendar year 2005, the potential of finding E. coli is so disruptive to the community the following
program modifications should be reviewed:
 Revise the current TCR (Total Coliform Report) sampling plan to eliminate potentially non-
    representative sites such as damaged or unused outdoor residential faucets. In conjunction
    with reviewing sampling sites, CDM recommends installing dedicated sampling units.
 Formalize protocols for the investigation and coordination of activities for evaluating future
    contamination events.
 Evaluate enhancing the Town’s modified Uniform Directional Flow (UDF) flushing program.
 Formalize standard procedures for monitoring and tracking biofilms and nitrification in the
    distribution system.


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 94
    Increase the implementation pace of the backflow prevention program to require a backflow
     preventor at each existing tap.
 Evaluate the addition of adding on-line chlorine analyzers in the distribution system.
Staff concurs with these recommendations. Procedural changes that require no incremental
fiscal impact will be implemented within the next 60 days. Recommendations requiring additional
funding will be addressed in the upcoming FY 2008 budget process.

Fiscal Impact: N/A

Staff Recommendation: This information is presented to update council on the findings of the
investigation of the Coronado Way water contamination incident. No action is required.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mrs. Robison provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS

    1. Recognition of Cindi King as the recipient of the Distinguished Young Professional Award
       from the NC Recreation and Park Association. (Dr. Beth Wilson, Chairperson of the
       Citations and Awards Committee of the NC Recreation and Park Association)

    2. Recognition of Mary Henderson as the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from
       the NC Recreation and Park Association. (Dr. Beth Wilson, Chairperson of the
       Citations and Awards Committee of the NC Recreation and Park Association)

Dr. Wilson recognized Cindi King and Mary Henderson of the parks, recreation and cultural
resources department for their achievements.

_________________________

D. PUBLIC HEARINGS

    The following rules apply to the first two special use public hearings (06-SU-008 and
    06-SU-009):

    These quasi-judicial hearings consider applications for a variance or a special use
    permit. Each requires an evidentiary hearing on the application, which will be heard by
    Council acting as a quasi-judicial board. The purpose of the hearing is to enable
    Council to gather legally acceptable evidence in order to establish sufficient facts to
    apply the applicable ordinance. No ex parte contact of Council is permitted. This
    means that Council should not discuss or receive information about the merits of the
    case from the parties, or members of the public, before the hearing. All testimony
    before Council must be "sworn" testimony. All persons wishing to speak on this
    matter must be sworn in. Applicants may elect to be represented by legal counsel. All
    persons wishing to speak will be given a reasonable time in which to be heard;
    however, groups are encouraged to select a spokesperson to speak for the group in
    order to avoid repetitious testimony. All documents provided to Council to consider as
    evidence should be numbered and copies must be provided to the Clerk and to the
    other party. Inflammatory, irrelevant or repetitious testimony is not permitted.

    The applicant has the burden of producing sufficient substantial, competent and
    material evidence for the Council to conclude that the standards of the applicable
    ordinance(s) have been met.


                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 95
    PROCEDURE FOR THE HEARING
    The procedure for hearing this case is as follows:
        A staff representative presents a preliminary statement.
        The applicant is called on to present the argument in support of the
           application, followed by others who wish to speak in support of the application.
        Persons opposed to the application are invited to speak.
        Both sides are permitted to question the other side.
        Both sides are permitted to present rebuttals.
        The hearing is closed.
    The Council deliberates in order to reach a decision. In the course of the deliberation,
    the Council may ask questions of the staff, the applicant or others who have testified,
    but beyond that, additional comments from the floor will be admitted only at the
    discretion of the Mayor.

   1.   Special Use 06-SU-008 (604 E. Chatham Street)
        All speakers must be administered an oath by the town clerk prior to speaking.
        Consideration of a request to operate a daycare center at 604 E. Chatham Street, Suites
        B, C and D. Council may take action. (Greg Barnes)

STAFF REPORT
Town Council, December 14, 2006

MiNeighborhood Playhouse Too (PL07-016)
Consideration of approval of a Special Use Permit 06-SU-008 to locate a day care center within
the Eastside Park complex on East Chatham Street
Speaker: Greg Barnes

From: Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Director, Planning Department
Prepared by: Greg Barnes, Planner II, Planning Department
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Special Uses are generally compatible with other land uses permitted in the zoning district, but
because of their unique characteristics or potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and
the Town, they require consideration as to location, design, configuration, and operation at the
particular location proposed {LDO Sec. 3.8.1(A)}. A site plan is necessary for this project and is
being reviewed (06-SP-103) in coordination with the Special Use Permit application. When
deciding Special Use Permits, Council must follow quasi-judicial procedures.

Requested Town Council Action

The applicant, Sylvia McNeill of MiNeighborhood Playhouse Too, has requested a Special Use
Permit to operate a day care center at 604 E. Chatham Street (Eastside Park). The property is
zoned Town Center/Mixed-Use - Conditional Use (TC/MXD-CU). According to Table 5.1-3 of the
Land Development Ordinance (LDO), a day care center is permitted in the Town Center/Mixed-
Use district only through the granting of a Special Use Permit by the Town Council.

Proposal

The applicant, Sylvia McNeil of MiNeighborhood Playhouse Too, has requested a Special Use
Permit in order to operate a day care center. The property is 0.66 acres and contains an existing
shopping center. The proposed day care use will occupy existing tenant space in the building and
no increase in the current size of the structure is proposed. There are 81 parking spaces on site
for the entirety of Eastside Park Complex. Parking requirements for a day care center are the


                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 96
same as the shopping center (1 space for every 200 square feet). The day care center includes a
proposed stacking lane with 4 spaces as required by the Land Development Ordinance.

Neighborhood Concerns

Notices were sent out to the surrounding property owners. Two general inquiries were received at
the time this staff report was completed. None of these inquires voiced opposition to the granting
of a special use permit for this applicant.

Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that the request meets the required seven special use
standards of Section 3.8.3 of the LDO necessary for approval of the Special Use Permit and
therefore recommends approval of the Special Use Permit without conditions.

                                     CARY TOWN COUNCIL

                          WORKSHEET AND SUGGESTED MOTIONS

                                          SPECIAL USE

Section 3.8.3 of the Town of Cary Land Development Ordinance requires that the proposed use
meets the following seven (7) general standards, based on the evidence and testimony received
at the public hearing or otherwise appearing in the record of the case.

(A) The proposed use or development of the land will generally conform with the Comprehensive
Plan, other official plans and manuals or documents adopted by the Town;

        Staff Comments: The Town Center Area Plan designates this parcel for Mixed (MXD)
        uses. A Day Care Center within a shopping center is consistent with this land use
        designation.

                                                                TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(B) The proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger the public health or
safety;

        Staff Comments: The proposed Day Care Center is located within the southern portions
        of the lot. Traffic in and out of Eastside Park will stay to the property’s northern boundary
        since there are no access points from the center’s southern boundary. A fenced play area
        will be provided ensuring the safety of children.

                                                                TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(C) The proposed use is reasonably necessary for the public health or general welfare, such as
by enhancing the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions or
by providing an essential service to the community;

        Staff Comments: The proposed day care center will serve the needs of the surrounding
        community by providing an important service to parents in the area. The proposed use
        will be located in an existing tenant space, keeping the shopping center occupied.

                                                                TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(D) The proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property;




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 97
        Staff Comments: The proposed day care center is located within an existing shopping
        center. The existence of such a use will not harm adjoining property values.

                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(E) The proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located;

        Staff Comments: The proposed day care center will not change the exterior of the
        existing building. A fenced play area will be located behind the building at the rear of the
        site, and will be screened from off-site view. The use will not adversely impact the scale,
        bulk, coverage, density, or character of the area.

                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(F) The proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water
supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal, and similar facilities;

        Staff Comments: The proposed day care center will be adequately served by the existing
        utilities and urban services.

                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(G) The proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard or unsafe
pedestrian pathway.

        Staff Comments: The day care center will provide a four-space stacking lane for drop-
        offs and pick-ups in accordance with the requirements of the LDO.

                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

MOTION TO GRANT THE APPLICATION WITHOUT CONDITIONS

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION IS REASONABLE AND IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF COMMENTS WHICH I MOVE BE
ADOPTED AS FINDINGS OF FACT AND THAT APPLICATION NUMBER 06-SU-008 HAS
SUCCESSFULLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3.8.3 OF THE CARY LAND
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND IS HEREBY GRANTED WITHOUT CONDITIONS.


MOTION TO GRANT THE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION IS REASONABLE AND IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF COMMENTS WHICH I MOVE BE
ADOPTED AS FINDINGS OF FACT AND THAT APPLICATION NUMBER 06-SU-008 HAS
SUCCESSFULLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3.8.3 OF THE CARY LAND
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND IS HEREBY GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:

1.
2.
3.




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 98
MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT APPLICATION NUMBER 06-SU-008 IS/IS NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS/IS NOT REASONABLE AND IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE _____ AND HAS FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 3.8.3 OF THE CARY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINACE AND THE
APPLICATION IS DENIED DUE TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

 Does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans because ___________;
Endangers the public health and safety because ______________;
Does not enhance the successful operation of the surrounding area in its community functions
or provide an essential service to the community because ____________;
Substantially injures the value of adjoining or abutting property owners because __________;
Is not harmonious with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, or character of the area because
_______________;
Is not appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, fire or police
protection, waste disposal or similar facilities because __________________;
Will cause undue traffic congestion or will create a traffic hazard or unsafe pedestrian pathway
because ________________.

The town clerk, who is also a Notary Public, administered oaths to the following persons: Mr.
Greg Barnes and Ms. Sylvia McNeill. These oaths are attached to and incorporated in these
minutes as Exhibit B. Staff’s power point presentation is attched to and incorporated in these
minutes as Exhibit C.

Mr. Sylvia McNeill, the applicant, stated by moving the center to this location, it will increase
business in the area. She personally has patronized several businesses in this area as well as
her staff. They have 48 families enrolled in the center, and these families would bring a lot of
attention to the other businesses in the area. She thinks it will be a great asset to the community.

No one else came forwarded to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

Ms. Dorrel asked the location of the stacking lane. Mr. Barnes pointed out the location on the
power point presentation and noted that traffic will flow one way. Ms. Dorrel asked if it will
negatively change the flow of traffic, and Mr. Barnes replied that the transportation section did not
indicate any problems.

ACTION: Ms. Dorrel moved that the application is reasonable and in the public interest as
set forth in the staff comments, which she moved be adopted as findings of fact, and that
application number 06-SU-008 has successfully met the requirements of Section 3.8.3 of
the Cary Land Development Ordinance and is hereby granted without conditions. Mrs.
Robison provided the second. Council granted unanimous approval.

__________________________

    2.   Special Use 06-SU-009 (2060 Sowter Drive)
         All speakers must be administered an oath by the town clerk prior to speaking.
         Consideration of a request to operate a mini-storage facility at 2060 Sowter Drive.
         Council may take action. (Kevin Hales)

STAFF REPORT
Town Council, December 14, 2006

North State Storage (PL07-018)
Consideration of approval of Special Use Permit 06-SU-009 to allow the establishment of a mini-


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 99
storage use in the Office/Research and Development District
Speaker: Kevin Hales

From: Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Director, Planning Department
Prepared by: Kevin A. Hales, Planner II, Planning Department
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Special Uses are generally compatible with other land uses permitted in the zoning district, but
because of their unique characteristics or potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and
the Town, they require consideration as to location, design, configuration, and operation at the
particular location proposed {LDO Sec. 3.8.1(A)}. When circumstances require site plan approval
in accordance with the LDO, The plan is reviewed in coordination with the Special Use Permit
application. When deciding Special Use Permits, Council must follow quasi-judicial procedures.

Proposal
The applicant, North State Storage, LLC, has requested a Special Use Permit in order to
establish a mini-storage use on the property located at 2060 Sowter Drive. The property is
located in an Office/Research and Development zoning district. The corresponding site plan (06-
SP-113) is being reviewed by Staff in conjunction with this application. The LDO prohibits the site
plan from being approved by staff prior to Town Council approval of the corresponding Special
Use Permit. Establishment or expansion of a mini-storage use is permitted in this zoning district
only through the granting of a Special Use Permit by the Town Council.

Neighborhood Concerns
Notices of the site plan submittal and the Special Use Permit request were mailed to the
surrounding property owners within four hundred (400) feet of the site on November 28, 2006.
The property was posted on November 29, 2006 and advertised in the two weeks prior to the
public hearing in accordance with NC State statutes. No inquiries have been received by Staff.

Staff Recommendation: Staff’s determination is that the request meets the required seven
Special Use standards of Section 3.8.3 of the LDO necessary for approval of the Special Use
Permit. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit without conditions.

                                    CARY TOWN COUNCIL

                          WORKSHEET AND SUGGESTED MOTIONS

                                         SPECIAL USE

Section 3.8.3 of the Town of Cary Land Development Ordinance requires that the following seven
(7) general standards must be met in order for the Town Council to grant a Special Use.

(A) The proposed use or development of the land will generally conform with the Comprehensive
Plan, other official plans and manuals or documents adopted by the Town;

Staff Comments: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcel as Office/Industrial.
Mini-storage uses are consistent with warehousing and other industrial-type uses.

                                                               TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(B) The proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger the public health or
safety;

Staff Comments: The establishment of a mini-storage use on the proposed site would not
materially endanger the public health or safety.

                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 100
                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(C) The proposed use is reasonably necessary for the public health or general welfare, such as
by enhancing the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions or
by providing an essential service to the community;

Staff Comments: The proposed use will serve the community’s off-site storage need as
surrounding developments currently under construction increase the number of households in the
vicinity.

                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(D) The proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property;

Staff Comments: The proposed use is located adjacent to an existing mini-storage use and other
vacant properties. The use will be screened by all required vegetative buffers and will not
adversely affect the value of surrounding properties.

                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(E) The proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located;

Staff Comments: The proposed use will be similar in size and scope to the adjacent mini-storage
use and therefore, in harmony with the scale and density of the surrounding area.

                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(F) The proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water
supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal, and similar facilities;

Staff Comments: The proposed mini-storage use will not require utility connections except for a
fire hydrant for fire protection. The property is located just off of a major thoroughfare (Davis
Drive) and therefore has immediate access to all public services and facilities.
                                                                    TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(G) The proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard or unsafe
pedestrian pathway.

Staff Comments: The proposed use will generate a minimal number of peak-hour trips per day
and should not contribute significantly to traffic or congestion in the area.

                                                                 TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

MOTION TO GRANT THE APPLICATION WITHOUT CONDITIONS

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION IS REASONABLE AND IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF COMMENTS WHICH I MOVE BE
ADOPTED AS FINDINGS OF FACT AND THAT APPLICATION NUMBER 06-SU-009 HAS
SUCCESSFULLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3.8.3 OF THE CARY LAND
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND IS HEREBY GRANTED WITHOUT CONDITIONS.




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 101
MOTION TO GRANT THE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION IS REASONABLE AND IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF COMMENTS WHICH I MOVE BE
ADOPTED AS FINDINGS OF FACT AND THAT APPLICATION NUMBER 06-SU-009 HAS
SUCCESSFULLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3.8.3 OF THE CARY LAND
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND IS HEREBY GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:

1.
2.
3.

MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION

I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT APPLICATION NUMBER 06-SU-009 IS/IS NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS/IS NOT REASONABLE AND IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE _____ AND HAS FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 3.8.3 OF THE CARY LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINACE AND THE
APPLICATION IS DENIED DUE TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

Does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans because ____________;
Endangers the public health and safety because ______________;
Does not enhance the successful operation of the surrounding area in its community functions
or provide an essential service to the community because ____________;
Substantially injures the value of adjoining or abutting property owners because
________________;
Is not harmonious with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, or character of the area because
_______________;
Is not appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, fire or police
protection, waste disposal or similar facilities because __________________;
Will cause undue traffic congestion or will create a traffic hazard or unsafe pedestrian pathway
because ________________.

The town clerk, who is also a notary public, administered oaths to the following persons: Mr.
Kevin Hales, Mr. Keith P. Gettle, Mr. Bill Mills, Mr. Jack Smyre, Mr. Thomas Goehl, Mr. Bruce
Stankavag, Mr. John McConnell, and Mr. Tom Horstman. These oaths are attached to and
incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit D. Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and
incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit E.

Mr. Keith Gettle of Civic Consultants and representing the applicant stated the request is adjacent
to an existing mini-storage site and would be consistent with the surroundings. He stated the
buffered areas around the site are significant on all three sides, and the proposal meets or
exceeds all required buffers. He stated the stormwater runoff requirements have been met. He
stated outside storage is typically not allowed with the adjacent facility, and hours of operations
are minimal.

Mr. John McConnell stated he is one of 10 partners that own the parcel, and they bought this
property when Davis Drive was a dirt road. He stated the zoning on this property used to be
Planned Employment Center (PEC), but it has changed from PEC to the current zoning, which
necessitates a special use permit. He stated some of the owners are now widows, because their
husbands have passed away over the years. He stated he would be very happy to see the
owners get this particular use. He stated the owners have done a great job with the existing
storage facility and they have lived up to all their commitments. He believes they will do the same
with the proposed storage facility as well. He urged council to grant the special use permit to
allow the widows to benefit in this manner and to allow the dissolution of their partnership.

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 102
Mr. Thomas Goehl read a letter from Mr. Peter Prichard, who could not attend due to his
commitment to the Morrisville Planning Board this evening. This letter is attached to and
incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit F. (NOTE: Later in the meeting and in these minutes
the town attorney informed the council that the letter from Mr. Prichard was not in affidavit
form and the writer was not present. She recommended that council not give weight to this
letter and its content. She stated the council should only consider evidence actually
provided by speakers present at the meeting.)

Mr. Goehl stated the proposal is to the south of the existing storage facility. He stated the
proposed facility forms the northern boundary of his property, and it also forms the boundary
between Morrisville and Cary. He stated they have a very nice wooded area. He didn’t speak
against the initial facility, and he stated the back side of the building is brick, but the front is not
attractive. He stated this facility will basically double in size, and he doesn’t think this is
acceptable.

Mr. Jack Smyre, representing the landowner north of the existing and proposed facility, outlined
the points contained in Exhibit G, which is attached to and incorporated in these minutes. See
this Exhibit for the four conditions he proposed in the event council wishes to consider approving
this special use.

Mayor McAlister allowed rebuttals on the issues raised: the creek and the runoff and the
recommendations to enhance buffers and screening.

Mr. Kettle Gettle, a professional engineer with Civil Consultants, stated the creek is not classified
as a creek, and any development on the property will impact the drainage feature on the site. He
stated to-date there has not been an issue with the existing storage facility impacting the site, and
the owners do not allow chemicals to be stored on site that they deem to be dangerous in the
event of a spill.

Mr. Bill Mills, a professional engineer with Civil Consultants, stated the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) has determined that the drainageway is not a stream or creek and is classified as a
drainageway. (This letter from DWQ with this determination is attached to and incorporated in
these minutes as Exhibit H.) He stated since there are no Neuse buffer requirements, then there
are no buffer mandates. He stated the site is in the Neuse Basin and drains to Lake Crabtree and
is subject to water quality requirements. He stated the facility is designed with underground pipe
detention for peak storm control. He stated over 400 feet of 48 inch pipe will be through the
driveway area to handle the peak flows and prevent excessive flows from the impervious areas
coming off the site. He stated the proposed water quality feature that is proposed is a level
spreader, which spreads the flow over a vegetated filter strip of at least 30 feet of the entire width
of the level spreader before it goes into the 65 feet rear vegetated buffer area. He stated this
natural device results in great pollutant removal.

Mr. Gettle stated the contract states that the occupant agrees not to store any explosives,
flammable, odorous, noxious, corrosive, hazardous or pollutant materials on-site. He stated the
alarms on the existing site have been disconnected and shouldn’t be a noise issue. He stated the
operating hours are between 6 a.m.-9 p.m., and typically 24-hour access is not allowed.

Mr. Gettle stated the property is four acres, and they are only impacting about two acres of the
site, and the actual building impacts a little more than an acre. He stated they have worked hard
to take advantage of the land features. He stated there is a 65-foot buffer on the southern end
separating the site from the residential area, and there is about a 65-foot buffer on the western
end, and the buffer varies between the proposed site and the existing self-storage facility. He
stated the front area, which is the parking lot, has a 15-foot streetscape buffer as required by the
Town. The parking spaces are in the designated location because of the Town’s requirements.


                                                                                     December 14, 2006
                                                                                             Page 103
Mr. Gettle stated they have cut back on the site, and if they were to move the building back it
would impede the net square footage of the facility and it could impede emergency vehicle
access.

Mr. Gettle stated the adjacent facility has black iron fence, and he presumes the proposed facility
would be consistent with the existing facility regarding the fence. He stated they noted on their
plans that they intend to plant a hedge in the front, and he does not think there is any issue with
this assuming it does not impede the sight triangle requirements imposed by the Town. He stated
he does not believe there are any issues with the continuous hedge height.

Mr. Goehl stated there is already a storage facility adjacent to the proposed facility. He stated if
the council is considering approving this request, then he suggested that someone periodically
test their wells to ensure homeowners are not being poisoned. He believes pesticides will be
stored in the facility based on what people keep in their garages.

Mr. Smyre is pleased the applicant will accept the landscaping condition; however, he thinks 30
feet is appropriate and consistent with other uses and will appropriately screen the property
owners to the north from the site. He believes that circulation will be impacted by this proposal.
He stated the brick columns is an important architectural element to the homeowners.

Mr. Bruce Stankavag, one of the owners of the existing facility and the proposed facility, stated
the black iron fence with brick columns is acceptable as well as the streetscape (canopy trees).
He stated the problem is that the buffer area impacts their square feet. He stated he would love
not to provide the parking that the Town requires in the proposed location; he stated these
parking spaces will not be used, because people do not come to these facilities and park
personal cars while storing their units. He stated if the parking can go away, then they can
provide the 30-foot buffer.

There was no further rebuttal, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Robinson stated there seems to be a utility easement on the western side, and she asked
how much of the 65-foot buffer on the west is landcaped, and what particularly is proposed. Mr.
Hales clarified that the vacant planned development is to the west and a 20-foot type B buffer is
proposed at this location. He stated the buffer is a total of 40 feet, which is comprised of an
existing 10 foot buffer, two 10-foot strips (one immediately adjacent to the property line and the
other immediately adjacent to the cleared utility area) and another 10 foot buffer that will be
required on the far side of the easement. Mrs. Robinson asked how the owner would maintain the
undisturbed buffer. Mr. Barnes stated the idea and intent of perimeter buffers in the Land
Development Ordinance is natural foresting. Mrs. Robinson stated whatever develops in the
“ORD-P” to the west would be looking at 20 feet of vegetation to shield it from the storage facility.
Mr. Barnes confirmed and added that it would be in addition to their half of the 40-foot buffer. He
stated since the adjacent property is undeveloped, this property owner is only responsible for
providing half of the required buffer.

Ms. Dorrel asked if the property to the north is developed. Mr. Hales stated it is undeveloped and
the property beyond it is developed as Triangle Soccer Plex. Ms. Dorrel asked if the subdivision
to the south was developed before the existing mini-storage facility. Mr. Hales stated it was
developed before the existing mini-storage facility. Ms. Dorrel stated Mr. Smyre presented four
recommendations in the Exhibit he provided, and she asked if they are acceptable and
appropriate. (The Town Attorney answered this question later in the meeting after reviewing the
Exhibit.) She asked if there are zoning districts where mini-storage facilities may be developed
without a special use. Mr. Hales stated this type of facility is allowed in the industrial district
without a special use. Ms. Dorrel asked if council can require streetscape improvements on the
existing adjacent facility as a condition of this approval. Town Attorney Simpson stated this would
not be permitted as a condition of this approval.


                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 104
Mrs. Robison stated some of the information on the stream buffers seems to conflict. Mr. Hales
stated the DWQ letter is correct and is based on field survey, and the stream is not subject to the
100-foot buffer laws.

Ms. Dorrel asked the level of consideration the council can give to the letter read by Mr. Thomas
Goehl on behalf of Mr. Peter Prichard. Mrs. Simpson stated the letter was not in affidavit form and
the writer was not present. She recommended that council not give weight to this letter and its
content. She stated the council should only consider evidence actually provided by speakers
present at the meeting.

Town Attorney Simpson stated she has briefly reviewed the four conditions submitted by Mr.
Smyre. She stated the council may impose reasonable conditions to protect property owners, and
these conditions look to be in line with the types of allowable conditions, but it is hard for her to
judge.

Mrs. Robison stated she just reviewed the DWQ letter, and it is clear about the drainageway.

Mrs. Robinson is concerned with buffers; she’s also concerned with the loss of land for office
development. She fears if this land zoned for office is converted to industrial then it will someday
impact the future development of the large tract. The council has discussed preserving office
stock with the economic development plan, so she doesn’t think it meets test A (the proposed use
and development of the land conforms with the comprehensive plan and other office plans –
specifically the economic development plan in this case – and manuals or documents adopted by
the Town).

Mayor Pro Tem Smith thinks the location of potential O&I development is important, and he thinks
that O&I should be adjacent to residential. He is opposed to losing O&I to high density multi-
family.

Mrs. Robinson stated to the east of this site Sowter Drive continues into the Martha Stewart
neighborhood and into Madison Place to the west. She estimates that there are about 1,500
homes total in these neighborhoods. She stated this proposal is in the heart of a residential
community. She would not want to enhance industrial land in the middle of all these
neighborhoods.

Ms. Dorrel is most concerned that this is an expansion, which begins to have a greater impact on
the character of the area. She is curious of what might develop to the west and how connection
might work. She wants to be sensitive to the subdivision to the south that was built before the first
storage facility.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved that application 06-SU-009 is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and is not reasonable and in the public interest because it does not
generally conform with our official plans. In addition, it may lead to endangering public
health or safety. Also, the proposed use and development of the land is not in harmony
with the character of the area. Finally, the proposed development of the land may injure
the value of adjoining property. It has failed to meet the requirements of Section 3.8.3 of
the Cary Land Development Ordinance, and the application is denied based on the
findings mentioned (herein). Mrs. Robison provided the second.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith is concerned with the arguments for denial as stated in the motion based
on the quasi-judicial nature of the hearing.

Mrs. Robinson stated she can remove particular parts of the motion if necessary to get support,
although she feels the motion is justified.




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 105
Mrs. Robison spoke on the second point – the potential for endangering public health. She stated
she has again reviewed DWQ’s letter, and she stated it’s not clear by looking at the map included
in the letter the specific areas in which their determination applies. She stated it seems that items
A and B are points on the map, and there are many other features on the map. She stated this is
an environmentally sensitive area, and water quality issues are critical.

Mrs. Simpson stated the letter is a business letter and can be accepted as evidence. She agreed
it may be difficult to evaluate on the spur of the moment.

Mr. Horstman stated the map is a Wake County soils map, and DWQ marked the locations to
show where streams stop (with x’s). He stated Feature A and Feature B are specific points. He
stated when the site plan comes in, they mark points on the site plan and this is where buffers
start or stop. Mrs. Robison believes there will be significant buffer requirements. Mr. Horstman
stated the buffer is below the site plan and there will not be any stream buffers on this particular
site according to DWQ determination. Mr. Horstman stated instead of a stream, there is a
drainage swale where water runs through on this site.

Ms. Dorrel is not in total agreement with all the findings in the motion, but she supports enough of
the findings to be comfortable to vote against the proposal.

Mrs. Robinson will consider amending her motion.

Ms. Dorrel stated she disagrees with or does not completely understand the part of the motion
pertaining to conformity with the comprehensive plan, other plans, manuals or documents.

Mrs. Robinson declined to remove this from the motion.

Ms. Dorrel stated she agrees it is not in character with the neighborhood; this use could
substantially injure adjoining property values; she questioned whether this is reasonably
necessary in this location to serve the public interest.

Mayor McAlister suggested to table the issue with a subsequent motion if this motion fails.

ACTION: Mayor McAlister and Mayor Pro Tem Smith voted “no.” All others voted “aye.”
The motion to deny carried by majority vote.

__________________________

    3. Comprehensive Land Amendment 06-CPA-10 (Modern Woodmen of America)
       The property is located at 2009, 2011 and 2013 Piney Plains Road and contains
       approximately 1.20 acres. The current comprehensive plan designation is High Density
       Residential; the proposed comprehensive plan designation is Office/Institutional. Council
       may refer this item to the February 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. (Mr. Scott
       Ramage)

1. Background Information

Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR)
Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office and Institutional (OFC/INS)

Acreage: 1.22 ±

Location: 2009, 2011, and 2013 Piney Plains Road, Cary, NC 27518
   (Note: The applicant is only requesting the CPA for 2011 and 2013 Piney Plains Road. The
   Town owns the property at 2009 Piney Plains Road.)


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 106
Applicant (for 2011 and 2013 Piney Plains Road):
Doug Polk
Modern Woodmen of America (MWA)
405 Oakridge Road
Cary, NC 27511
(919) 467-5444
dpolkmwa@earthlink.net

Applicant’s Contact:
Tom Wells
Doug Polk Agency of MWA
312 Hunters Crossing
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 233-8298
tawells@bellsouth.net

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Scott Ramage, Principal Planner
316 N Academy Street
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 462-3882
scott.ramage@townofcary.org

2. Summary of Requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment

A. Land Use Plan and Area Plans
Current Plan Recommendations: The Southeast Area Plan (adopted 2004) is the governing
element of the Comprehensive Plan for the subject properties. The SE Area Plan recommends
that the subject parcels – along with most of the other nearby existing single family lots on the
east side of Piney Plains Road, south of the Dellinger PDD – be developed or redeveloped as
High Density Residential (HDR). High Density Residential includes multifamily and attached
housing at densities of about 8 dwellings or more per acre.

Proposed Plan Amendments: The applicants request that the future land use designation for
the two single family lots at 2011 and 2013 Piney Plains Road be amended from High Density
Residential to Office/Institutional. The Town-owned single family lot at 2009 Piney Plains Road is
“sandwiched” between the applicant’s parcels and an Office & Institutional pod of the Dellinger
PDD. Hence, staff recommends that this parcel also be amended from HDR to Office/Institutional
if the applicant’s amendment request is approved. This would prevent 2009 Piney Plains from
remaining as an “island” of HDR, squeezed between Office/Institutional parcels.

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan

Current Plan Recommendations:
Transportation, Piney Plains Road
Existing & Future Roadway Section: 5 lanes, 90’ Right-of-way (ROW) - complete
Sidewalk Requirements: Exists on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: Construction complete
Transit Requirements: Transit stop not required

Proposed Plan Amendments: No requested changes

C. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Master Plan



                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 107
Current Plan Recommendations: The subject parcels are not affected by any elements of the
Master Plan.

Proposed Plan Amendments: No requested changes

D. Other Comprehensive Plan Volumes
No requested changes

3. Reference Information

A. Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: December 14, 2006

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: February 19, 2007*

Town Council Action:
Date: March 8 or 22, 2007*
*Italicized dates are tentative

B. Parcel and Owner Information

                                         County Parcel             Real Estate
       Property Owner(s)                                                            Area in Acres
                                       Number(s) PIN 10               ID(s)
Doug Polk, John Welch, and          0772491305                    0025785                      0.39
Greg McNeely                        0772490267                    0025787                      0.58
405 Oakridge Road
Cary, NC 27511
Town of Cary                        0772491412                    0058603                      0.25
P.O. Box 8005
Cary, NC 27512-8005
Total Acreage                                                                                  1.22

C. Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted September 26, 2006
Provided below are the applicant’s responses to the CPA Justification Questions contained in the
application form. (The application questions are repeated in boldface.) Please note that the
statements below are that of the applicant and does not necessarily represent the views or
opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please
address the following, if applicable:

1. Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to changes in conditions,
forecasts, or assumptions since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were
developed?
    “Initially, Piney Plains Road was a rural two-lane residential street with single family homes.
    It is reasonable to assume that the existing single family homes will be redeveloped into uses
    compatible with the O/I zoning. This amendment is warranted due to the widening of the
    roadway, the development of PDDs and other O/I zoning on Piney Plains Road. The
    opportunity for change is ripe and present homes should be developed along the lines of the
    Walnut Street Transition Corridor. As this transition gathers momentum, our O/I request and
    development will fit the transition.”


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 108
Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit I. Mr.
Ramage explained that the Town owns 2009 Piney Plains Road, and this property was included
in the request to avoid discontinuity in land uses. The Town-owned lot contains a vacant house,
which is nonconforming; the Town has been trying to dispose of the property.

Mr. Tom Wells, the applicant, distributed a handout with details about the Modern Woodmen of
America insurance organization (refer to Exhibit J attached to and incorporated in these
minutes). He introduced Mr. Doug Polk, agency manager. He reiterated the applicant’s
justification statement (as contained in the report herein).

No one came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Referred to the February Planning and Zoning Board meeting

_________________________

    4. Rezoning 06-REZ-27 (Modern Woodmen of America)
       The property is located at 2011 and 2013 Piney Plains Road and contains approximately
       0.97 acre. The current zoning is Residential-20; the proposed zoning is Office and
       Institutional Conditional Use. Council may refer this item to the April 2007 Planning and
       Zoning Board meeting. (Mr. Bob Benfield)

Background Information

Existing Zoning
Residential 20 (R-20)

Proposed Zoning
Office/Institutional Conditional Use (OI-CU)

Proposed Zoning Conditions: No convenience store, drug store, bank, service station, or
hotel/motel

The above zoning conditions are provided as originally submitted by the applicant. Staff advises
that the proposed zoning conditions will need to be amended prior to the Planning and Zoning
Board meeting to eliminate the uses convenience store, drug store and service station as these
uses are not permitted in areas zoned Office/Institutional (OI). The hotel/motel use is allowed as
a “special use” in areas zoned OI and any subsequent development plan submittal for a
hotel/motel use would require a public hearing and Town Council approval.

Conformance with the Land Use Plan Designation
The proposed Office and Institutional Conditional Use zoning designation is not compatible with
the current land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR). In conjunction with this
zoning request, a Comprehensive Plan amendment 06-CPA-10 has been initiated to change the
High Density Residential (HDR) to an Office/Institutional (OFC/INS) designation.

Acreage
Approximately 0.97 acres

Location
2011 and 2013 Piney Plains Rd., Cary, NC 27518.
The property is also located inside Cary’s town limits.

Applicant
Doug Polk
Modern Woodmen of America (MWA)

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 109
405 Oakridge Road
Cary, NC 27511
(919) 467-5444
dpolkmwa@earthlink.net

Applicant’s Contact
Tom Wells
Doug Polk Agency of MWA
312 Hunters Crossing
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 233-8298
tawells@bellsouth.net

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Bob Benfield, Senior Planner
316 N Academy Street
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 469-4045
Bob.Benfield@TownofCary.org

Summary of Requested Rezoning

Transportation, Piney Plains Road
Existing & Future Roadway Section: 5 lanes, 90’ Right-of-way (ROW) - complete
Sidewalk Requirements: Exists on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: Construction Complete
Transit Requirements: Transit stop not required

Traffic Impact Analysis
A proposed office Building on the property would not generate more than 20 peak hour trips. No
traffic impact study is required.

Parks & Greenways
According to the approved PRCR Facilities Master Plan, there are no required parks or
greenways associated with this zoning petition.

Reference Information
Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: December 14, 2006

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: April 16, 2007*

Town Council Action:
Date: May 10 or 24, 2007*
*Italicized dates are tentative

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted September 26, 2006
Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the
following, if applicable:



                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 110
1. Any issues with the size of the tract?
   The size of the two parcels (0.97 acre) is sufficient to build an office building for The Doug
   Polk Agency of Modern Woodmen of America. The proposed structure will be no more than
   two stories and less than 8,000 sq ft.

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use,
   Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?
   The existing land use designation is high-density residential. Just northeast of these two
   parcels is the Dillinger Planned Development which is consistent with our request. Also along
   Piney Plains Road to the south, there are two tracts that have already been rezoned O/I. The
   mix of high-density residential and O/I is already present and should present no significant
   issues with our request.

3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community?
   This section of Piney Plains has been widened to five lanes and will undergo some
   transformation. The look of our office will fit in well with the existing home and O/I
   development that is already on the street.

4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do
   they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts?
   There are two existing tracts along Piney Plains Road that care currently O/I. To the east of
   our tract is an apartment complex. To the Northeast is the Dillinger Planned Development. To
   the West is a tract that is being developed into Town Homes. This office building will be in a
   style that fits in well with the existing development and proposed future development.

5. What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of
   the LDO are being requested and how are they justified?
   No reductions and/or modifications to Cary Design Standards and Cary’s Land Development
   Ordinance are proposed.

Development Plan Issues
The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of land use for specific parcels of
land. Development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development, such as
access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity
and landscape plantings, are not considered during the rezoning process. However, all of these
development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements addressed in
the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is submitted.

Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit K.

No one came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Referred to the April 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting

_________________________

    5. Comprehensive Land Amendment 06-CPA-11 (Quality Oil)
       The property is located at 7331 and 7425 Chapel Hill Road and contains approximately
       4.0 acres. The current comprehensive plan designation is Office/Industrial,
       Office/Institutional, and Commercial; the proposed comprehensive plan designation is a
       modified arrangement of Commercial, Office/Institutional, and Office/Industrial. Council
       may refer this item to the February 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
       (Ms. Meredith Chandler)

1. Background Information



                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 111
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office and Industrial (OFC/IND) (7425 Chapel Hill
Road); Office and Institutional (OFC/INS) and Commercial (COM) (7331 Chapel Hill Road)

Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Modified arrangement of Commercial (COM), Office/Institutional (OFC/INS), and Office/Industrial
(OFC/IND)

Acreage: 4.0 ±

Location: 7331 and 7425 Chapel Hill Road (southeast corner of Chapel Hill Road and Trinity
Road)

Applicant:
Ernie Rhymer
Quality Oil Company LLC
1540 Silas Creek Parkway
Winston Salem, NC 27102
(336) 722-3441
erhymer@qocnc

Applicant’s Contact:
Terry Boylan
ESP Associates P. A.
14001 Weston Parkway, Suite 100
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 678-1070
tboylan@espassociates.com

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Meredith Chandler, Urban Designer/Senior Planner
316 N Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513
(919) 460-4983
meredith.chandler@townofcary.org

2. Summary of Requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment

A. Land Use Plan
Amend property at 7425 Chapel Hill Road (PIN 0774-34-9046) from Office/Industrial (OFC/IND)
to Commercial (COM). Amend the southwestern portion (± 1.0 acre) of 7331 Chapel Hill Road
(PIN 0774-43-0810), located on the northeast corner of Hampton Woods Lane and Trinity Road,
from a mix of Office/Institutional (OFC/INS) and Commercial (COM) to Office/Industrial
(OFC/IND), and amend the remaining Commercial (COM) portion west of Hampton Woods Lane
(± 1.0 acre) from Commercial (COM) to Office/Institutional (OFC/INS).

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
No requested changes.
Current Transportation Plan Recommendations:
     Chapel Hill Road:
     Existing Roadway Section: 3 lanes, 150’ Right-of-way (ROW)
     Future Roadway Section: 6 lanes with median
     Schedule: N/A
     Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides
     Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes required




                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                    Page 112
     Trinity Road:
     Existing Roadway Section: 2 lanes, 70’ Right-of-way (ROW)
     Future Roadway Section: 6 lanes with median, 124’ ROW
     Schedule: N/A
     Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides
     Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes required

     Transit Requirements: None required

C. Parks & Greenways Master Plan:
No requested Plan changes.
The adopted Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan recommends the
provision of a multi-use trail along Trinity Road in this location, as part of the regional greenways
and trails system.

3. Reference Information

A. Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: December 14, 2006

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: February 19, 2007*

Town Council Action:
Date: March 8 or 22, 2007*
*Italicized dates are tentative

B. Parcel and Owner Information

                                                                                              Area in
Property Owner(s)                     County Parcel Number(s)          Real Estate ID(s)
                                                                                              Acres
Quality Oil Co LLC
                                             0774430810
1540 Silas Creek Parkway                                                   0224358              ± 3.40
                                               (portion)
Winston-Salem, NC
N&B LLC
PO Box 2587                                  0774349046                    0001280                0.64
Fayetteville, NC
Total Acreage                                                                                     4.04

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted October 30, 2006
Provided below are the applicant’s responses to the CPA Justification Questions contained in the
application form. (The application questions are repeated in boldface.) Please note that the
statements below are that of the applicant and does not necessarily represent the views or
opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please
address the following, if applicable:

1. Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to changes in conditions,
forecasts, or assumptions since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were
developed? Also, describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to new
issues, needs, or opportunities that have arisen in this geographic area since the original
Comprehensive Plan recommendations were developed?



                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 113
    “The applicant in the original rezoning case 96-REZ-26 PUD desires to buy an adjacent 0.64
    acre industrially zoned tract of land at the southeast corner of Chapel Hill Road and Trinity
    Road and incorporate that tract into the existing PDD. The applicant also desires to move
    that existing Industrial Use from its location at the corner of Chapel Hill Road and Trinity
    Road to a location within the current PDD that is more compatible with the Comprehensive
    Plan and the adjacent Industrial zoned properties.”

2. Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to changes in Town policies,
objectives, or standards since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were
developed?

    “The requested amendment is not warranted due to changes in Town policies, objectives, or
    standards since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were developed.”

3. Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to errors or omissions in the
current Comprehensive Plan?

    “The requested amendment is not due to errors or omissions in the current Comprehensive
    Plan.”

Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit L.

Mr. Fred Papa, manager of planning for ESP Associates, on behalf of the applicant, stated the
applicant wants to move the parcel from the front at Chapel Hill Road and purchase the property.
He stated this plan will provide compatible land uses.

No one came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Referred to the February Planning and Zoning Board meeting

_________________________

    6. Rezoning 06-REZ-23 (Park at Langston)
       The property is located at the end of Truelove Drive off Bells Lake Road and north of
       Forester Lane and contains approximately 19.82 acres. The current zoning is
       Residential-30 (Wake County) and Residential-12; the proposed zoning is Residential-12
       Conditional Use. Council may refer this item to the January 2007 Planning and Zoning
       Board meeting. (Ms. Jennifer Currin)

Background Information

Existing Zoning:
Residential 30 Wake County (R-30W) and Residential 12 (R-12)

Requested Zoning:
Residential 12 Conditional Use (R-12 CU)

Proposed conditions:
Total number of units will not exceed 2.15 du/acre

Conformity with the Land Use Plan Designation: Yes. There is no change to the land use
designation of Low Density Residential (LDR).

Acreage: 19.82 ±




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 114
Location:
End of Truelove Drive off Bells Lake Road and north of Forester Lane

Applicant:
William Barker
The Park at Langston, LLC
1401 Sunday Drive
Raleigh, NC 27307
(919) 859-0044

Applicant’s Contact:
Chuck Smith
Withers & Ravenel, Inc
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
(919) 469-3340
csmith@withersravenel.com

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Jennifer Currin, Planner II
316 N Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513
(919) 469-4342
jennifer.currin@townofcary.org

Summary of Requested Rezoning

A. Transportation
Existing Roadway Section: Residential
Future Roadway Section: Residential
Schedule: Not scheduled
Sidewalk Requirements: Sidewalk on at least one side
Bicycle Requirements: Not required
Transit Requirements: Not required

B. Traffic Impact Analysis: Density less than 2.175 units/acre. No traffic impact study required.

C. Parks & Greenways: Per approved Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Facilities
Master Plan, a public greenway trail is proposed along the western edge of the site. A payment-
in-lieu may be required for the proposed units.

Reference Information
Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: December 14, 2006

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: January 15, 2007*

Town Council Action:
Date: February 8 or 22, 2007*
*Italicized dates are tentative




                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 115
                                   Parcel and Owner Information
Property Owner(s)                    County Parcel Number(s)       Real Estate       Area/Acres
                                              PIN 10               ID(s)
The Park at Langston, LLC           0679488538                     0071350                      5.75
1401 Sunday Drive, Suite 116        0679485780                     0071351                      0.97
Raleigh, NC 27307                   0679498326                     0017768                      7.05
                                    0679497051                     0082062                      0.52
                                    0679495069                     0040510                      5.53
Total Acreage                                                                                  19.82

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted September 25, 2006
Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please
address the following, if applicable:

1. Any issues with the size of the tract? N/A

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use,
Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?
The request is compatible with the comprehensive plan. The Town has a sewer treatment plant
south of the site on Middle Creek in anticipation of development similar to this request in this
area. An elementary school, two middle schools and a high school already exist near this site.
The proposed land use is the same as that existing directly adjacent to the west.

3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the
community?
Since the proposal will develop in a similar manner to the existing Park at Langston, the tie in to
existing Town of Cary water and sewer is more “environmentally friendly” than allowing the
property to develop with wells and septic tanks.

4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do
they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts?
Residential uses currently exist in this area. The area proposed for rezoning is adjacent to land
zoned and developed with the same lot size. Areas adjacent to the proposed rezoning but
outside the Town of Cary have a Wake County residential zoning designation and are compatible
with the proposed request.

Schools
The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County
Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities.

                                        School Information
                             th
Assigned Schools           20 Day          Permanent      Average          Projected Range of
                           Enrollment      Seat           Percent          Additional
                                           Capacity       Occupied         Students*

Middle Creek            860             793                  108           13-18
Elementary
Holly Ridge Middle* * 1285              1205                 107           3-7
Middle Creek High       2028            1738                 117           4-8
Total Projected range of additional students                               20-33



                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 116
Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20th day of the school year for 2005-
2006 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. School assignment will be
determined at the time of development.

**The current information for Holly Ridge Middle School was not included in the Cary area school
capacities information for 2005-2006, which is based upon the 20th day enrollment. The 20th Day
Enrollment and the Permanent Seat Capacity for Holly Ridge Middle is the 2006-2007 enrollment
data according to the Wake County Public School System.

*The Projected Number of Additional Students is only a rough approximation. The actual number
of students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of
bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. The basis for making this calculation is based on
multipliers provided by the Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment. During the
rezoning process, student yield can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.

Development Plan Issues
The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of this land use for these parcels of
land. Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development,
such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road
connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the rezoning process. However,
all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements
spelled out in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is
submitted.

Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit M.

Mr. Chuck Smith, representing the applicant and property owner, stated the request is consistent
with the comprehensive plan and it is a continuation of the existing subdivision to the west and
will be the same style of development with the same size lots.

No one came forward to speak, and Mayor Pro Tem Smith closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Referred to the January 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting

_________________________

    7. Rezoning 06-REZ-26 (Village at the Park Planned Development District
       Amendment)
       The property is located at the northwest corner of Kitt Creek Road and NC 55 Highway
       and contains approximately 15.17 acres. The request is to eliminate the office and
       commercial uses and add 255 apartments. Council may refer this item to the February
       2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. (Mr. Kevin Hales)

Background Information

Existing Zoning: Planned Development District (PDD)

Existing Zoning Conditions
Tract 1:
Office: 272,028 square feet
Retail: 66,335 square feet
Apartments/Condominiums: 45 units

Proposed Zoning Conditions
Tract 1:
Apartments: 300 units

                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 117
Requested Zoning: PDD Amendment

Land Use Plan Designation: The recommended future land use for the parcel is Mixed Use
(MXD). The parcel is also located within a larger mixed-use Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC),
where a focused mix of commercial, office, and residential uses are recommended across the
entire activity center, taken as a whole. Therefore, no Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) is
required.

Acreage:
Underwood Tract 1 is approximately 15.17 (portion)
38.93 calculated acres; 40.30 deeded acres
Total acreage for tracts 1, 2 and a portion of 4 (per MapInfo)

Location:
Physical address is 2932 Alston Avenue; NE intersection of Alston Avenue and Kit Creek Road
and NW intersection of NC 55 Highway and Kit Creek Road

Applicants:

Mike Underwood
Woodfield Investments
11425 Horseman’s Trail
Raleigh, NC 27613
(919) 341-3034
munderwood@woodfieldinvestments.com

Applicant’s Contact:
JW Shearin
2880 Slater Road
Morrisville, NC 27560
(919) 481-2021
jwshearin@etdpa.com

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Kevin Hales, Planner II
316 N Academy Street
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 462-3944
kevin.hales@townofcary.org

Summary of Requested Rezoning

A. Transportation

Alston Avenue:
Existing Roadway Section: 2 lanes, 60’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 4 lane median-divided, 100’ ROW
Schedule: proposed 2009/2010 CIB Alston project
Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes required
Transit Requirements: None required




                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                   Page 118
NC 55:
Existing Roadway Section: 4-lane median divided under construction, 100’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 6-lane median divided, 124’ ROW
Schedule: 4-lane improvements under construction
Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes required
Transit Requirements: None required

Kit Creek Road:
Existing Roadway Section: 2-lane, 100’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 6-lane median divided, 124’ ROW
Schedule: N/A
Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes required
Transit Requirements: None required

B. Traffic Impact Analysis: This proposal appears to be a reduction in trips from previously
approved Village of the Park PDD. Traffic Impact Study (01-TAR-125) remains valid.

C. Parks & Greenways: Per the approved re-zoning, the construction of a 10’ wide multi-use
trail is required along NC Highway 55. In addition, PRCR requests that the applicant consider
continuing the 10’ wide, Alston Avenue multi-use trail along the west side of the property.

Reference Information
Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: December 14, 2006

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: February 19, 2007*

Town Council Action:
Date: March 8 or 22, 2007*
*Italicized dates are tentative

                                                                  Parcel and Owner Information
Property Owner(s)                  County Parcel Number(s)      Real Estate    Area/Acres
                                           PIN 10               ID(s)
Harold G Bagwell & Alston 55       0736088344 (portion)         0302129        15.17 (portion)
LLC
PO Box 1700
Garner, NC 27529-1700
Total Acreage                                                                             15.17

Summary of proposed amendments to existing Village at the Park PDD

                        REQUESTED LAND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
Underwood              Acres       Maximum Units      Maximum Density         Minimum Lot Size
 Tract 1        Existing/Proposed Existing/Proposed   Existing/Proposed       Existing/Proposed
                  15.17 / 15.17   Office: 272,028 / 0        N/A                     N/A
                       acres          square feet
                                  Retail: 66,335 / 0
                                      square feet
                                  Apartments : 45 /
                                          300

                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                    Page 119
Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted September 25, 2006
Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the
following, if applicable:

1. Any issues with the size of the tract?
The reductions to the previously approved Planned Development document will eliminate any
size issues because it will allow for more innovative design as well as pedestrian
interconnectivity.

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use,
Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?
The request is compatible with the comprehensive plan because it will act as the residential
component with the entire Village at the Park Planned Unit Development creating an undeniable
mixed-use component.

3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community?
The Village at the Park will be a significant asset to West Cary, and one that will demonstrate the
excellence that can be achieved through mixed-use development. Its location is convenient to
Research Triangle Park and will not only reduce trips to the Park for those that live within the
development, but also benefiting the entire community by reducing the impact of traffic on
surrounding areas.

4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do
they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts?
The initial rezoning was done as a Planned Unit Development because of this all of the uses on
adjacent tracts were planned and designed to benefit the other to create a unique development –
the sum of the whole is greater that the parts.

5. What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of
the LDO are being requested and how are they justified? (PDD; new or amended)
Applicants must list these items and/or clearly highlight them within the Planned
Development document.
Please see pages 4A and 4B of the Planned Development document for a breakdown in square
footage reductions on tract 1 and 2.

Schools
The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County
Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities.

                                     School Information
                             th
Assigned Schools          20 Day        Permanent      Average            Projected Range of
                          Enrollment    Seat           Percent            Additional
                                        Capacity       Occupied           Students*
Cedar Fork                434           761            57%                5-89
Elementary
West Cary Middle          992             988               100%          0-58
Panther Creek High        893             1690              53%           0-47 (total high school)
(9-10)
Green Hope High (11- 2263                 2335              97%           0-47 (total high school)
12)
Total Projected range of additional students                              5-194


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 120
Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20th day of the school year for 2005-
2006 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. School assignment will be
determined at the time of development.

*The Projected Number of Additional Students is only a rough approximation. The actual number
of students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of
bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. The basis for making this calculation is based on
multipliers provided by the Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment. During the
rezoning process, student yield can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.

Development Plan Issues
The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of this land use for these parcels of
land. Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development,
such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road
connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the rezoning process. However,
all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements
spelled out in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is
submitted.

Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit N.
The planned development document is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit
O.

Mr. J.W. Shearin of ETd, representing the property owners, stated the site is currently approved
for 338,000 square feet of office and retail uses, and there is an existing 45 units of multi-family.
He stated the original plan for this site was envisioned to attract a mix of users to provide a more
intense vertical mix adjacent to the Research Triangle Park (RTP). He stated with the approval of
the Alston Activity Center Plan and the I-540 interchange, they believe, based on conversations
with users in the RTP, that this particular tract could better serve the residential needs for the
RTP. He stated the request is consistent with the neighborhood activity center guidelines for
providing residential densities necessary for future commercial users, which on Tract 2 below this
site but adjacent to it on Kit Creek Road would have 180,000+ square feet of commercial and
office. They believe that providing 300 units to support the RTP and adjacent to the future
commercial section to the south would be a better use and would generate less traffic than what
is allowed in the current zoning. They are currently working with staff on building orientation and
placement. They conducted a neighborhood meeting but no one attended. They have not
received any comments against the project to-date. He encourged the council’s support.

No one came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Robinson noted her concern about the loss of office space.

Ms. Dorrel stated she received a voice mail message today from a resident in the area stating her
concerns about the proposal. She urged the applicant to attempt another neighborhood meeting.

ACTION: Referred to the February 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting

_________________________

    8. Mixed Use Sketch Plan 06-MU-03 (Village at the Park)
       The property is located in the northwest corner of Kitt Creek Road and NC 55 Highway
       and contains approximately 15.17 acres. The request is for 300 apartments. Council may
       refer this item to the February 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. (Mr. Kevin
       Hales)

Background Information

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 121
Existing Zoning: Planned Development District Major (PDD)

Requested: Mixed Use Sketch Plan
(There is an associated rezoning request which is 06-REZ-26. The request is to amend Tract 1
of the PDD to increase the number of apartments from 45 units to 300 units.)

Zoning Overlay District: Village at the Park Neighborhood Center

Land Use Plan Designation: The recommended future land use for the parcel is Mixed Use
(MXD). The parcel is also located within a larger mixed-use Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC),
where a focused mix of commercial, office, and residential uses are recommended across the
entire activity center, taken as a whole. Therefore, no Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) is
required.

Acreage: Approximately 15.17 acres

Location: 2932 Alston Avenue, NW corner of intersection of Kit Creek Road and NC 55 Highway

Applicant:
Mike Underwood, Woodfield Investments
11425 Horseman’s Trail
Raleigh, NC 27613
(919) 341-3034
munderwood@woodfieldinvestments.com

Applicant’s Contact Person:
JW Shearin, Elam, Todd, d’Ambrosi (ETd)
2880 Slater Road
Morrisville, NC 27560
(919) 481-2021
jwshearin@etdpa.com

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Debra Grannan, Senior Planner
316 N Academy Street
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 460-4980
debra.grannan@townofcary.org

Summary of Requested Rezoning

A. Transportation

Alston Avenue:
Existing Roadway Section: 2 lanes, 60’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 4 lanes median-divided, 100’ ROW
Schedule: Proposed 2009/2010 CIB Alston project
Sidewalk Requirements: required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes required
Transit Requirements: None required




                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                   Page 122
NC 55:
Existing Roadway Section: 4-lane median divided under construction, 100’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 6-lane median divided, 124’ ROW
Schedule: 4-lane improvements under construction
Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes required
Transit Requirements: None required

Kit Creek Road:
Existing Roadway Section: 2-lane, 100’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 6-lane median divided, 124’ ROW
Schedule: N/A
Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes required
Transit Requirements: None required

B. Traffic Impact Analysis: This proposal appears to be a reduction in trips from previously
approved Village of the Park PDD. Traffic Impact Study (01-TAR-125) remains valid.

C. Parks & Greenways: Per the approved rezoning, the construction of a 10’ wide multi-use
trail is required along NC Highway 55. In addition, PRCR requests that the applicant consider
continuing the 10’ wide, Alston Avenue multi-use trail along the west side of the property.

Reference Information
Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: December 14, 2006

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: *February 19, 2007

Town Council Action:
Date: *March 8 or 22, 2006
*Italicized dates are tentative

                                  Parcel and Owner Information
Property Owner(s)                   County Parcel Number(s) Real Estate             Area/Acres
                                             PIN 10            ID(s)
Harold G Bagwell & Alston 55       0736088344 (portion)        0302129              15.17 (portion)
LLC                                                            (portion)
PO Box 1700
Garner, NC 27613
Total Acreage                                                                       15.17 (portion)

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted September 25, 2006
Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the
following, if applicable:




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 123
1. Any issues with the size of the tract?

The tract is of sufficient size to handle proposed buildings, parking, buffers and other required
elements per Town of Cary ordinances.

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use,
Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?

The Comprehensive Plan includes a neighborhood activity center at this location and the uses
proposed are within the guidelines established for activity centers. The proposed land uses have
already been approved for inclusion in the Village at the Park development. The only change is
where some of those uses are to be distributed to different parcels than originally listed.

3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community?

The Village at the Park will be a significant asset to West Cary, and one that will demonstrate the
excellence that can be achieved through mixed-use development. Its location is convenient to
Research Triangle Park and will not only reduce trips to the Park for those that live within the
development, but also benefiting the entire community by reducing the impact of traffic on
surrounding areas. The proposed plan will help implement the Northwest Cary Area Plan by
providing complementary high and medium density housing adjacent to RTP, to minimize
commute distances and to support multiple travel modes (auto, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian).

4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do
they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts?

This proposal fulfills the needs of having a mix of uses, specifically office and retail components,
within the activity center as called for in the Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan. The uses
proposed are in keeping with previously approved plans for the Village at the Park Neighborhood
Activity Center.

Schools:
The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County
Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities.

                                         School Information
Assigned Schools            20th Day        Permanent         Average      Projected Range of
                            Enrollment      Seat              Percent      Additional
                                            Capacity          Occupied     Students*
Cedar Fork                  434             761               57%          5 to 89
Elementary
West Cary Middle            992             988               100%         5 to 58
Panther Creek (9th          893             1690              53%          5 to 193
grade)
Green Hope High (10th       2263            2335              97%          5 to 193
    th
– 12 Grade)
Total projected range of   additional students                             15 to 340*
                                                               th
Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20 day of the school year for 2005-
2006 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. School assignment will be
determined at the time of development.

*The Projected Number of Additional Students is only a rough approximation. The total number of
projected students only includes the High School numbers one time. The actual number of
students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of
bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. For example, a site with 255 one- bedroom

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 124
apartments could yield 15 additional students, while 255 three bedroom units could yield 340
additional students. The basis for making this calculation is based on multipliers provided by the
Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment. During the rezoning process, student yield
can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.

Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit P.

Mr. J.W. Shearin on behalf of the applicant stated one of the original ideas behind the NW area
plan was to put higher density towards RTP. He stated in reality there is no physical way to put
300,000+ square feet of office and retail on this 15 acre tract. He stated there may not even be a
market for this type of development in this location.

No one came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Robinson stated she and Mrs. Robison worked on the concept plan for this area. She
personally does not see how the sketch plan illustrates anything different from other apartment
complexes in Cary. She stated she was hoping for something more dynamic and urban for this
area. She hopes staff can scrutinize whether the proposal complies with the vision of the plan so
they can walk the Planning and Zoning Board through that discussion.

Mrs. Robison stated during the Alston plan process she heard from RTP owners that they do not
need more residential near RTP. She asked staff to review market findings from the RTP
Foundation. She wants to hear an official answer from RTP owners about their desire for the
development of this area.

Mrs. Robinson stated the Alston plan was carefully balanced with residential, office and
commercial, and it is disheartening to go through that lengthy process and less than a year later
have a request to change the designation of such a large parcel. She stated when a parcel is
designated for a potential for a certain amount of office, it does not mean the developer has to
provide the maximum amount.

ACTION: Referred to the February 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting

_________________________

    9. Rezoning 06-REZ-29 (Waverly)
       The property is located in the southeast corner of Kildaire Farm and Tryon Roads and
       contains approximately 31.88 acres. The current zoning is General Commercial
       Conditional Use, Waverly Place Mixed Use Overlay District, and Swift Creek Watershed
       Overlay District. The request is to amend the zoning conditions for Tracts 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,
       11, 12 and 13 regarding permitted uses and other development standards. Council may
       refer this item to the February 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. (Mr. Greg
       Barnes)

Background Information

Existing Zoning: General Commercial Conditional Use (GC-CU)

Proposed Zoning: GC-CU with the following proposed zoning conditions:




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 125
                                      ZONING CONDITIONS
    Existing zoning conditions (If applicable)           Proposed zoning conditions (If
                                                                     applicable)
1. Maximum development commercial uses 60%        1. Commercial coverage to be limited to Lots
of acreage. The remaining 40% shall be office     3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as shown on
uses. Commercial coverage to be limited to Lots   recorded plat of Waverly Place Associates
3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 as shown on recorded Book of Maps 1987, page 1834. These are
plat of Waverly Place Associates Book of Maps     the parcels bordering Tryon Road and
1987, page 1834. These are the parcels            Kildaire Farm Road, and keep the
bordering SR1009 and Kildaire Farm Road, and      commercial development at least 725 feet
keep the commercial development at least 725      away from the Waverly Place and Lockridge
feet away from the Waverly Place and Lockridge    property line, and approximately 450 feet
property line, and approximately 450 feet away    away from the Ambience Place Subdivision
from the Ambience Place Subdivision property      property line.
line.

2. Permitted Uses: stores retailing automobile        2. Permitted Uses for Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7 as
accessories, groceries, drugs, notions, fish, meat,   shown on the recorded plat of Waverly Place
antiques, hardware, upholstery, paints, furniture,    Associates Book of Maps 1987, page 1834
radio and television, appliances, bicycles,           to be as follows: stores retailing automobile
wallpaper, electrical and plumbing fixtures,          accessories, groceries, drugs, notions, fish,
bakeries, bookstores, candy, clothing, dry goods,     meat, antiques, hardware, upholstery, paints,
gifts, hobbies and crafts, jewelry, leather goods,    furniture, radio and television, appliances,
magazines, musical goods, pets, sporting goods,       bicycles, wallpaper, electrical and plumbing
shoes and toys.                                       fixtures, bakeries, bookstores, candy,
                                                      clothing, dry goods, gifts, hobbies and crafts,
                                                      jewelry, leather goods, magazines, musical
                                                      goods, pets, sporting goods, shoes and toys.

3. Three (3) outparcels bordering Kildaire Farm       3. Three (3) outparcels bordering Kildaire
Road and SR 1009 will allow restaurants with          Farm Road and Tryon Road will allow
drive-through service.                                restaurants with drive-through service.

4. Drive-through restaurant users shall be split      4. Drive-through restaurant users shall be
allowing no more than one (1) on Kildaire Farm        split allowing no more than one (1) on
Road and two (2) on SR 1009.                          Kildaire Farm Road and two (2) on Tryon
                                                      Road.

5. Outparcels sited for drive-through service shall   5. Outparcels sited for drive-through service
be limited to lots 6, 9 and 12 on Kildaire Farm       shall be limited to lots 6, 8, 9, 12 and 13
Road, as shown on recorded plat of Waverly            along Kildaire Farm Road and Tryon Road,
Place Associates book of Maps 1987, page 1834.        as shown on recorded plat of Waverly Place
                                                      Associates book of Maps 1987, page 1834.

                                                                       (No change)
6. Should any or all of these designated lots be
developed for another use, the drive-through
service shall not be transferable to another
outparcel.




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 126
                                        ZONING CONDITIONS
    Existing zoning conditions (If applicable)          Proposed zoning conditions (If
                                                                applicable)
7. Should the interior roadway configuration allow               (Removed)
for the addition of a lane to the outparcel curb cut
for turns, then the affected outparcel shall widen
its curb cut to allow for turn lanes, one (1)
entrance, two (2) exits for right and left hand turns


                                                                          (No change)
8. All drive-through service windows shall be
sufficiently screened by grade and landscaping
from primary roadways or the window service
shall be located so that orientation or visibility, if
any, is from the viewpoint of the internal roadway
and shopping center.
9. Building heights to be as follows:                    9. Building heights for Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7 as
                                                         shown on the recorded plat of Waverly Place
                                                         Associates Book of Maps 1987, page 1834
                                                         to be as follows:

a. First 130 feet from edge of ultimate right-of-way     a. First 130 feet from edge of ultimate right-
from Kildaire Farm Road and/or Apex Macedonia            of-way from Kildaire Farm Road and/or
Road: Maximum height 42 feet.                            Tryon Road: Maximum height 42 feet.
b. 130 feet to 190 feet from edge of ultimate right-     b. 130 feet to 190 feet from edge of ultimate
of-way from Kildaire Farm Road and/or Apex-              right-of-way from Kildaire Farm Road and/or
Macedonia Road: Maximum height 56 feet.                  Tryon Road: Maximum height 56 feet.

c. 190 feet to 250 feet from edge of ultimate right-     c. 190 feet to 250 feet from edge of ultimate
of-way from Kildaire Farm Road and/or Apex-              right-of-way from Kildaire Farm Road and/or
Macedonia Road: maximum height 70 feet.                  Tryon Road: maximum height 70 feet.
d. After first 250 feet: Maximum height not to           d. After first 250 feet: Maximum height not to
exceed 84 feet.                                          exceed 84 feet.
Each building side to be measured individually.          Each building side to be measured
Height to be measured from approved grading              individually. Height to be measured from
plan. At no time can the east side of a building         approved grading plan. At no time can the
exceed an additional 14 feet.                            east side of a building exceed an additional
                                                         14 feet.


10. Fifty foot (50') landscaped strip to be              10. Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7 as shown on the
measured from new right of way, along Kildaire           recorded plat of Waverly Place Associates
Farm Road and Apex-Macedonia Road. No                    Book of Maps 1987, page 1834 will have a
parking or structures permitted in 50' area.             fifty foot (50') landscaped strip to be
                                                         measured from the right of way, along Tryon
                                                         Road. No parking or structures permitted in
                                                         50' area

11. Kildaire Farm Road will be improved to the                            (Removed)
same section, with landscaping, as in Lochmere.
Total road to be under contract within one year of
approved zoning.




                                                                                   December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 127
                                   ZONING CONDITIONS
   Existing zoning conditions (If applicable)      Proposed zoning conditions (If
                                                           applicable)
12. Apex-Macedonia Road will be improved on                 (Removed)
subject property side to town requirements. To be
under contract within one year of approved
zoning.



13. Land south of the draw in the vicinity of                        (No change)
Sanders Street will be designated for R-8 CU
zoning.

14. Land north of the draw will be designated for    14. Land north of the draw will be designated
office zoning to a point where B-2 CU zoning         for office zoning to a point where GC-CU
would begin.                                         zoning would begin.



15. Buffers -- 105' on creek bank on the east side   15. Buffers -- 105' on creek bank on the east
of the property (water retention structures can be   side of the property (water retention
built in buffer) and 30' buffer around new and       structures can be built in buffer) and 30'
existing ponds (existing small lake in CU B-2 may    buffer around new and existing ponds
be removed or restructured).                         (existing small lake in GC-CU may be
                                                     removed or restructured).

                                                                     (No change)
16. A 60' buffer between R-8 CU and 0&I CU
zoning.


                                                                     (No change)
17. Approval of site plans in areas having slopes
of greater than fifteen percent (15%) will be
contingent on staff review of detailed studies
provided by the developer for streets, utilities,
parking area, and buildings.


                                                                     (No change)
18. No land disturbing activities will occur until
site plans are approved. Site plans will contain
field topo and identify significant trees.



19. No development will be constructed on slopes                     (No change)
over twenty-five percent (25%) where the area
exceeds 10,000 SF. (All slopes shall be
determined from original topo.)




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 128
                                   ZONING CONDITIONS
   Existing zoning conditions (If applicable)      Proposed zoning conditions (If
                                                           applicable)
20. There will be one main entrance and one          20. There will be one main entrance and one
right-in right-out only entrance on both Kildaire    right-in right-out only entrance on both
Farm Road and Apex-Macedonia Road.                   Kildaire Farm Road and Tryon Road.




Land Use Plan Designation: Although the individual property designations reflect the current
Commercial (COM) and Office/Institutional (OFC/INS) uses, the subject parcels are also located
within a larger mixed-use Community Activity Center (CAC), where a focused mix of commercial,
office, and residential uses are recommended. Therefore, no Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA) is required.

Zoning Overlay District: Waverly Community Center; there is an associated mixed use sketch
plan request 06-MU-05.

Acreage: 31.88 ±

Location:
2001 Kildaire Farm Road (and surrounding out parcels) on the southeast corner of Kildaire Farm
Road and Tryon Road intersection, but not including an outparcel located at 401 Colonades Way.
This rezoning is specific to Tract #’s 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13 as indicated on the proposed
Mixed-Use Sketch Plan.

Applicant:
Mr. Luis Rios
Zapolski and Rudd, LLC
501 Washington Street
Durham, NC 27701
(919) 956-2722
irios@zapolskirudd.com

Applicant’s Contact Person:
JW Shearin, Elam, Todd, d’Ambrosi (ETd)
2880 Slater Road
Morrisville, NC 27560
(919) 481-2021
jwshearin@etdpa.com

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Greg Barnes, Planner II
316 N. Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513
(919) 469-4067
greg.barnes@townofcary.org

Summary of Requested Rezoning: The proposed rezoning case proposes to eliminate a 60%
cap on commercial square footage in the center. This case would allow for a reduction in the
streetscape buffer for the associated properties from 50’ to 10’, and increase the permitted uses
on these parcels. This case also proposes changes to the allowable building height within the
center.




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 129
A. Transportation

Tryon Rd.
Existing Roadway Section: 4 lanes, 100’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 6 lanes w/ median, 124’ ROW
Schedule: 2007 CIB project
Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes
Transit Requirements: No transit requirements

Kildaire Farm Rd.
Existing Roadway Section: 4 lanes, approx. 115’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 4 lanes
Schedule: N/A
Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lane required
Transit Requirements: No transit requirements

B. Traffic Impact Analysis:

A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Town traffic consultant, Martin Alexiou Bryson dated
November 21, 2006. All intersections operate at Level of Service “D” or better, with the exception
of Tryon and Kildaire Farm Roads.

Recommended improvements:

Widen eastbound Tryon Road to three lanes beginning 100’ before Kildaire Farm Road.
Extend westbound right turn lane on Tryon Road at Kildaire Farm Road to 550’.
Add northbound 150’ right turn lane on Kildaire Farm Road at New Waverly Place.
Extend westbound 250’ left turn lane on Tryon Road at New Waverly Place.
Redesign first intersection east of Kildaire Farm Road on New Waverly Place to accommodate
new traffic patterns.

C. Parks & Greenways:
According to the approved PRCR Facilities Master Plan there are no parks or greenways issues
related to this site.

Reference Information

Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: December 14, 2006

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: February 19, 2007*

Town Council Action:
Date: March 8 or 22, 2007*
*Italicized dates are tentative




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 130
                                  Parcel & Owner Information
Property Owner(s)                      County Parcel         Real Estate ID          Area/Acres
                                       Number (10 digit)
ZR Waverly Place LLC                   0762-63-0729         0168430                          22.54
501 Washington Place
Durham, NC 27701
ZR Waverly Op LLC                       0762-53-3793            0168438                       1.27
501 Washington Place                    0762-54-4061            0168437                       1.45
Durham, NC 27701                        0762-54-7396            0168435                       1.14
                                        0762-64-1596            0168433                       0.92
Triangle Real Estate Co.                0762-53-4379            0168439                       1.16
109 Raphael Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Sanderson Family Properties, LLC        0762-64-3652            0168432                       0.94
106 Woodwinds Industrial Ct
Cary, NC 27511
RBC Centura Bank (f/k/a Centura         0762-53-5260            0168440                       1.01
Bank)
PO Box 1220
Rocky Mount, NC 27802
Jules & Kathryn Lieblein
314 Long Point                          0762-54-5281            0168436                       1.45
Long Beach, CA 90803
Total Acres                                                                                  31.88

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted October 30, 2006
Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the
following, if applicable:

1. Any issues with the size of the tract?
The size of the tract is not an issue.

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use,
Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?

The request will be compatible with the comprehensive plan once the new comprehensive plan
amendment is reviewed and approved. The proposed Mixed Use designation calls for
commercial, office and residential uses to be utilized in conjunction with one another and the new
Waverly Shopping Center will fulfill this goal.

3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community?

The project lies within a Town of Cary defined Activity Center. This proposal would help reach
the standards set forth for Activity Centers by providing a much needed residential element as
well as expanded commercial space to help balance the ratio of commercial vs. office space
currently available as called for in Chapter 6 of the Town of Cary Land Use Plan. A greater
choice of employment, shopping, restaurant, and entertainment venues will offer new options to
surrounding residents of existing properties as well as residents of the new higher density
housing and hotel guests on-site, thereby cutting down on cross-town traffic. As the center grows


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 131
into a larger and vibrant economic generator the benefits to Cary taxpayers will also be seen in
the tax revenues that are generated.

4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do
they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts?

The proposed allowable uses are already present in the area and would not negatively alter the
character of surrounding properties.

5. What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of
the LDO are being requested and how are they justified? (PDD, new or amended)
Applicants must list these items and/or clearly highlight them within the Planned
Development document.

No reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of the LDO are
being requested.

Schools
The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County
Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities.

                                       School Information
Assigned Schools          20th Day        Permanent      Average          Projected Range of
                          Enrollment      Seat           Percent          Additional
                                          Capacity       Occupied         Students*

Dillard Drive           601             577                104%           3-52
Elementary School
Dillard Drive Middle    971             975                100%           0-34
School
Athens Drive High       1767            1792               99%            0-28
School
Total Projected range of additional students                              3-114

Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20th day of the school year for 2005-
2006 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. School assignment will be
determined at the time of development.

*The Projected Number of Additional Students is only a rough approximation. The actual number
of students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of
bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. A site with 150 two-bedroom units could yield 30
additional students, while 134 three bedroom units could yield 113 students. The basis for making
this calculation is based on multipliers provided by the Wake County Schools Office of Student
Assignment. During the rezoning process, student yield can not be accurately determined due to
unknown variables.

Development Plan Issues

The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of this land use for these parcels of
land. Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development,
such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road
connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the rezoning process. However,
all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements
spelled out in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is
submitted.


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 132
Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit Q.
Mr. Barnes stated this rezoning applies to the north and to the west of New Waverly and it does
not include the parcel where Goodyear is currently located.

Mr. J.W. Shearin, on behalf of the applicant, stated this was one of the original conditional use
zoning cases in the 1980s for a commercial-type zoning. He stated during that time this was a
rural residential subdivision, and he believes that some of the conditions on this property were the
result of skepticism about how the property may have developed and its impact on adjacent uses
at that time. He stated since that time, considering all the development in the area, many of the
conditions on this property are burdensome and somewhat outdated regarding the thought
process of how to make a vibrant center work. He stated when the Kildaire Farm Road and Tryon
Road buffers were put in place, the intent of the Land Development Ordinance was to screen,
buffer and set-back the development so it couldn’t be seen from the road. He stated today’s
design guidelines encourage urban landscape. He stated the buffers that exist today severely
impact the redevelopment of the outparcels owned by others if they choose to redevelop. With
this request they hope to spur redevelopment in this area.

Mr. Shearin stated this project proposes a vertical mix project with a potential hotel and condos.
He stated in order to get the vibrant mix necessary to make the center work, they want to be able
to use the uses that would normally be allowed in this type district. They believe there are
conditions around the site to adequately protect the adjacent property owners.

Ms. Peggy Warner stated she and her neighbors are interested in Waverly being a viable
development. They are concerned with traffic and hope it will be studied carefully. They are
concerned with water and drainage issues. She asked if people using Waverly will have access to
Loch Lohman Lake and walking trails. Mayor McAlister stated an answer will be provided.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

Mr. Dick Moore stated a draft traffic study has been prepared. He stated the Tryon Road project
from Kildaire Farm Road to Piney Plains was recently awarded, which will complete the four-lane
construction of Tryon Road. He stated since the opening of US 1 staff has noted a decrease in
traffic on Tryon Road. He stated staff will continue to analyze the traffic situation as the case
moves through the process.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith has heard comments that the center is used primarily by local people, but
this proposal will generate traffic from outside the area. Mr. Moore stated the the traffic study
determines the new trips that will be generated to this road system within one mile of the site.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the lake is private and is owned by the homeowners’ association
and has restricted use.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked about the request to go from three to five drive-throughs. Mr. Barnes
stated the concept has shown that the five outparcels are banks and existing fast-food
restaurants. He stated the addition is one bank, which will move to accommodate Whole Foods.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith suggested to look closely at the proposed use. He stated banks
accommodate drive-through traffic, but he stated the fast food drive throughs aren’t
accommodated as well.

ACTION: Referred to the February 2007 Planning and Zoning Board

_________________________

    10. Mixed Use Sketch Plan 06-MU-05 (Waverly)
        The property is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Kildaire Farm and
        Tryon Roads and contains approximately 31.88 acres. The request contains a mixture of

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 133
        office, retail, hotel and residential uses. Council may refer this item to the February 2007
        Planning and Zoning Board meeting. (Mr. Greg Barnes)

Background Information

Requested: Mixed Use Sketch Plan

Overlay Zoning District: Waverly Mixed-Use Overlay District

Existing Zoning: General Commercial Conditional Use (GC-CU); There is an associated
rezoning to amend the zoning conditions. The case number is 06-REZ-29.

Land Use Plan Designation: Although the individual property designations reflect the current
Commercial (COM) and Office/Institutional (OFC/INS) uses, the subject parcels are also located
within a larger mixed-use Community Activity Center (CAC), where a focused mix of commercial,
office, and residential uses are recommended. Therefore, no Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA) is required.

Acreage: 31.88 ± acres

Location:
2001 Kildaire Farm Road (and surrounding out parcels) on the southeast corner of Kildaire Farm
Road and Tryon Road intersection, but not including an outparcel located at 401 Colonades Way.
This area is specific to Tract #’s 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13 as indicated on the proposed
Mixed-Use Sketch Plan.

Applicant:
Mr. Luis Rios
Zapolski and Rudd, LLC
501 Washington Street
Durham, NC 27701
(919) 956-2722
irios@zapolskirudd.com

Applicant’s Contact Person:
JW Shearin - Elam, Todd, d’Ambrosi (ETd)
2880 Slater Road
Morrisville, NC 27560
(919) 481-2021
jwshearin@etdpa.com

Town of Cary Case Manager:
Greg Barnes, Planner II
316 N. Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513
(919) 469-4067
greg.barnes@townofcary.org

Summary of Mixed-Use Sketch Plan: The mixed-use sketch plan submittal proposes the
redevelopment of Tracts 3, 10, and 11 of Waverly Place. Tracts 10 & 11 propose the demolition
of existing buildings, to allow a new 55,000 square foot building for the relocation of the existing
Whole Foods grocery store. Tract 3 would be redeveloped to allow for mixed-uses, including: an
8-story mixed-use structure, a 5-story office building, several 1-2 story mixed-use buildings, and a
7-story hotel. The proposed sketch plan specifies 172,100 square feet of retail, 242,700 square
feet of office, a 500-seat theater, a 150-room hotel, and 150 multi-family dwelling units. The plan
calls for a 10% parking reduction which can be approved administratively by the Planning


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 134
Director. No other reductions, amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of
the Land Development Ordinance are being requested with the proposed mixed-use sketch plan.

A. Transportation

Tryon Rd.
Existing Roadway Section: 4 lanes with a median, 100’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 6 lanes with a median, 124’ ROW
Schedule: 2007 CIB project
Sidewalk Requirements: required on both
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes
Transit Requirements: No transit requirements

Kildaire Farm Rd.
Existing Roadway Section: 4 lanes with a median, approx. 115’ Right-of-way (ROW)
Future Roadway Section: 4 lanes with a median
Schedule: N/A
Sidewalk Requirements: required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lane required
Transit Requirements: No transit requirements

B. Traffic Impact Analysis:
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Town traffic consultant, Martin Alexiou Bryson dated
November 21, 2006. All intersections operate at Level of Service “D” or better, with the exception
of Tryon and Kildaire Farm Roads.

Recommended improvements:

Widen eastbound Tryon Road to three lanes beginning 100’ before Kildaire Farm Road.
Extend westbound right turn lane on Tryon Road at Kildaire Farm Road to 550’
Add northbound 150’ right turn lane on Kildaire Farm Road at New Waverly Place.
Extend westbound 250’ left turn lane on Tryon Road at New Waverly Place.
Redesign first intersection east of Kildaire Farm Road on New Waverly Place to accommodate
new traffic patterns.

C. Parks & Greenways: According to the approved PRCR Facilities Master Plan there are no
parks or greenways issues related to this site.

Reference Information
Meeting Schedule:
Town Council Public Hearing
Date: December 14, 2006

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date: February 19, 2007*

Town Council Action:
Date: March 8 or 22, 2007*
*Italicized dates are tentative




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 135
                                  Parcel & Owner Information
Property Owner(s)                      County Parcel         Real Estate ID          Area/Acres
                                       Number (10 digit)
ZR Waverly Place LLC                   0762-63-0729         0168430                          22.54
501 Washington Place
Durham, NC 27701
ZR Waverly Op LLC                       0762-53-3793            0168438                       1.27
501 Washington Place                    0762-54-4061            0168437                       1.45
Durham, NC 27701                        0762-54-7396            0168435                       1.14
                                        0762-64-1596            0168433                       0.92
Triangle Real Estate Co.                0762-53-4379            0168439                       1.16
109 Raphael Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Sanderson Family Properties, LLC        0762-64-3652            0168432                       0.94
106 Woodwinds Industrial Ct
Cary, NC 27511
RBC Centura Bank (f/k/a Centura         0762-53-5260            0168440                       1.01
Bank)
PO Box 1220
Rocky Mount, NC 27802
Jules & Kathryn Lieblein
314 Long Point                          0762-54-5281            0168436                       1.45
Long Beach, CA 90803
Total Acres                                                                                  31.88

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted October 30, 2006
Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the
following, if applicable:

1. Any issues with the size of the tract?
The size of the tract is not an issue.

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use,
Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?

The request will be compatible with the comprehensive plan once the new comprehensive plan
amendment is reviewed and approved. The proposed Mixed Use designation calls for
commercial, office and residential uses to be utilized in conjunction with one another and the new
Waverly Shopping Center will fulfill this goal.

3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community?

The project lies within a Town of Cary defined Activity Center. This proposal would help reach
the standards set forth for Activity Centers by providing a much needed residential element as
well as expanded commercial space to help balance the ratio of commercial vs. office space
currently available as called for in Chapter 6 of the Town of Cary Land Use Plan. A greater
choice of employment, shopping, restaurant, and entertainment venues will offer new options to
surrounding residents of existing properties as well as residents of the new higher density
housing and hotel guests on-site, thereby cutting down on cross-town traffic. As the center grows


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 136
into a larger and vibrant economic generator the benefits to Cary taxpayers will also be seen in
the tax revenues that are generated.

4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do
they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts?

The proposed allowable uses are already present in the area and would not negatively alter the
character of surrounding properties.

5. What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of
the LDO are being requested and how are they justified?

No reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of the LDO are
being requested.

Schools:
The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County
Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities.

Assigned Schools           20th Day         Permanent       Average        Projected Range of
                           Enrollment       Seat            Percent        Additional
                                            Capacity        Occupied       Students*
Dillard Drive             601               577             104%           3-52
Elementary School
Dillard Drive Middle      971             975               100%           0-34
School
Athens Drive High         1767            1792              99%            0-28
School
Total Projected range of additional students                               3-114

Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20th day of the school year for 2005-
2006 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. School assignment will be
determined at the time of development.

*The Projected Number of Additional Students is only a rough approximation. The actual number
of students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of
bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. A site with 150 two-bedroom units could yield 30
additional students, while 134 three bedroom units could yield 113 students. The basis for
making this calculation is based on multipliers provided by the Wake County Schools Office of
Student Assignment. During the rezoning process, student yield can not be accurately
determined due to unknown variables.

Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit R.

Mr. J.W. Shearin, on behalf of the applicant, stated this property owner has been working for two
years to bring this plan forward. They believe the original shopping center developer had good
intentions of providing some retail users, but unfortunately, they missed the opportunity. He
stated the current layout provides a disfunctional parking arrangement and pedestrian
accessibility with severe on-site tophography. He stated they are proposing to increase the
building height; however, the view from Tryon and Kildaire Farm Roads will not be very different
based on the topography and existing trees. Additionally, he stated there is a 105-foot buffer on
the rear of the site. He stated they plan to look at cross-sectional views to show the views with the
increased height. He stated they will not increase the area, but will just change the building
footprints. He understands the concerns of the adjacent residents with regard to water runoff, and
they will investigate stormwater issues to reduce what they currently see today. He stated they
will help – not hurt – the situation. Mr. Shearin stated they do not intend to allow any additional

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 137
fast food drive-throughs. He stated they would like to relocate the Wachovia to a parcel further
south that currently does not have a drive-through, and the bank would like a drive-through. He
stated one other outparcel user wanted the drive-through option, but for the sake of moving
forward, they do not want to have any more fast food drive-throughs and they will limit them. He
stated they’ve had two neighborhood meetings and they heard two main concerns: traffic and
building height. He stated they will continue to work with the neighbors. They believe this project
will create a successful project.

Mr. Harvey Joyner is concerned about traffic. He stated in the developer’s meeting with the
neighbors they discussed traffic improvements. He understands the State is proposing a signal
for Summerwinds Drive, but the Town’s traffic proposal does not include this information. He
questioned if there is a signal proposed for this site, and if so, then he believes the intersection
should be included in the traffic analysis.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Robison asked if the outstanding items will be taken care of before the Planning and Zoning
Board meeting. Mr. Shearin responded that cross-section views and pictures will be done in
January. He stated if they can’t complete this work prior to the Planning and Zoning Board
meeting, then they’ll request a continuance to allow sufficient time to present all information to the
Board.

Mrs. Robison asked about the streetscape language that would allow it to revert back to 30 feet.
Mr. Barnes stated if the rezoning is approved to strike the 50 foot streetscape condition from the
nine properties, then it will revert back to what’s allowed in the Land Development Ordinance if
the mixed use isn’t approved (30 feet). He stated a reduction to 10 feet is part of the mixed use
sketch plan.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith wants the drainage issue reviewed in anticipation of future development
that is not part of this proposal.

Mr. Roseland applauded the applicant for bringing forth an exciting concept plan.

ACTION: Referred to the February Planning and Zoning Board meeting

_________________________

    11. Land Development Ordinance Amendment, Round 8
        Consideration of amending the following chapters of the Land Development Ordinance
        (LDO): Chapter 3 (applicability, procedure, protest petitions); Chapter 4 (required pre-
        submittal meetings, required contents of a mixed use sketch plan, Conservation
        Residential Overlay District); Chapter 5 (Table of Permitted Uses – General Use
        Districts); Chapter 6 (Definition/Measurement); Chapter 7 (rails required for retaining
        walls and steep grade, miscellaneous amendments to the buffer regulations, illegal
        discharge and flood damage prevention); Chapter 8 (alternative development option:
        cluster housing); Chapter 12 (definitions); and minor clarifications to various chapters of
        the LDO. Council may refer this item to the January 2007 Planning and Zoning Board
        meeting. (Ms. Jennifer Currin)

STAFF REPORT
Town Council, December 14, 2006

Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Text Amendments (Round 8) (PL07-010a)
Consideration of a series of modifications and revisions to the Land Development Ordinance
Speaker: Jennifer Currin, Planner II, Planning Department


                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 138
From: Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Planning Director, and Tim Bailey, P.E., Engineering Director
Prepared by: Jennifer Currin, Planner II, Planning Department
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Proposed Schedule for LDO Amendments:

Planning and Development Committee meeting date:                    October 26, 2006
Dates of advertisements in the Cary Connections                    November 29, 2006
section of The Cary News                                           December 6, 2006
Date of public hearing:                                            December 14, 2006
Date of Planning and Zoning Board meeting:                         January 22, 2007*
Date of final action by Council:                                   February 22, 2007*
*Italicized dates are tentative.

BACKGROUND:

Introduction
Staff has identified amendments to various portions of the Land Development Ordinance text to
be included in Round 8 of LDO amendments. Major items of discussion included in this round of
amendments are the Conservation Residential Overlay District, Urban Transition Buffers, Illegal
Discharge, Flood Damage Prevention, and Cluster Housing. Also, many of these amendments
are being made to address recent changes to the rezoning process based upon Council’s
direction. The amendments also include substantive changes or additions and a number of minor
clarifications to address concerns from the staff, council members, focus/stakeholder group and
the public. As part of this amendment review process, the Development Review Committee
(Town Staff comprised of representatives from key Departments) has reviewed the proposed
amendments.

Summary of Amendments:

Major Amendments:

Rezoning Process
At the 2006 Council/Staff Retreat conducted in March, one major topic included a review of the
Town’s entire rezoning process. This item was assessed in response to longstanding comments
about the complexity of the process, difficulty of handling public input, misunderstandings about
the roles of the various participants in the process, changes during the process, and similar
issues. Through a review of the steps and a “brainstorm” session, Staff and Town Council
identified some possible changes that could be made to improve the current system.

Council requested that Staff generate a more detailed and comprehensive set of proposed
changes for consideration. Such changes in this round of amendments include:
    Requiring a mandatory neighborhood meeting for all rezonings prior to the application
        submittal
    Removing the requirement for a mandatory pre-application meeting
    Requiring that protest petitions be submitted on a form created by the Planning
        Department
    Eliminating the requirement that Staff provide a formal recommendation

Conservation Residential Overlay District
In September 2005, Council adopted revisions to the Land Development Ordinance which
created the Conservation Residential Overlay District. This Overlay applies to geographic areas
designated for “Conservation Residential” in the Southwest Area Plan and within the Town’s ETJ.
The Overlay allows applicants to submit subdivisions with densities that exceed the density of the


                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 139
underlying Residential-40 (R-40) zoning district provided that additional open space beyond that
which is already regulated (i.e., stream buffers, floodplains, etc.) is preserved.

Since its adoption, Staff has received several proposed subdivisions which are proposing to use
the density credits in the Overlay. After review of these subdivisions, Staff has found that most of
them do not implement all of the requirements within the Conservation Overlay District. Based on
feedback from the development community, there is confusion about the specifics of the
requirements. In response to this (and instead of a “user manual” proposed a few months ago)
Staff has drafted possible ordinance amendments to clarify the discrepancies. Major changes to
the Conservation Residential Overlay District include:
     Clarification that net acreage is used to calculate base density
     Calculating the Rural base density identical to the Very Low Density base density
     Amending language to strongly discourage curb and gutter
     Revising requirements for internal greenway systems
     Allowing flexibility in the design of the proposed subdivision provided the intent of rural
         character is protected

Buffers
Revisions to Section 7.3 of the LDO include eliminating Section 7.3.2 “Protecting Riparian
Buffers” and creating a new Section 7.2.14 “Urban Transition Buffer Regulations” in the
Landscaping, Buffering, Screening, and Tree Protection Ordinance. The Town’s Riparian Buffers
are proposed to be called Urban Transition Buffers or UTBs. The purpose of this ordinance
amendment is to increase the Town’s ability to enforce Environmental Management
Commission’s (EMC) regulations by separating them from requirements of the EMC and placing
them under the control of the Town’s zoning ordinance.

Changes:
    Establishes 100 ft. and 50 ft. General Urban Transition Buffers (UTB) in both the Neuse
      River and the Cape Fear River basins within the Town’s ETJ
    Sets out procedures for landowners to appeal adverse decisions regarding the
      establishment of UTBs to the Board of Adjustment
    Establishes Specialized UTBs for property within Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
    Creates a table of uses within General and Specialized UTBs
    Excludes UTBs from single-family lots
    Sets criteria for modifying UTBs
    Establishes criteria for landowners to seek variances from the Board of Adjustment if
      strict application of this ordinance leaves no reasonable use of its property

Illegal Discharges
The Town is also proposing to revise Section 7.3.8 “Illegal Discharges to the Storm Sewer
System”. The current language in Section 7.3.8 is vague and in some instances unenforceable.
The Town is required, under its NPDES Phase II permit application, to have an Illegal Discharge
Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Ordinance that includes illicit connection detection, right of
entry, prohibition of certain discharges, enforcement actions and penalties for dumping and spills.
The proposed ordinance amendments strengthen the town’s IDDE ordinance to meet minimum
requirements of its NPDES Permit.

Changes:
Explicitly prohibits any discharge of illegal substances to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4)
     Defines exempt discharges
     Prohibits illicit connections to the MS4
     Requires persons owning watercourses to provided maintenance and upkeep of same
     Requires compliance monitoring via Right-of-Entry or Search Warrants
     Requires BMPs to prevent, control and reduce stormwater pollutants

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 140
       Requires parties responsible for spills to notify town officials within prescribed time
        periods
       Defines violations, sets out enforcement procedures, and describes penalties for
        violations
       Outlines appeals of notices of violations

Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Changes to the Town’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Section 7.5, are being proposed to
accommodate changes in the new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). These changes reflect
suggestions by FEMA. These changes reflect a new requirement to protect and regulate the
“Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area”. These are flood hazard areas that were identified on
“built out” conditions in a watershed as opposed to current or existing conditions as is the custom
for most FEMA flood studies. This will help protect areas from flooding by regulating them based
on build out of future land use plans. Also included is language to comply with the Increased Cost
of Compliance requirement. This language allows structures to qualify for a $30,000 grant to help
offset the cost of bringing a structure back into compliance with the floodplain regulations after it
has been damaged by floods.

Changes:
    Requires the regulation of the future conditions flood hazard area
    More clearly defines the requirements of the floodplain development permit
    Sets additional provisions for development within the 1% annual chance and future
      conditions flood hazard areas
    Sets forth standards for additions/improvements to exiting structures within the 1%
      annual chance and future conditions flood hazard areas
    Qualifies property owners for Increased Costs of Compliance grants

Cluster Option
The Cluster Housing ordinance is being revised to provide additional lots for the preservation of
additional open space beyond the ordinance requirement.

Minor Amendments:

A number of minor amendments are proposed to make technical clarifications, provide
consistency with state law, provide consistency with proposed major amendments, and correct
references and clerical errors.

Meetings with the Developers’ Focus Group (DFG)
On October 10, 2006, Staff met with the Developer Focus Group to review this information. A
second Developer Focus Group meeting was held on November 9, 2006 to allow the participants
the opportunity to voice specific comments on the proposed amendments. At the request of the
Developers’ Focus Group, a third meeting was held on November 27th to provide Staff
recommendation on the proposed amendments, after considering all comments and suggestions
presented at the prior two meetings. A brief summary of the meetings contents are depicted
below as well as Staff response:

First Developers’ Focus Group Meeting (October 10, 2006)

DFG Comment: During the meeting, some members of the Developer Focus Group expressed
concern with a rezoning process change that would eliminate the requirement for a Staff
recommendation, expressing a belief that anyone could compare the request to the ordinance
and determine whether it meets the requirements. Since Staff is knowledgeable and trained, they
want Staff to make a recommendation. In addition, the development community voiced concerns
about the Mixed Use Sketch Plan requirements. When discussing the Conservation Residential



                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 141
Overlay District, the issue was raised that net acreage was being used to calculate density
instead of the gross density

Staff Response: Staff noted the Group’s comments and concluded that they would look into the
suggestions.

Second Developers’ Focus Group Meeting

DFG Comment: The main topic of discussion at the second Developer Focus Group meeting was
the Conservation Residential Overlay District. A major concern was the issue of net versus gross
density. The development community contends that the unit bonus should be based upon gross
density and Staff retorts stating that net density is the correct density to use when determining the
unit bonus. Gross density is the total number of dwelling units theoretically allowed on a particular
parcel. Net densities account for the amount of buildable land.

Staff Response: Gross densities are used in large scale planning concepts, such as Land Use
designation allowable densities. Gross density is used in this instance because planning is done
on a broader scale and does not take into effect parcel-level detail and such development
limitations at that level of detail. Zoning districts, however, have historically been used by the
Town of Cary Land Development Ordinance at a net density level. For example, zoning districts
are governed using minimum lot size, which is common in net density depiction, as opposed to
using the zoning district for minimum dwelling unit size and setback requirements, commonly
found in jurisdictions using gross density at the zoning level.

DFG Comment: Another concern was that the proposed language still stated that the minimum
Streetscape Buffer was 50 feet for Thoroughfares and 30 feet for Collectors. The development
community wanted assurance that if a subdivision plan was submitted with a Streetscape Buffer
of 50 feet, their plan would not be delayed during the review process. In addition, the Group
requested clarification on what “more than 50 feet” of the Streetscape buffer means in terms of
obtaining bonus densities if providing. The group questioned in 51 feet is acceptable.

Staff Response: Staff agreed with the Group’s concern and assured them that no delay would be
incurred. In addition, Staff clarified the intent of the language requiring more than 50 feet
Streetscape buffer required for density bonuses as meaning an average Streetscape Buffer of 65
feet (30% above the minimum 50 feet requirement), where the minimum is at least 50 feet.

DFG Comment: An issue for the development community was the language “strongly
discouraging” in the proposed ordinance amendment regarding the use of curb and gutter. Some
members of the Developer Focus Group believe that the lot size is too small not to have curb and
gutter and the market is demanding curb and gutter.

Staff Response: Staff agreed with the Group’s comment and proposes language to permit curb
and gutter for any lots meeting a maximum size of 8,000 square feet and lot width of 60 feet.
Larger lots, however, prohibit curb and gutter and encourage the use shared driveways to
minimize swale crossings.

DFG Comment: The last item debated at the meeting was the requirement for secondary
greenway trails instead of sidewalks. The argument was made by the development community
that secondary greenways would increase the linear feet of greenways required when compared
to the linear feet of sidewalks that would be required if allowed.

Staff Response: Staff in the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department used
approved plans and plans in review to compare the linear feet of secondary trail required in this
district to the linear feet of sidewalk required if allowed in this district. According to Staff’s
research, 5 out of 6 plans approved or in review required less linear feet of trails than sidewalks.


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 142
             SWAP: Secondary Trail Requirements vs. Sidewalk Requirements
                                    Required Trails            Required Sidewalks
            Project
                               (approximate linear feet)     (approximate linear feet)

Copperleaf                                     5000                             10580
Hilliard Forest                                5392                             13132
Manor                                          5180                              5492
Raley-Hilliard                                 5325                              8325
Singh                                          4524                              3306
Woodlands                                      5937                              8343

**Note that required sidewalks include sidewalks on one side of all streets, including cul-de-sacs
and loop streets, as all are within .5 mile of a public greenway. Also, public greenway trails are
excluded from calculations as those would be required regardless of secondary trails or
sidewalks. All calculations are rough estimates per scaled site plans etc.

DFG Comment: The second major item of discussion at the Developer Focus Group meeting was
the Mixed Use Sketch Plan content requirements. The majority of the discussion was theoretical
in nature and did not focus on the proposed language. A major reoccurring question was if this
level of detail was necessary for the sketch plans.

Staff Response: Staff has revised the sketch plan requirements based upon feedback from the
development community. Staff has received positive responses regarding these revised sketch
plan requirements.

Third Developers’ Focus Group Meeting
On November 27, 2006, Staff held a final Developer Focus Group meeting prior to the Town
Council Public Hearing on December 14, 2006. The purpose of this meeting was to present
Staff’s recommendations that would be presented at the public hearing to the development
community. Some of the development community expressed positive feedback to Staff’s changes
since the second Developer Focus Group meeting. Based on the comments received at this
meeting, it appears that the only outstanding issue was the use of net vs. gross density in the
Conservation Reservation Overlay District.

Summary of Changes since the Planning & Development Committee Meeting
In addition to the Conservation Residential Overlay District changes mentioned previously, Staff
has also proposed additional ordinance amendments to clarify ordinance language and to
address recent ordinance questions.

Changes:
    Clarify when the Town will initiate a Mixed Use Sketch Plan
    Clarify the Mixed Use Sketch Plan Protest Petition and Content requirements
    Allow Commercial Indoor Recreation Facilities in certain zoning districts without a Special
      Use Permit
    Amend the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance due to the Emergency Management
      Commission’s review
    Provide reference corrections, language clarifications, and one revision for the
      Comprehensive Transportation Plan update

Fiscal Impact: None

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends forwarding the proposed ordinance language to the
January 2007 Planning & Zoning Board meeting to receive input on these proposed
amendments.


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 143
Item #  Amendment Description                LDO Section            Purpose for Amendment
MAJOR AMENDMENTS
1      Applicability                   3.1.5(A)(1)             Rezoning Process Changes
2      Procedure                       3.2.2 (A)               Clarify written notice requirements
3      Procedure & Protest             3.4.1(D) & (F)          Rezoning Process Changes
       Petitions
4      Procedure                       3.4.3(D)(1)             Rezoning Process Changes
5      Mixed Use Sketch Plan           4.4.2(G)(3)             Clarify Protest Petition Language
       Approval Procedure                                      and Provide Principle of
                                                               Interpretation (when does Town
                                                               initiate MUSP)
6       Required Contents of a         4.4.2(I) & (K)          Clarify Mixed Use Sketch Plan
        Mixed Use Sketch Plan &                                Requirements and clarifying the
        Effect of Approval                                     effect of approval on
                                                               generalized/theorized properties
7       Conservation Residential       4.4.3                   Clarify development regulations in
        Overlay District                                       the Conservation Residential
                                                               Overlay District
8       Table of Permitted Uses-       Table 5.1-1             Allowing Commercial Indoor
        General Use Districts                                  Recreation Facilities without a
        (Except TC & CT)                                       Special Use permit in certain zoning
                                                               districts
9       Definition/Measurement         6.3.1                   Changes to front setback definition
                                                               for cul-de-sac lots
10      Rails Required for             7.2.7(J)                Require fences or rails on retaining
        Retaining Walls and Steep                              walls and grade changes
        Grade Changes
11      Urban Transition Buffer        7.2.14                  Creating UTB regulations to replace
        (UTB) Regulations                                      previous riparian buffers
12      Protecting Riparian Buffers    7.3.2 & Table 7.3-1     Remove section and table
        & Riparian Buffer Types                                regarding riparian buffers
        and Jurisdictional Authority
13      Illegal Discharge              7.3.8                   Changes strengthen Town’s
                                                               ordinance to meet minimum
                                                               requirements of NPDES Permit
14      Flood Damage Prevention        7.5                     Accommodate changes in the new
                                                               Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
15      Alternative Development        8.3                     Clarification of development
        Option: Cluster Housing                                requirements
16      Other Key Terms Defined        12.4                    Addition of stormwater related
                                                               definitions

MINOR AMENDMENTS
A      Permits To Be Consistent        3.16.2(C)             Clarification
       With This Chapter
B      Minor Encroachments into        3.19.3                Providing language to allow minor
       Required Setbacks                                     modifications into required setbacks
                                                             for special circumstances or
                                                             conditions so long as it doesn’t
                                                             encroach more than 10%
C       Provisions From Which          3.20.2(D)&(E)         Clarify that variances for additional
        Variance Are Allowed                                 square feet in area is permitted for
                                                             verandah signs
D       Action by the Zoning Board     3.20.4 (C) & 3.21.4   Provide consistency with state law


                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 144
Item #    Amendment Description            LDO Section              Purpose for Amendment
         of Adjustment                 (D)
E        Filing of Appeal; Effect of   3.21.3 (C) & 3.21.6    Provide language stating that appeals
         Filing & Appeal from the                             can be filed with the Chatham County
         Zoning Board of Adjustment                           Superior court for subject property
                                                              within that jurisdiction
F        Required Buffers and          3.22.4 (D)             Remove riparian buffer reference and
         Vegetation Protection                                replace with Urban Transition Buffer
         Areas
G        Application Requirements      3.22.5(B)(7)           Remove riparian buffer reference and
                                                              replace with Urban Transition Buffer
H        Stream Buffers Not            4.2.3(D)(6)(b)         Clarify language
         Variable
I        General Purpose;              4.4.1                  Include the Conservation Residential
         Relationship to General                              Overlay in the list of created overlay
         Use Zoning Districts                                 districts
J        Prohibited Uses               4.4.5(D)(1)(j)         Clarifying language
K        Residential Uses              Table 5.1-2            Reference correction and adding
                                                              reference to a new use specific
                                                              standard
L        Table of Allowed              Table 5.4-1            Provide regulations for portable
         Temporary Uses and                                   medical equipment units, correct
         Structures                                           temporary signage requirements, and
                                                              require a permit for Town Recognized
                                                              events
M        Residential Uses              5.2.1                  Include Use Specific Standard
N        No Permit Required            5.4.7(D)               Remove language exempting Town
                                                              Recognized events from temporary
                                                              use permits
O        Telecommunications            6.4.2(B)               Reference correction
         Facilities
P        Limits of Disturbance &       7.1.5(A)(4) & (H)(3)   Remove riparian buffer reference and
         Clear Cutting of Trees and                           replace with Urban Transition Buffer
         Other Vegetation                                     reference
Q        Protection of Champion        7.2.5 (B) & (C)        Correction & reference correction
         Trees Required
R        Maintenance                   7.2.13                 Remove riparian buffer references
         Responsibility,                                      and reference correction
         Replacement of Damaged
         Vegetation, and Associated
         Fines
S        Purpose                       7.3.1                  Remove riparian buffer reference
T        Nitrogen Export Reduction     Table 7.3-2            Remove riparian buffer reference and
         Options                                              replace with Urban Transition Buffer
                                                              reference
U        Allowable Best                7.3.5 & Table 7.3-3    Remove riparian buffer reference and
         Management Practices and                             replace with Urban Transition Buffer
         Table 7.3-3: BMP TYPES,                              reference
         TN REMOVAL RATES,
         AND DESIGN
         STANDARDS
V        Variances by Town Council     7.3.7(A)               Remove riparian buffer reference and
                                                              replace with Urban Transition Buffer
                                                              reference


                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                   Page 145
 Item #     Amendment Description              LDO Section                Purpose for Amendment
 W         Required Off-Street Parking     7.8.3(E)               Provide Staff with more flexibility in
           Spaces                                                 reducing parking requirements for
                                                                  mixed use projects
 X         Street Arrangement              7.10.3(B)(1)           Change due to Comprehensive
                                                                  Transportation Plan update
 Y         Reserved Land                   8.1.2(G)(2)            Remove riparian buffer reference and
                                                                  replace with Urban Transition Buffer
                                                                  reference
 Z         Locational Criteria             8.2.2(D)(1)(c)         Remove riparian buffer reference and
                                                                  replace with Urban Transition Buffer
                                                                  reference
 AA        Conditions                      9.3.2                  Allow flags/flagpoles in private ROW
                                                                  when shown on site plans, allow more
                                                                  flag poles in public facilities, and
                                                                  provide Planning Director with
                                                                  authority to extend duration of
                                                                  temporary sign
 BB        Summary of Permanent            Table 9.3-3            Reference corrections
           Non-Residential Sign
           Regulations Within Town
           Center
 CC        Signs Not Included in Total     9.6.4                  Reference correction, spelling
           Area Allowance                                         correction
 DD        Sign Appearance, Logos,         9.8                    Clarify applicability language and
           and Symbols                                            amend to allow more flexibility in
                                                                  primary message copy
 EE        Subdivision/Neighborhood        9.10.3                 Allow office parks to have signs in the
           Identification Signs                                   median
 FF        Amendment Procedures            9.11.6(A)              Clarify that Governing Boards can be
                                                                  considered as land owner approval
                                                                  for USP amendments
 GG        Variances for Signs             9.16                   Clarify that variances for additional
                                                                  square feet in area is permitted for
                                                                  verandah signs
 HH        Civil Penalties &               11.4.3 & 11.5          Clarify procedures
           Enforcement Procedures
 II        Use Classifications             12.3                   Correct maximum number in group
                                                                  home use classification, capacity of
                                                                  large home daycares, and clarify
                                                                  when janitorial and building
                                                                  maintenance services are considered
                                                                  industrial services

 IMAGES
 A      Setback Measurement, Cul-          6.3.1(F)                  Include image depicting the
        de-Sac                                                       measurement for a front setback
                                                                     along a cul-de-sac

Item #1
3.1.5 Pre-Application Conferences
(A)      Applicability
(1)      A pre-application conference generally is required prior to submittal of the following types
of applications:


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 146
(a)     Substantive Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 3.2.2)

(b)     Rezonings (Section 3.4);

(cb)    Special uses (Section 3.8);

(dc)    Subdivisions (Section 3.9);

(ed)    Site plans (Section 3.9);

(fe)    Variances (Section 3.20);

(gf)    Mixed Use Sketch Plans (Section 4.4.2).

Item #2
3.2.2 Substantive Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
(A)     Procedure
(1)     Initiation

Substantive amendment proposals may be submitted for consideration to the Town Council in the
following manner, by the parties indicated:

(a)   The Director of any Town department may propose a substantive amendment to the
Town Council at any time.

(b)     Either the Town Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, or Town Center Review
Commission may, on their own motion, or upon the request of the property owner, request that a
Director of a Town department investigate and evaluate a specific substantive amendment
proposal. The Director shall submit, within a reasonable time, a report and recommendation to
the Town Council regarding whether or not the proposed substantive amendment should be
reviewed by Town Council and the Planning and Zoning Board at this time. Upon receiving the
report and recommendation of the Director, the Town Council will, by majority vote, determine
whether or not to proceed and review the proposed amendment.

(2)     Public Hearings and Public Notice

Two public hearings shall be held on each proposed substantive amendment, the first before the
Town Council and the second before the Planning and Zoning Board. Notice of the hearings shall
be provided and the hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the general provisions of
Sections 3.1.6 and 3.1.7, except that only the first public hearing shall require written
(mailed) notice.

(3)     First Public Hearing: Staff Report to Town Council

The Planning Director shall review each proposed substantive amendment in light of the
standards of review set forth in paragraph (B) and distribute the application, as deemed
necessary, to other reviewers. Based on the results of those reviews, the Director shall provide a
report to the Town Council at the first public hearing on the proposed substantive amendment.
This report shall include a discussion of all plans and policies that have been adopted by the
Town and are relevant to the proposed amendment.

(4)     Second Public Hearing: Staff Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Board

(a)     Within 90 days fFollowing the first public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board shall
hold a second public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Director shall provide the staff's
recommendation regarding whether to approve or deny the amendment at this second public

                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 147
hearing.

(b)      The Planning and Zoning Board shall make its recommendation to the Town Council
within ninety (90) days of the second (or last) public hearing, based on the standards of review
set forth in paragraph (B). The Planning and Zoning Board may request an extension of time from
the Town Council. If no recommendation is made and no extension is granted, then the Town
Council may act on the proposed amendment without a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Board.

(5)     Town Council Action

(a)     After reviewing the reports and recommendations of the Planning Director and Planning
and Zoning Board, the Town Council shall take one of the following actions within ninety (90)
days of the delivery of the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation, or within ninety (90)
days from the final public hearing if no Planning and Zoning Board recommendation is made,
based on the standards of review set forth in paragraph (B):

1.      Approve the amendment by resolution ordinance, either as submitted or with
modifications suggested by staff or by the Council or Planning and Zoning Board;

2.      Reject the proposed amendment; or

3.     Refer the proposed amendment back to the Planning and Zoning Board or to a
committee of the Town Council for further consideration.

(b)    Failure of the Town Council to act within ninety (90) days of the delivery of the Planning
and Zoning Board’s recommendation, or within ninety (90) days from the final public hearing if no
Planning and Zoning Board recommendation is made, shall be deemed a denial of the
amendment request.

Item #3
3.4.1 Rezonings Generally
(D)     Procedure
(1)     Initiation of Amendments and Filing of Applications

A rezoning may be initiated by any review or decision-making body, by application from any
owner (or owner’s agent) of land for which the rezoning is requested, or by any owner or resident
of land within 500 feet of the land for which the rezoning is requested. When the owner of land is
not an individual, then the rezoning application shall include a disclosure statement that indicates
the type of entity involved, and the name and address of each person who holds 10% or more of
the business entity. When the owner of land is publicly-owned business entity, then the rezoning
application shall include a disclosure statement that indicates the name and address of each
person who holds 25% or more of the business entity. An application requesting the rezoning
shall be filed with the Planning Department. Once the application has been filed with the
Planning Department, no changes can be made to that application prior to the Town
Council Public Hearing.

(2)     Pre-Application Conference and Mandatory Neighborhood Meeting

Before filing an application, a private-party applicant shall can request a pre-application
conference with the Planning Director. See Section 3.1.5. The applicant shall hold a meeting
with the adjacent/nearby property owners that may be impacted by the proposed rezoning.
At a minimum, invitations shall be sent by the applicant to all individual property owners
within 100 feet of the area included within the rezoning case and representatives of all
Town-recognized residential homeowner associations within one-half mile of the area
subject to the rezoning case. The purpose of these meetings is to develop a plan that

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 148
addresses residents' concerns prior to submittal of the rezoning application to the Town,
and applicants may be required to tender proof of mailing during the rezoning case
approval process.
                                           …
(4)    Public Hearings

Two public hearings shall be held in accordance with Section 3.1.7, provided, however, only
the first public hearing shall require written (mailed) notice.

(a)     First Public Hearing: Staff Report to Town Council

The Planning Director shall review each proposed rezoning in light of the approval criteria of
paragraph (E) and distribute the application to the Development Review Committee and, as
deemed necessary, to other reviewers. Based on the results of those reviews, the Director shall
provide a report to the Town Council at the first public hearing on the proposed rezoning. This
report shall include a discussion of all plans and policies that have been adopted by the Town
and are relevant to the proposed amendment.

(b)     Second Public Hearing: Staff Report Recommendation to Planning and Zoning Board

1.      Within 180 days fFollowing the first public hearing before the Town Council, the Planning
and Zoning Board shall hold a second public hearing on the proposed rezoning provided that
new items and/or substantial changes have been made to the rezoning request. Public
testimony at this second public hearing shall be limited to comments upon new or substantially
changed aspects of the rezoning case which have occurred following the public hearing held by
the Town Council. Comments may also be made on any proposed substantive amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, if applicable. The Director shall provide the Development Review
Committee's recommendation regarding whether to approve or deny the rezoning at this second
public hearing. At the close of Following this second (or last) public hearing, the Board shall
make a recommendation to the Town Council whether to approve or deny the proposed rezoning,
based on the approval criteria of paragraph (E).

(5)     Town Council Action

(a)     After reviewing the reports of the Planning Director and recommendations of the
Planning Director and Planning and Zoning Board, the Town Council shall, take one of the
following actions within ninety (90) days of the delivery of the Planning and Zoning Board’s
recommendation, or within ninety (90) days from the final public hearing if no Planning and
Zoning Board recommendation is made, based on the approval criteria of paragraph (E):

1.      Approve the rezoning by ordinance;

2.      Reject the proposed rezoning;

3.     Refer the proposed rezoning back to the Planning and Zoning Board or to a committee of
the Town Council for further consideration.
                                             …
(F)            Protest Petitions
                                             …
(d)    Form and Content

A protest petition shall be valid, effective, and accepted for purposes of this section only if it
identifies the proposed amendment; the name, address, and signature of each protesting
property owner; and the reasons for the protest. Forms shall be submitted on a Planning
Department form or an equivalent document.
                                                   …

                                                                                   December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 149
Item #4
3.4.3 Rezonings to Planned Development Districts
(D)     Procedure
(1)     Pre-Application Conference

Before filing an application for PDD master plan approval, the applicant shall may request a pre-
application conference with the Development Review Committee. See Section 3.1.5. The
applicant shall provide the Development Review Committee with the following information at the
pre-application conference:

Item #A
3.16.2           Permits To Be Consistent with This Chapter
With the exception of signs that comply with a Uniform Sign Plan within a Planned Development
(provided such plan was approved prior to January 13, 2000), no sign permit of any kind shall be
issued for an existing or proposed permanent sign unless such sign is consistent with:

(A)     Any Uniform Sign Plan approved and in effect for the property; and

(B)     The conditions of this chapter.

(C)    Where there is a conflict between the chapter and a Uniform Sign Plan, the chapter
Uniform Sign Plan shall control.

Item #B
3.19.3          Minor Building Encroachments into Required Setbacks
The Planning Director may approve encroachments of a principal building into any required
setback up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the applicable required setback, provided that:

(A)     The request involves encroachment into two or fewer required setbacks per lot; and

(B)      The encroachment is a result of a construction error by the property owner or a person
acting on his or her behalf whether discovered during the construction process or afterwards; or
special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., narrowness, exceptional topographic
conditions, or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings
that are similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with
this Ordinance's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of
nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this
Ordinance, or the Comprehensive Plan; and

(C)     The encroachment cannot be corrected without substantial hardship and expense to the
property owner; and

(D)     The encroachment, if approved, will not substantially interfere with the convenient and
enjoyable use of adjacent properties and will not pose any substantial danger to the public health
and safety.

In addition, the Director may grant additional encroachments for structures that were
constructed prior to May 13, 1999 (Implementation Date of Required Foundation Surveys)
which do not meet the setback and other requirements of this ordinance provided that
items (B) through (D) are met above and building permits were obtained and approved for
the structure.

Item #C
3.20.2        Provisions From Which Variances Are Allowed
(D)    The setback standards for real estate signs set forth in Section 9.3.2 (RQ);



                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 150
(E)     The square footage standards of verandah and wall signs set forth in Section 9.3.2(W)
and (X); and

Item #D
3.20.4            Action by the Zoning Board of Adjustment
(C)      After conducting the public hearing, the Zoning Board of Adjustment may: deny the
application; conduct an additional public hearing on the application; or grant the requested
variance. Any approval or denial of the request shall be by resolution, accompanied by written
findings of fact that the variance meets or does not meet each of the criteria set forth in Section
3.20.5, stating the reasons for such findings. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not grant any
variance unless there is a concurring vote of at least eight four-fifths (4/5) of the members.

Item #E
3.21.3           Filing of Appeal; Effect of Filing
(C)     The filing of an appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the contested action,
unless the Planning Director certifies to the Zoning Board of Adjustment that, in his or her opinion
by reason of facts stated in the certification, such a stay would cause imminent peril to life and
property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed except by a restraining order granted by
the Zoning Board of Adjustment or by the Wake County Superior Court (or Chatham County if
the subject property is located within that jurisdiction) on notice to the administrative official
from whom the appeal is taken, with due cause shown.

Item #D
3.21.4          Action by the Zoning Board of Adjustment
(D)      The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not reverse or modify the contested action unless
there is a concurring vote of at least eight four-fifths (4/5) of the members.

Item #E
3.21.6            Appeal from Zoning Board of Adjustment
Any appeal from a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall be to the Superior Court for
Wake County (or Chatham County if the subject property is located within that jurisdiction)
by petition for a writ of certiorari. Any such petition to the Superior Court shall be filed with the
court clerk no later than 30 days after the date the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment is
filed in the Planning Department, or after the date a written copy of the decision is delivered to
every aggrieved party who has filed a written request for such copy with the Zoning Board of
Adjustment at the public hearing, whichever is later. The copy of the decision shall be delivered to
the aggrieved party either by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested.

Item #F
3.22.4          Required Buffers and Vegetation Protection Areas
(D)     Any other areas necessary for the protection of existing vegetation as indicated within
this Ordinance (e.g., Urban Transition riparian bBuffers).

Item #G
3.22.5           Application Requirements
(B)      An application for a Tree Clearing Certificate shall be filed with the Planning Department.
The application form shall be accompanied by a Vegetation Protection Plan that shall include, at
a minimum, the following information on a sheet size no larger than 24 by 36 inches at a
minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet:
                                                   …
(7)      The location and width of all future/existing buffers and associated vegetation protection
areas, including Urban Transition riparian buffers, perimeter buffers and perimeter streetscapes.

Item #H
4.2.3 (D)(6)    Landscaping

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 151
                                               …
(b)     Stream Buffers Not Variable
Variations from the minimum state-mandated stream buffers including any Neuse River
Riparian Buffer (Zones 1 and 2) set forth in Section 7.3.2 shall not be allowed without requisite
approvals from the appropriate state agency.

Item #I
4.4.1 General Purpose; Relationship to General Use Zoning Districts
The overlay zoning districts of this chapter are intended to apply in combination with the
underlying general use zoning districts to impose regulations and standards in addition to those
required by the general use districts. The requirements of an overlay district shall apply whenever
they are in conflict with and are more stringent than those in the general use district. Variances
may not be granted from overlay district regulations unless specifically provided for in this
Section. The following overlay districts are hereby created:

(A)     Mixed Use Overlay;

(B)     Conservation Residential Overlay;

(BC)    Thoroughfare Overlay;

(CD)    Airport Overlay; and

(DE)    Watershed Protection Overlay.

Item #5
4.4.2 (G)      Fully or Partially Developed Mixed Use Overlay Districts
(3)     Mixed Use Sketch Plan Approval Procedure

(a)     Required Pre-Submittal Meetings

1.     First, the applicant shall hold a pre-application conference meeting with Planning
Department staff (see Section 3.1.5).

2.       Following the pre-application conference and before any public hearing, the applicant
shall hold a meeting with the adjacent/nearby property owners that may be impacted by the
proposed mixed use sketch plan. At a minimum, invitations shall be sent by the applicant to all
individual property owners and homeowner associations that own property within 100 feet of
the area included within the mixed use sketch plan and representatives of all Town-recognized
residential homeowner associations within one-half mile of the area subject to the mixed use
sketch plan.

3.     The purpose of these such meetings is to identify and address develop a plan that
addresses residents' concerns prior to submittal of the mixed use sketch plan to the Town., and
aApplicants may be required to tender proof of mailing during the mixed use sketch plan approval
process.

(b)     Geographic Coverage

1.      The Planning Department staff will determine the extent of what properties that should
be included in the mixed use sketch plan. At a minimum, a fully or partially developed mixed use
sketch plan shall encompass the entire land area within one quadrant of a designated mixed use
overlay district, regardless of ownership and whether such lands are developed or vacant
center quadrant (or logical extension thereof).

2.      The quadrant shall be bounded on at least two sides by public roadways, or shall be

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 152
bounded by a line encompassing property that logically can be planned in an integrated fashion
due to access, utilities, and other similar items,.

(c)     Town-Initiated Plans

Where an in view of the staff and the applicant demonstrates a good faith effort to coordinate
with other property owners to prepare a cohesive, mixed use sketch plan for the identified
geographic area, but cannot obtain participation by a majority of owners, then the Town
will consider a request by the sponsoring property owners to participate in a public-
private endeavor or to actually prepare the mixed use sketch plan. Such requests for Town
participation will be presented to Town Council with a recommendation from the Planning
Director as to the appropriateness of the request, considering such factors as the location,
property configuration, ownership pattern, development trends in the area, and work
program of the Planning Department. If properties proposed by the applicant do not include all
parcels that should be included with this request, then the Town will initiate the mixed use sketch
plan for that quadrant.

(b)     Public Hearing Required to Approve Mixed Use Sketch Plan

A public hearing on the proposed ACCP is required before the Town Council. After the public
hearing, the Town Council shall forward the plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for its
recommendation in accordance with a schedule established by the Planning Department.

(c)     Town Council Action

The Town Council shall review the proposed mixed use sketch plan based on the approval
criteria for planned development rezonings set forth in Section 3.4.1(E), the approval criteria for
mixed use sketch plans set forth in subsection (J) below, and the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Board, and shall approve or deny the proposed mixed use sketch plan.

(d)     Protest Petitions

Prior to the public hearing, the Planning Department shall notify adjacent property owners within
100 feet of the proposed mixed use sketch plan of the times and places for public hearings and
meetings. The notices shall also outline the requirements and deadline for submittal of a valid
protest petition of a mixed use sketch plan.

1.      Valid Protest Petition

The following situations shall render an mixed use sketch plan protest petition valid:

a.       the proposed mixed use sketch plan will redevelop or reuse an existing or partially built
activity center and such redevelopment or reuse will require a traffic study (see Section 3.23.4 (B)
(1). Evaluation of Adequacy of Transportation: Traffic Impact Analysis) and/or.

b.       Submittal of a petition of five percent (5%) or more of the residentially-zoned property
owners (excluding any multifamily used property) of a 100-foot-wide buffer extending along the
entire boundary of only each discrete or separate area planned in detail within the mixed use
sketch plan by an applicant with full ownership or control, and shown for a change in use
or intensity from what is permitted by the existing, underlying zoning. A street right-of-way
shall not be considered in computing the 100-foot buffer area as long as that street right-of-way is
100 feet wide or less. When less than an entire parcel of land is subject to the proposed zoning
map amendment, the 100-foot buffer shall be measured from the property line of that parcel. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Town may rely on the county tax listing to determine
the 'owners' of potentially qualifying areas.


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 153
2.      If a valid protest petition is submitted prior to the Town Council's decision on a mixed use
sketch plan, the plan may be approved only upon the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the
members of the Town Council.

3.       A protest petition shall be valid, effective, and accepted for purposes of this section only if
it is submitted to the Town Clerk in accordance with the review schedule published by the
Planning Department.

Item #6
4.4.2 Mixed Use Overlay
(I)      Required Contents of a Mixed Use Sketch Plan
Mixed use sketch plans are conceptual documents that address the general density, mix of uses,
and development patterns within an activity mixed use center. They are less detailed than the
site and/or subdivision plans required for full site plan or subdivision review. The intent is to
provide sufficient information to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Town’s Design Guidelines land use plan. In situations where an applicant does not have
ownership or development control over all of the property(ies) required by the Town to be
included in the mixed use sketch plan, the applicant may illustrate the theoretical
development that could occur on such other property(ies) at a generalized, lesser level of
detail than for the propery(ies) actually owned by the applicant. Mixed use sketch plans
shall meet the minimum requirements of a site or subdivision sketch plan, which are
established by the Planning Director. Minimum requirements for mixed use sketch plans
include:

(1)     Size and location of the land proposed for development as a new mixed use center, or
portion of an existing/partially built mixed use center.

(2)      Proposed gross density of the new mixed use center or portion of an existing/partially
built mixed use center including the maximum number of dwelling units and square footage of
uses.

(3)    Major and minor transportation roadways and pedestrian linkages throughout the area
proposed for development, including appropriate linkages between uses.

(4)     Uses proposed for the new mixed use center, or portion of an existing/partially built mixed
use center, including approximate total percentages of land area and general locations devoted to
residential, office, commercial, and institutional uses. The concept plan should show how the
mixed uses and urban open space are being achieved.

(5)     Buffering/screening of adjacent residential properties.

(6)     Submittal of checklist for Mixed Use Center design guidelines.

(71)    A traffic impact analysis as required under the provisions of Section 3.23.

(8a)     If a traffic impact analysis is not required or provided according to the provisions of
section 3.23, then a screening traffic study must be submitted prior to or concurrent with
development of the mixed use sketch plan. The proposed nature, characteristics, and
methodology of the screening traffic study shall be approved in advance of the study by the
Director of Engineering. In considering and approving the appropriate nature, characteristics, and
methodology of the screening traffic study, the Director shall consider factors including, but not
limited to, the following:

(a)1.   the amount of undeveloped or redevelopable land within and proximate to the mixed use
center;


                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 154
(b)2.   the location of the mixed use center within the Town as a whole, in particular whether or
not the mixed use sketch plan is located on the development fringe of the Town, or within long-
established and developed parts of Cary;

(c)3.     the type and intensity of the land uses proposed by the mixed use sketch plan;

(d)4.     the availability and currency of existing traffic models and studies for the area;

(e)5.  the degree to which the proposed mixed use sketch plan and its surrounding existing,
approved, and planned land uses do or do not deviate from the assumptions of the regional
NCDOT traffic model or other models used by the Town to develop elements of its
Comprehensive Plan or to guide its facility planning;

(f)6.    the degree to which existing traffic models or studies for the area indicate that the
existing and planned roadway network is likely to have excess or deficient traffic capacity in the
future;

(g)7.     the anticipated buildout timeframe of the mixed use sketch plan;

(h)8. the degree to which the proposed mixed use sketch plan conforms with the
Comprehensive Plan.

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
Regarding part (81), above:
         All traffic screening studies are to be completed by the Town either through consultants
          or staff.
         For a mixed use sketch plan covering a very small geographic area, or that is unlikely to
          be split into multiple development tracts under different owners, the Town may require a
          traffic screening study that meets the requirements of a Traffic Impact Analysis as
          described in Section 3.23.
                                                  …
(K)       Effect of Approval

(1)     Once a mixed use sketch plans is approved in a mixed use district or portion of the
center, all subsequent site and/or subdivision plans submitted within the boundaries of the mixed
use center shall be consistent with the terms of the approved mixed use sketch plans and shall
be reviewed and approved by staff. If the property was originally included in a mixed use
sketch plan, but shown only in a generalized, theoretical fashion, an amendment to the
original mixed use sketch plan showing necessary detail must first be prepared and
approved by Town Council prior to site or subdivision plan review on such property(ies).

(2)      Actual development of the property comprising the approved mixed use center shall be
subject to all applicable state requirements, site and/or subdivision plan approvals, and other
permits and approvals otherwise required by this Ordinance. Such development shall comply with
all requirements of this Ordinance unless the approved mixed use center sketch plan states
otherwise.

Item #7
4.4.3 Conservation Residential Overlay
(A)     Purpose and Intent

The Conservation Residential Overlay District is established to implement the goals and
objectives established in the Southwest Area Land Use Plan.

(B)       Location of District and Applicability

                                                                                   December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 155
The Conservation Residential Overlay District shall apply to the geographic areas designated as
Conservation Residential in the Southwest Area Plan adopted by Town Council on August 12,
2004, or as may be amended. The district boundaries may not necessarily correspond to the
Southwest Area Plan boundary. The current boundaries of the district are shown on the Official
Zoning Map. Parcels zoned as Planned Developments and parcels subject to site plans
approved before July 15, 2004 are exempt from the application of this ordinance for so long as
the PDD or site plan remains in place.

(C)     Subdistricts Created and Defined

Due to the existing character and desired types of future development in the southwest area,
differing residential densities, dimensional standards, open space requirements, and other related
development standards are spelled out in the Southwest Area Plan. In order to present the full
range of zoning and development requirements for each different area, this overlay zoning district
is divided into such subdistricts as delineated in the Southwest Area Plan as follows:

               TABLE 4.4.1: CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY SUBDISTRICTS
                 Subdistrict                          Description
                    LCR                  Conservation Residential, Low Density
                   VLCR                Conservation Residential, Very Low Density
                  RURAL                                  Rural

(D) Rezoning Not Required

Rezoning is not required for applications meeting the requirements stated in 4.4.3(F) below.

(E) Plan Approval Required

All development within the Conservation Residential Overlay shall require submission of a
subdivision plan or site plan in accordance with Section 3.9 of this Ordinance, and approval of
such plan by the appropriate decision-making body.

(F) Requirements for Developments within the Conservation Residential Overlay District

(1) Base Density Option

Subdivisions within the Conservation Residential Overlay District may be approved as
subdivisions per Section 3.9 provided they comply with the standards established by the
Southwest Area Plan, as follows:

          TABLE 4.4.2: BASE DENSITY OPTION: CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN
                               THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
                               Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR)
          Maximum Permitted          Key Standards        Minimum Lot Size  Housing Product
          Yield Base Density                                   (Sq.ft.)
           1.0 Units per acre,         Minimum            40,000 (See Note    Single-family,
          gross Usable area ÷         Streetscape                [2])           detached
          40,000 square feet       Roadway Setback
             (See Note [4])       Buffer = 50 feet for
                                  Thoroughfares and
                                       30 feet for
                                    Collectors (See
                                        Note [1])
                        Conservation Residential, Very Low Density (VLCR)/Rural

                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 156
           TABLE 4.4.2: BASE DENSITY OPTION: CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN
                                THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
                                Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR)
            1.0 Units per acre,           Minimum            40,000 (See Note       Single-family,
          gross Usable area ÷            Streetscape               [2])               detached
           40,000 square feet        Roadway Setback
              (See Note [4])         Buffer = 50 feet for
                                    Thoroughfares and
                                          30 feet for
                                       Collectors (See
                                           Note [1])
                                     American Tobacco
                                     Trail (ATT) buffer=
                                      50 feet (See Note
                                              [3])
                                                      Rural
            0.5 Units per acre,      Roadway Setback         80,000 (See Note       Single-family,
                   gross                (See Note [1])             [2])               detached
                                     American Tobacco
                                     Trail (ATT) buffer=
                                      50 feet (See Note
                                              [3])
         NOTES:
         [1] Required. Streetscape Roadway Setbacks Buffers must meet Section 7.2.4 along
         collectors and thoroughfares identified in the Thoroughfare Element of the
         Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Averaging of the required Streetscape Buffer
         may be permitted by the Planning Director in cases where, due to increased
         elevation changes or natural environment, averaging further enhances the
         viewsheds and protects the rural character of the development or a significant
         natural resource.
         [2] All other lot dimensional standards shall be in accordance with LDO Table 6.1.1. The
         cluster housing option described in LDO Section 8.3 is not permitted under the Base
         Density Option.
         [3] Buffer shall function as visual separation between public trail and private property; it
         shall contain native plant material, supplemented where necessary with deciduous and
         evergreen trees to provide an opaque screen for the benefit of trail users and adjoining
         property owners. Buffer shall conform to the requirements of a Type ‘A’ Buffer as
         described in LDO Section 7.2.3(D).
         [4] Usable area is the total area excluding all floodplains, UTB/stream buffers,
         standard streetscape and other required buffers (see Chapter 7: Development and
         Design Standards).

(2) Density Bonus Option

Subdivisions within the Conservation Residential Overlay District may increase their development
yield by preserving open space and employing the incentive measures described in Section 4.4 of
the Southwest Area Plan, Density Bonus Provisions to Encourage Preservation of Open Space,
and explained in Section 4.4.3(F)(4) below.

(3) Overlay District Planning Process is Mandatory

For lands within the Conservation Residential Overlay District, the planning process set forth in
this Section is mandatory for developments utilizing the Density Bonus Option outlined in Table
4.4.3 below. For such developments, the Alternative Development Option: Cluster Housing
described in Section 8.3 is not available.


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 157
Standards for subdivisions utilizing the Density Bonus option are is shown as follows:
                                                                                            1
         TABLE 4.4.3: DENSITY BONUS OPTION: CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN
                               THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
                               Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR)
          Maximum Permitted         Key Standards        Minimum Lot Size   Housing Product
                  Yield                Incentive              (Sq.ft.)
                                       Measures
          Maximum – 2.5 Units        Streetscapes      10,000 (smaller lots   Single-family,
           per acre, gross net       greater than       sizes allowed -See      detached;
                                        required             Note [2])           attached
                                  Roadway Setback                           (attached units,
                                  >50 feet (see Note                         semi-detached
                                           [1])                               and detached
                                                                             patio dwelling
                                  Use of Low-Impact                          units shall not
                                     Development                             exceed 20% of
                                   Techniques (LID)                           development
                                     (see Note [5])                         yield) (See Note
                                                                                    [7])
                                    Preservation of
                                      contributing
                                    structure within
                                   the Green Level
                                   National Register
                                    Historic District
                                     (see Note [3])

                                      Preservation of
                                      Upland Forest
                                       (see Note [6])

                                      Additional
                                    buildable open
                                         space
                        Conservation Residential, Very Low Density (VLCR)/Rural
          Maximum – 1.0 Units       Streetscapes       20,000 (smaller lots   Single-family,
           per acre, gross net       greater than       sizes allowed -See      detached
                                       required              Note [2])
                                  Roadway Setback
                                  >50 feet (see Note
                                          [1])

                                    American Tobacco
                                     Trail (ATT) buffer
                                       >50 feet (See
                                          Note [4])

                                    Use of Low-Impact
                                      Development
                                    Techniques (LID)
                                      (see Note [5])


1
 Conservation Subdivision Design principles are described in Technical Appendix 17 of the Open Space
and Historic Resources Plan.

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 158
TABLE 4.4.3: DENSITY BONUS OPTION: CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS1 WITHIN
                  THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
                  Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR)
 Maximum Permitted     Key Standards        Minimum Lot Size  Housing Product
       Yield              Incentive              (Sq.ft.)
                          Measures
                       Preservation of
                       Upland Forest
                        (see Note [6])

                             Additional
                           buildable open
                                space
                                        Rural
  Maximum – 0.67         Roadway Setback 60,000 See Note [2])           Single-family,
 Units per acre, gross   >50 feet (see Note                               detached
                                 [1])

                         American Tobacco
                          Trail (ATT) buffer
                            >50 feet (See
                               Note [4])

                         Use of Low-Impact
                           Development
                          Techniques (see
                             Note [5])

                           Preservation of
                           Upland Forest
                            (see Note [6])

                         Additional useable
                            open space
NOTES:
[1] Required. Streetscape Roadway Setbacks Buffers greater than the required
width must meet Section 7.2.4 along collectors and thoroughfares identified in the
Thoroughfare Element of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The increase in
Streetscape is calculated at an average width of 65 feet (minimum 50 feet) for
Thoroughfares and an average width of 39 feet (minimum 30 feet) for Collectors.

[2] If a parcel contains regulatory stream buffers comprising greater than 20% of the
parcel, applicants may employ the Density Bonus Provisions and reduce lot sizes to a
minimum of 8,000 sq.ft. For parcels containing stream buffers that comprise greater
than 30% of the parcel, applicants may employ the Density Bonus Provisions and
reduce lot sizes to no less than 6,000 sq.ft. Reduction in lot size will be calculated
incrementally until the maximum permitted yield or minimum lot size is achieved,
whichever occurs first. All other lot dimensional standards shall be in accordance with
LDO Table 6.1-1. For LCR lots, all dimensions other than minimum lot size shall
conform to R-8: Residential District standards. Residential lots less than 8,000 sq. ft.
shall conform to TR: Transitional Residential District standards. VLCR and Rural lot
dimensions shall conform to R-20 and R-40: Residential District standards, respectively.
[3] Refers to primary contributing structure on the site, such as the main farmhouse, as
identified in the Green Level Historic District National Register Nomination document.
Must be surrounded by at least one (1) acre of contiguous open space. ‘Preservation’ is
defined as the active restoration or rehabilitation and the ongoing maintenance of a

                                                                    December 14, 2006
                                                                            Page 159
            TABLE 4.4.3: DENSITY BONUS OPTION: CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS1 WITHIN
                                    THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
                                    Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR)
              Maximum Permitted           Key Standards        Minimum Lot Size       Housing Product
                      Yield                 Incentive                (Sq.ft.)
                                            Measures
            structure. To qualify a primary contributing structure for the density bonus option, the
            property owner shall enter a preservation agreement with a qualified preservation
            organization. Preservation agreements may include, but are not limited to, historic
            preservation easements, façade and exterior covenants, or other methods acceptable to
            the Town.
            [4] Buffer shall function as visual separation between public trail and private property; it
            shall contain native plant material, supplemented where necessary with deciduous and
            evergreen trees to provide an opaque screen for the benefit of trail users and adjoining
            property owners. Buffer shall conform to the requirements of a Type ‘A’ Buffer as
            described in LDO Section 7.2.3(D).
            [5] Required. The requirements of Section 7.3, Stormwater Management, shall be
            achieved using LID site planning and techniques or a combination of LID and
            conventional storm water management practices. The goal of LID is to develop site
            design techniques, strategies, and BMPs to store, infiltrate, evaporate, retain, and
            detain runoff on the site to more closely replicate pre-development runoff characteristics
            and to better mimic the natural and unique hydrology of the site thereby limiting the
            increase in pollutant loads caused by development. The selection of these the
            combination of LID strategies and techniques for compliance with Section 7.3 is at the
            applicant’s discretion and shall be detailed in the site plan.
            [6] Upland forest refers to the Mixed Upland Hardwoods plant community type identified
            in the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan.
            [7] These dwelling units (including patio dwellings, duplexes, subdivided attached, semi-
            attached, and townhouse developments) shall comply with Density and Dimensional
            Standards for Transitional Residential (TR) Districts set forth in Table 6.1.1. of the LDO.

(4) Standards for Additional Preserved Open Space

Use of the Density Bonus Option requires preserved open space beyond the required
streetscapes, perimeter buffers, and stream buffers. The following standards apply to the
additional open space preserved under the Density Bonus Option and are provided in order of
priority:

(a) Primary Open Space:

The classes of Primary Open Space are listed as follows in order of priority:

Class I: Extension of the required minimum sStreetscape, beyond the required minimum.
Open space along an adjoining roadway shall be naturally wooded or supplemented as
needed to create a native forest condition.

Class II:

1. Primary contributing structure within the Green Level National Register Historic District shall
count as one (1) acre of Class II primary open space, provided that the structure is preserved
and/or rehabilitated to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and when
included within at least one (1) acre of Class II open space to preserve additional rural character
features.

2. Frontage along the American Tobacco Trail, beyond the required fifty (50) feet.


                                                                                   December 14, 2006
                                                                                           Page 160
Class III:

1. Upland forest (upland hardwood and mixed hardwood/conifer) that is contiguous to other
Primary open space.

2. Greenway corridors, outside of jurisdictional stream buffers, that are part of the Town’s
greenway master plan.

The priority order of Primary Open Space may be altered when it is determined that preservation
of specific resources is most important for meeting the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan or that other design measures, approved by the Planning Director, are
used which further enhance the rural character of the development. An example of
acceptable design measure include, but is not limited to, the use of curvilinear streets off
the main thoroughfare to further screen residential units from off-site view.

(b)     Secondary Open Space: Includes all other additional preserved open space not
contiguous to Primary Open Space; for example, non-contiguous upland hardwood or mixed
hardwood forest, wetlands, or other land adjacent to existing stream buffers or perimeter buffers.

(c)      Density Bonus for Preserved Open Space:

1. Ten (10) additional housing units for every acre of Primary Class I Open Space preserved.

2. Nine (9) additional housing units for every acre of Primary Class II Open Space preserved.

3. Eight (8) additional housing units for every acre of Primary Class III Open Space preserved.

4. Five (5) additional housing units for every acre of Secondary Open Space preserved

(5)      Dedication and Maintenance

Applicants shall demonstrate compliance with Open Space uses, ownership and maintenance
standards in Section 8.3.5 and 8.3.6 of the Land Development Ordinance. All open space
preserved under the Density Bonus Option shall be placed in common open space. Covenants or
easements for additional open space preserved under the Density Bonus Option shall be
recorded with the Wake County Register of Deeds. This recordation shall occur prior to or in
conjunction with any required plats or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Planning
Director may approve the use of other protective agreements that will ensure no adverse impacts
to preserved open space.

(6)      Road Standards

Subdivisions within the Conservation Residential Overlay District developed under Options (1)
and (2) above may employ standards for Rural Collectors and Rural Thoroughfares as delineated
in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Curb and gutter are permitted when lots are less
than 8,000 square feet in area and lot widths are less than 60 feet. Shared driveways are a
recommended way to reduce the number of swale crossings. In cases where lot sizes are
greater than 8,000 square feet in area and lot widths are greater than 60 feet, Ccurb and
gutter and sidewalks are not required only permitted on for Rural Collectors, Rural
Thoroughfares and internal streets upon demonstration by the applicant and approval by
the Planning Director that the intent of the rural character has been met. Median curbs are
permitted for Rural Thoroughfares and the median may be landscaped with shrubs and bushes.

(7)      Pedestrian Connectivity




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 161
Greenways, instead of sidewalks, will be utilized to meet Town objectives of for pedestrian
connectivity. Sidewalks are not required along rural collectors and thoroughfares identified in
Section 4.4.3. (F)(6) above.

New developments within the Conservation Residential Overlay District sections will contain
adequate greenways and secondary access trails to ensure connectivity to the public greenway
system within each subdivision, as well as connectivity to primary greenway trails. Trails
will consist of three types: primary, secondary and spur trails. Construction of primary
greenway trails is required at the time of development. Secondary greenway trails, which will
essentially function as sidewalks, are also required as development occurs. Primary (10’ width)
and secondary greenways (8’ width) and other non-paved pedestrian connections will be
constructed in accordance with the standards described in the Parks, Greenways, and Cultural
Resources Facilities Master Plan. Primary greenway trails will be those depicted on the
Parks, Greenways, and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan and shall be ten feet (10’)
wide (i.e. the public greenway system). Secondary greenway trails will be eight feet (8’)
wide and will replace sidewalks within each subdivision in terms of providing pedestrian
connections. Secondary greenway trail systems should be designed so as to provide
sufficient pedestrian access within the subdivision, similar in connectivity to a traditional
sidewalk system. Secondary greenway trail systems should be designed to reflect the
rural character of the district. Spur trails will be those trails that are located between lots,
or that connect cul-de-sacs to either primary or secondary trails. Spur trails shall be a
minimum of six feet (6’) wide.

All trails (primary, secondary and spur) will be paved asphalt. Construction of all primary,
secondary and spur trails is required at the time of development. All greenways will be
constructed in accordance with Town standards. A twenty feet (20’) wide permanent Town
of Cary greenway easement centered on all primary trails must be dedicated to the Town.
The Town shall maintain all primary trails. Secondary and spur trails shall be maintained
by the subdivision Homeowners’ Association (HOA), and shall be open to public use. All
secondary and spur trails will preferably be located within HOA maintained common open
space. In cases where this is not feasible, a twenty feet (20’) wide private pedestrian
greenway easement centered on these trails must be recorded.

Flexibility on the amount and location of secondary greenways may be provided by the
Development Review Committee if overall connectivity and the intent of the rural character
have been met.

(8)     Residential Development Standards

Residential lots utilizing the bonus density incentive shall be arranged in a contiguous
pattern and arranged to minimize disturbance to natural resources. The rural viewshed
should be protected and preserved to protect the rural character when viewed from public
roadways, such as Collector and Thoroughfares, as well as abutting properties. When
possible, road lengths required for the subdivisions should be minimized to provide a
rural character and provide for increased open space.

Item #J
4.4.5 Airport Overlay
(D)     Prohibited Uses and Structures
(1)     Prohibited Uses
                                                  …
(j)     Outdoor storage of certain goods and materials, including but not limited to the following:
oxides; coal; ores; minerals; produce; furniture; flammable or combustible building supplies;
paper and frame products; or wrecked, dismantled or partially dismantled vehicles.




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 162
      Item #K
TABLE 5.1-2: TABLE OF TOWN CENTER (TC) DISTRICT USES
P = Permitted Use; S = Special Use (see Section 3.8); A = Accessory Use
Use      Use       HMXD MXD          HDR       MXDR      HDR     MDR        LDR      CB&R      COM       CLI      OFC /     INS      OFC /     Use
Cate-    Type                        Mid-                Garden                                                   INS                IND       Specifi
gory                                 Rise                                                                                                      c Stds
House- Residen- P           P                                                        P                                                         5.2.1(J)
hold     tial use
Living   in mixed
         use
         building
         Semi-     P        P        P         P         P       P
         detach-
         ed /
         attached
         dwelling
         Town-     P        P        P         P         P       P                                                                             5.2.2 1
         house                                                                                                                                 (KL)

       Item #8
TABLE 5.1-1: TABLE OF PERMITTED USES - GENERAL USE DISTRICTS (EXCEPT TC & CT)
P = Permitted Use; S = Special Use (see Section 3.8); A = Accessory Use Use Class is listed for determining the type of required perimeter buffers,
and is repeated in Section 7.2
                      RESIDENTIAL                                         NON-RESIDENTIAL                             MIXED USE OVERLAY
                                                                                                                      DISTRICT
Use      Use Type R80 R40 R20            R12      R8       TR     RMF     RR       OI        GC      ORD     I        NC       CC      RC       Use-
Cate-    and [Use                                                                                                                               Specif
gory     Class]                                                                                                                                 ic
                                                                                                                                                Stds
COMMERCIAL USES (CONT'D.)
         Comm-                                                                     SP        SP      S       S        P        P       P        5.2.3(F
         ercial                                                                                                                                 )
         indoor
         recrea-
         tional
         facility [5]



                                                                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                                                                     Page 163
Item #L
 TABLE 5.4-1: TABLE OF ALLOWED TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES
 Temporary       Maximum           Temporary              Specific Regulations
 Use or          Allowable Time Signage
 Structure       Frame             Requirements
 TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
 Portable        (F)               None                   Permit Required; see Section 5.4.4 and
 Medical                                                  5.4.5; Applicant shall coordinate with
 Equipment                                                all necessary Town Departments (e.g.,
                                                          Police and Fire), and comply with any
                                                          conditions      required      by       those
                                                          departments
 Real Estate     (A)               1 sign with a          Permit Required; see Section 5.4.6(B)
 Sales                             maximum height of
 Office/Model                      42 inches and a
 Sales Home                        surface area no
                                   greater than 156
                                   square feet
 EVENTS
 Town-           N/A               None                   No Permit Required; No fee required;
 Recognized                                               Includes only those events listed in the
 Event                                                    Town Clerk's Office
 (A) Such structures may be in place for no more than one (1) to three (3) years.
 (B) Such sales are limited to a maximum of ninety (90) days per calendar year with no more than
 three (3) occurrences per parcel per year.
 (C) Such sales are limited to a maximum of one hundred and eighty (180) days per calendar year
 with no more than three (3) occurrences per parcel per year.
 (D) Such events are limited to seven (7) total days per calendar year.
 (E) Such events are limited to two (2) events per calendar year per parcel and/or no more than four
 (4) total days per calendar year.
 (F) Such portable equipment shall be limited to one (1) twenty four (24) hour period per
 week for no more than one (1) calendar year. Depending on individual circumstances and for
 good cause shown, either time period may be increased or altered.


Item #M
5.2.1 Residential Uses
(J)     Residential Use in Mixed-Use Building
In the HMXD district of the Town Center, at least 20% of the total floor area must be
dedicated to a non-residential use.

(JK)    Manufactured Home
                                                …
(KL)    Townhouse
                                                …
(LM)    Detached Dwelling
                                                …
(MN)    Tandem Dwelling Unit
                                                …
(NO)    Mobile Homes
                                                …

Item #N
5.4.7(D)        No Permit Required


                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 164
(1)      The following types of events do not need to obtain temporary use permits, but may be
subject to the maximum allowable time frames, temporary signage requirements, and specific
regulations as listed in Table 5.4-1 above:

(a)     Town-recognized events.

(ba)    Athletic events held at approved sports facilities.

(cb)    Temporary not-for-profit car washes held on developed sites.

(dc)    Garage and/or yard sales.

(ed)    Block parties occurring entirely upon the grounds of a private residence or common area
of a multi-family residential development.

(fe)     Other events with 99 people or fewer in attendance provided there is little likelihood of
damage to public or private property, injury to persons, public disturbances or nuisances, unsafe
impediments to pedestrian or vehicular travel, or other significant adverse effects upon the public
health, safety, or welfare.

(gf)    Private events.

(2)      The Planning Director may require any of the proposed events listed above to obtain a
temporary use permit upon the finding that such event poses a significant risk of damage to
public or private property, injury to persons, public disturbances or nuisances, unsafe
impediments to pedestrian or vehicular travel, or other significant adverse effects upon the public
health, safety, or welfare.

(3)     Events that occur or take place entirely within the boundaries of a parcel or parcels that
possess site and/or subdivision plan approval for such activities (e.g., assembly halls, convention
centers, amphitheaters, or event centers).

Item #9
6.3.1 Definition/Measurement
(F)     Setback Measurement, Cul-de-Sac

A setback on that portion of a lot that extends parallel to the arc of the street right-of-way.
Rear setback for cul-de-sac lots include that portion of a lot that extends parallel to the arc
of the rear lot line.

Image A




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 165
(F G)   General Guidelines for Determining Residential Setbacks
                                           …
(G H)   Guidelines for Determining Residential Setbacks within Planned Developments
                                           …

Item #O
6.4.2 General Height Regulations
(B)    Telecommunications Facilities

Telecommunications facilities may exceed the 35-foot minimum height requirement, up to a
maximum of 350 feet. See Section 5.2.4(CD).

Item #P
7.1.5 Limitations on Site Disturbance
(A)     Limits of Disturbance

This Section is provided for informational purposes as a general guideline about where land
disturbing activities should or should not take place on a development site. On all development
sites subject to this chapter, the following areas shall generally be considered to be off-limits to
development or land-disturbing activities, unless otherwise specified in this Ordinance:

(1)     The Flood Hazard Area;

(2)     Required streetscape areas as measured from the ultimate right-of-way;

(3)     Undisturbed perimeter buffers;

(4)     Zones 1, 2, and 3 of all riparian buffers UTBs;
                                                  …
(H)     Clear Cutting of Trees and Other Vegetation

(1)     The removal or clear cutting of trees and other existing vegetation on undeveloped or
under-developed sites within the corporate limits or extra-territorial jurisdiction is prohibited except
as otherwise permitted in this Ordinance.

(2)     Any clear cutting or vegetation removal on vacant, undeveloped, or under-developed
sites must be done in accordance with an approved site and/or subdivision plan or in accordance
with the Tree Clearing Certificate process in Section 3.22.

(3)    Trees and other existing vegetation shall be maintained within existing riparian buffers
UTBs consistent with the requirements of this Ordinance and state law. Removal of existing trees
and vegetation without approval from the Town and/or the State shall be a violation of this
Ordinance, and shall be subject to the requirements and penalties of Sections 7.2.9(H), 7.2.13
and Chapter 11 of this Ordinance.

Item #Q
7.2.5 Tree Surveys, Protection, and Replacement
(B)    Tree Protection During Construction
                                           …
(c)    Signage

Signs shall be installed on the tree protection fence visible on all sides of the fenced-in area
(minimum one on each side and/or every 150 300 linear feet). The size of each sign must be a
minimum of two feet by two feet and shall contain the following language: "TREE PROTECTION
ZONE, KEEP OUT."
                                                  …

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 166
(C)     Protection of Champion Trees Required

No champion tree may be removed during development, unless the Planning Director and/or
Town Council approves replacement of such tree pursuant to paragraph (CD) below.

Item #10
7.2.7 Fences and Walls
(J)    Rails Required for Retaining Walls and Steep Grade Changes

All retaining walls over 48” in height and grade changes greater than 4:1 slope (4 feet
vertical elevation change for every 1 foot horizontal change) which are located within 5
feet of a sidewalk or other constructed system designed and placed as to direct public
pedestrian traffic or provide vehicle access or parking which would attract or facilitate
public pedestrian traffic shall include guard rails or other acceptable fencing/barricade
measuring a minimum 36” in height. Guard rails shall be constructed with intermediate
rails or ornamental closures spaced a maximum of 4” apart. Residential lawns and similar
landscaping shall not be considered as public pedestrian traffic areas.

Item #R
7.2.13 Maintenance Responsibility, Replacement of Damaged Vegetation, and Associated
Fines
(A)    Maintenance Responsibility

The owners of the property and their agents, heirs, or assigns shall be responsible for the
installation, preservation, and maintenance of all planting and physical features (installed or
vegetated natural areas) required under this section, Section 4.4.4, Thoroughfare Overlay,
Section 4.4.6, Watershed Protection Overlay, or Section 7.2.14 or Section 7.3.2, Protecting
Riparian Buffers. Damage to these areas shall result in revegetation requirements and fines (see
paragraphs (B), (C) and (D) below) or other penalties as required under this Ordinance.
                                                 …
(C)       Fines and Replacement of Existing, Original, or Installed Vegetation

Where the vegetation that has been disturbed or damaged existed on the site prior to the time of
approval of a Tree Clearing Certificate, or the time a site and/or subdivision plan was approved or
was installed at a later date, the owner shall be fined and shall replace the disturbed or damaged
vegetation in accordance with the standards set forth as listed below or as required in other parts
of this Ordinance, taking into account any unique site conditions and significant vegetation
remaining within the landscaped area. Perimeter buffers within private property boundaries shall
be planted and/or installed to a Type “B” buffer standard. This section shall also apply to all
Urban Transition , stream or riparian buffers, required vegetation protection areas, and vacant,
undeveloped properties that due to zoning conditions and/or requirements of this Ordinance have
protective vegetated areas (including but not limited to vegetation in the Thoroughfare Corridor
Buffer).
(1)      Where the size (caliper, height, spread) and quantity of damaged vegetation can be
documented, an equal amount of new vegetation ("inch for inch") shall be used to quantify the
replacement vegetation. Replacement vegetation shall meet or exceed the current requirements
of this section. Fines and replacement shall consist of item (a) and any combination of the
measures listed in paragraphs (b) and (c).

(a)      A base fine of between $2.00 and $4.00 for every square foot area used by the damaged
vegetation within any areas required to be protected under this Ordinance, including but not
limited to: vegetation protection areas, Urban Transition riparian buffer zones on undeveloped
sites, buffers, streetscapes, vehicular use areas, and other landscape areas on developed sites.
The base fine shall not exceed a total of $40,000 per site. In determining the amount of the fine,
the Planning Director shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the
cost of rectifying the damage, and whether the violation was committed willfully. Payment of fines

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 167
shall be made to the Town at a time deemed appropriate by the Planning Director.
                                             …
(E)      Landscape Maintenance Plan

The statement below regarding a landscape maintenance/ management plan shall be placed on
the landscape sheet prior to plan approval along with any other specific details applicable to site
landscaping. This statement must be individualized based on each site and/or subdivision plan.
This should be done by a certified landscape architect.

"The owners of the property and their agents, heirs, or assigns shall be responsible for the
installation, preservation, and maintenance of all planting and physical features shown on this
plan. The owners shall be responsible for maintenance of the vegetation, including but not limited
to:

1.      Fertilization (optional)

2.      Pruning within limits (applicant must define the limits)

3.      Pest control

4.      Mulching

5.      Mowing (if any)

6.      Protection of the root zones from equipment, construction and related materials, etc.

7.      Watering schedule for irrigation system

8.      Other continuing maintenance operations

Failure to maintain all plantings in accordance with this plan may constitute a violation of the
Unified Land Development Ordinance and may result in fines."

Item #11
7.2.14 Urban Transition Buffer Regulations

(A)     The Purpose and Intent of Urban Transition Buffers

Urban Transition Buffers (UTBs) provide a transition from waterbodies and
environmentally sensitive areas associated with waterbodies to areas which are less
fragile and appropriate for more intense uses and development. Some of the benefits of
UTBs are minimizing danger to lives and properties from flooding, preserving the water
carrying capacity of the waterbodies, providing open spaces, limiting intense uses
adjacent to waterbodies and environmentally sensitive areas associated with waterbodies,
and maintaining the aesthetic qualities and appearance of the Town. As part of the Town’s
Land Development Ordinance, UTBs implement many of the Town’s responsibilities under
State and Federal law and regulations regarding stormwater management and watershed
preservation and are designed to work in conjunction with erosion and sedimentation
control regulations. The Town’s water utility system uses surface water to provide
drinking water to its citizens and the preservation of this resource is important to the
Town and its citizens. General UTBs are uniform and comprehensive zoning buffers
which accomplish these important benefits and purposes as well as regulating and
restricting the location of buildings, structures and land, providing yards and open
spaces, all for the promotion of health, safety and the general welfare of the Town’s
citizens. Specialized UTBs exist to address concerns which are not present in the Town’s
entire zoning jurisdiction.

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 168
(B)    Establishing General Urban Transition Buffers

(1)    General UTBs are established as follows:

(a)    Cape Fear Basin

1.      A one hundred foot (100’) wide buffer directly adjacent to all perennial and
intermittent Waterbodies.

2.     A fifty foot (50’) wide buffer directly adjacent to any surface waters shown on the
most recent version of the Soil Survey of Wake or Chatham County, North Carolina.

(b)     Neuse River Basin
1.      A fifty foot (50’) wide buffer beginning at the landward boundary of any Neuse
River Riparian Buffer mandated by regulations adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission of the State of North Carolina and established as a result of a perennial and
intermittent Waterbodies.

(c)    Underground Streams and Hydrologically Connected Wetlands

1.      Wherever a General UTB is presumptively established based upon the provisions
of B(1)(a) or (b) above and an underground stream or connected wetland is indicated by a
surface water body existing “upstream” and “downstream” of the area, a General UTB
shall be presumptively established around the underground stream or connected wetland,
as follows. A General UTB for an underground stream or connected wetland shall be
established along a centerline beginning where the underground stream or connected
wetland starts and ending where a top of bank is again evident for such stream or wetland,
with the elevation of such centerline being fixed at the lowest ground elevation between
the starting and ending points. Except where the underground stream or connected
wetland consists of braided channels, the General UTB shall have a width of either twenty-
five feet (25’) on either side of the centerline or fifty feet (50’) on either side of the
centerline, depending on the buffer requirement for the specific stream or connected
wetland. Where an underground stream or connected wetland contains a braided channel,
the General UTB shall extend from the outer edges of the braided channel a width of either
twenty-five feet (25’) from each outer edge or fifty feet (50’) from each outer edge,
depending on the buffer requirement for the specific stream or connected wetland.

(2)    General UTBs are applied to specific properties as follows:

(a)     UTBs are presumptively established based upon the provisions of B(1)(a), (b) and
(c) above. However, when in the judgment of the Landowner there exists one or more
obvious conflicts between actual field conditions and USGS or County Soil Survey maps,
the Landowner may appeal to the Town Manager or his or her designee for a determination
as to the location and extent of UTBs on the Landowner’s property and the accuracy or
applicability of such maps.

(b)    The Landowner may appeal any adverse decision of the Town Manager to the
Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.20 of the LDO.

(3)    General UTBs shall have zones as follows:

General UTBs may have as many as three regulatory zones. The purpose of the different
regulatory zones is to provide transition within General UTBs from the most fragile areas
to less fragile areas and to provide some flexibility to the Town in administering of the
UTBs. The regulatory zones shall be:

                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 169
(a)    Cape Fear River Basin

1.     UTBs established pursuant to Section 7.2.14(B)(1)(a)1 shall have three (3) zones:

a.     Zone 1 (Thirty (30) feet landward adjacent to stream bank. Zone 1 shall be
measured horizontally from the edge of the Waterbody (i.e., top of bank)): Severe
development restrictions, as provided in Section 7.2.14(E).

b.       Zone 2 (Twenty (20) feet landward adjacent to Zone 1): Strict development
restrictions, as provided in Section 7.2.14(E).

c.       Zone 3 (Fifty (50) feet landward adjacent to Zone 2): Moderate development
restrictions, as provided in Section 7.2.14(E).

2.     UTBs established pursuant to Section 7.2.14(B)(1)(a)2 shall have two (2) zones:

a.     Zone 1 (Thirty (30) feet landward adjacent to stream bank. Zone 1 shall be
measured horizontally from the edge of the Waterbody (i.e., top of bank.)) Severe
development restrictions, as provided in Section 7.2.14(E).

b.       Zone 2 (Twenty (20) feet landward adjacent to Zone 1): Strict development
restrictions, as provided in Section 7.2.14(E).

(b)    Neuse River Basin

1.    General UTBs established pursuant to Section 7.2.14(B)(1)(b)1 shall have one (1)
zone:

a.     Zone 3 (Fifty (50) feet landward adjacent to Neuse Riparian Buffer): Moderate
development restrictions, as provided in Section 7.2.14(E).

(C)    Establishing Specialized Urban Transition Buffers

(1)    Property within Watershed Protection Overlay

In addition to the General UTBs established above, Specialized UTBs are required by the
Town’s Watershed Protection Overlay (Section 4.4.6). Specialized UTBs shall overlay
General UTBs, as opposed to being situated adjacent to General UTBs. The Specialized
UTBs are as follows:

(a)    Low Density Development Option

In the event the Landowner elects to develop his property under the Low Density
Development Option, as provided in Section 4.4.6(F)(1), a Specialized UTB thirty (30) feet
wide shall be established adjacent to all perennial waters indicated on the most recent
versions of USGS 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute) topographic maps or as determined by Town
of Cary studies, if available.

(b)    High Density Development Option

In the event the Landowner elects to develop his property under the High Density
Development Option, as provided in Section 4.4.6(F)(2), a Specialized UTB one hundred
feet (100’) wide shall be established adjacent to all perennial waters indicated on the most



                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 170
recent versions of USGS 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute) topographic maps or as determined
by Town of Cary studies, if available.

(2)     Uses Allowed Within Specialized UTBs

All Specialized UTBs shall be vegetative buffers. No new development shall be allowed in
the Specialized UTBs except for (1) water-dependent structures or other structures such
as flag poles, signs and security lights, which result in only diminimus increases in
impervious area, and (2) public projects such as road crossings and greenways where no
practicable alternative exists. In any case, new development within a Specialized UTB
shall minimize built-upon surface area, direct runoff away from surface waters and shall
maximize the utilization of Water Quality Best Management Practices.

(3)     Measurement of Specialized UTBs

Specialized UTBs shall be measured from a point perpendicular to the bank of the
perennial waters.

(D)     Overlap or Conflict between Urban Transition Buffers established by the Town and
buffers established by State of North Carolina or Federal Regulations

(1)    In the event of an overlap or conflict between a General UTB and a Specialized
UTB, the more restrictive buffer shall govern. It is the intent of the Town that General
UTBs shall provide the minimum urban transition buffer for all properties located in the
Town’s zoning jurisdiction.

(2)     In the event of an overlap or conflict between any buffer established by this
Section 7.2.14 and any buffer or other requirement established by another law, rule or
regulation administered by the State of North Carolina or the Federal Government, the
more restrictive law, rule or regulation shall govern.

Table 7.2-4 below graphically depicts the Town’s UTBs and their zones.

TABLE 7.2-4 TOWN OF CARY GENERAL AND SPECIALIZED UTBS

       Type of Buffers                 General UTBs                  Watershed Overlay Buffers
      Zones of Buffers        ZONE 1      ZONE 2      ZONE 3       Low Density       High Density
                                                                     Option             Option

 Cape Fear River Basin
      Not in Watershed
      overlay district
          Shown on USGS         Yes        Yes          Yes              N/A               N/A
          mapping
          Shown on county       Yes        Yes          No               N/A               N/A
          soil maps
      In watershed overlay
      district
                                                                           2                 3
          Shown on USGS         Yes        Yes          Yes            Yes                 Yes




                                                                         December 14, 2006
                                                                                 Page 171
          Type of Buffers                      General UTBs                   Watershed Overlay Buffers
         Zones of Buffers          ZONE 1        ZONE 2        ZONE 3       Low Density       High Density
                                                                              Option             Option
               map
               Shown on county        Yes           Yes         No              N/A               N/A
               soil map
    Neuse River Basin                                           Yes
        Not in watershed
        overlay district
               Shown on USGS          No4           No3         Yes             N/A               N/A
               map
                                           3             3
               Shown on               No            No          No              N/A               N/A
               county soil map
         In watershed overlay
         district
               Shown on USGS          No3           No3         Yes            Yes1              Yes2
               map
               Shown on               No3           No3         No              No                No
               county soil map

1
  Minimum thirty (30) foot wide vegetative buffer and other regulations apply. See Section
4.4.6 of the LDO.
2
  Minimum one hundred (100) foot wide vegetative buffer and other regulations apply. See
Section 4.4.6 of the LDO.
3
  Regulated by State of North Carolina.

(E)        Activities Prohibited and Permitted in Urban Transition Buffers

(1)     Any activity which disturbs the soil or vegetation within any Urban Transition
Buffer is prohibited unless expressly permitted by this Section 7.2.14. Table 7.2-5
describes the uses permitted in each UTB established by this Section 7.2.14.

TABLE 7.2-5 TOWN OF CARY GENERAL AND SPECIALIZED UTBS

    Activity                                          Exempt      Allowable      Allowable      Prohibited
                                                                                    with
                                                                                 Mitigation
    Airport facilities:
       Airport Facilities that impact equal to                         X
        or less than one hundred and fifty
        (150) linear feet or one-third (1/3) of
        an acre of UTB
       Airport facilities that impact greater                                        X
        than one hundred and fifty (150)
        linear feet or one-third (1/3) of an acre




                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 172
Activity                                     Exempt   Allowable   Allowable    Prohibited
                                                                     with
                                                                  Mitigation
    of UTB
Archaeological activities                      X
Bridges                                                  X
Dam maintenance activities                     X
Drainage ditches, roadside ditches and
stormwater outfalls through UTB:
   Existing drainage ditches, roadside        X
    ditches, and stormwater outfalls
    provided that they are managed to
    minimize the sediment, nutrients and
    other pollution that convey to
    waterbodies
   New drainage ditches, roadside                       X
    ditches and stormwater outfalls
    provided that a stormwater
    management facility is installed to
    control nitrogen and attenuate flow
    before the conveyance discharges
    through the UTB
   New drainage ditches, roadside                                                    X
    ditches and stormwater outfalls that
    do not provide control for nitrogen
    before discharging through the UTB
   Excavation of the streambed in order                                              X
    to bring it to the same elevation as
    the invert of a ditch
Drainage of a pond in a natural drainage       X
way provided that a new UTB is
established adjacent to the new channel
Driveway crossings of streams and other
surface waters subject to this Ordinance:
   Driveway crossings on single family        X
    residential lots that disturb equal to
    or less than twenty-five (25) linear
    feet or 2,500 square feet of UTB
   Driveway crossings on single family                  X
    residential lots that disturb greater
    than twenty-five (25) linear feet or
    2,500 square feet of UTB
   In a subdivision that cumulatively                   X
    disturb equal to or less than one
    hundred and fifty (150) linear feet or
    one-third (1/3) of an acre of UTB
   In a subdivision that cumulatively                                X
    disturb greater than one hundred

                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                          Page 173
Activity                                       Exempt   Allowable   Allowable    Prohibited
                                                                       with
                                                                    Mitigation
    and fifty (150) linear feet or one-third
    (1/3) of an acre of UTB
Fences provided that disturbance is              X
minimized and installation does not
result in removal of forest vegetation
Forest harvesting (refer to 15A NCAC
02B.0233 (11))
Fertilizer application:
   One-time fertilizer application to           X
    establish replanted vegetation
   Ongoing fertilizer application                                                      X
Grading and revegetation in Zone 2 and                     X
3 only provided that diffuse flow and the
health of existing vegetation in Zone 1 is
not compromised and disturbed areas
are stabilized
Greenway/hiking trails                                     X
Historic preservation                            X
Landfills as defined by G.S. 130A-290                                                   X
Mining activities:
   Mining activities that are covered by                  X
    the Mining Act provided that new
    UTBs are established adjacent to the
    relocated channels
   Mining activities that are not covered                              X
    by the Mining Act OR where new
    UTBs are not established adjacent to
    the relocated channels
   Wastewater or mining dewatering              X
    wells with approved NPDES permit
Non-electric utility lines:
   Impacts other than perpendicular                       X
    crossings in Zones 2 and 3 only
   Impacts other than perpendicular                                    X
                       3
    crossings in Zone 1
Non-electric utility line perpendicular
crossing of streams and other surface
waters subject to this Ordinance::
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb         X
    equal to or less than forty (40) linear
    feet of UTB with a maintenance
    corridor equal to or less than ten (10)


                                                                    December 14, 2006
                                                                            Page 174
Activity                                      Exempt   Allowable   Allowable    Prohibited
                                                                      with
                                                                   Mitigation
    feet in width
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb                  X
    greater than forty (40) linear feet of
    UTB with a maintenance corridor
    greater than ten (10) feet in width
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb                  X
    greater than forty (40) linear feet but
    equal to or less than one hundred
    and fifty (150) linear feet of UTB with
    a maintenance corridor equal to or
    less than ten (10) feet in width
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb                               X
    greater than forty (40) linear feet but
    equal to or less than one hundred
    and fifty (150) linear feet of UTB with
    a maintenance corridor greater than
    ten (10) feet in width
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb                               X
    greater than one hundred and fifty
    (150) linear feet of UTB
On-site sanitary sewage systems – new                                                  X
ones that use ground absorption
Overhead electric utility lines:
   Impacts other than perpendicular            X
    crossings in Zones 2 and 3 only 3
   Impacts other than perpendicular            X
    crossings in Zone 11,2,3
   Overhead electric utility line
    perpendicular crossings of streams
    and other surface waters subject to
                  3
    this Ordinance
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb        X
    equal to or less than one hundred
    and fifty (150) linear feet of UTB1
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb                  X
    equal to or less than one hundred
    and fifty (150) linear feet of UTB1,2
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb                  X
    greater than one hundred and fifty
                            1,2
    (150) linear feet of UTB
Periodic maintenance of modified natural                  X
streams such as canals and a grassed
travelway on one side of the surface
water when alternative forms of
maintenance access are not practical


                                                                   December 14, 2006
                                                                           Page 175
Activity                                        Exempt   Allowable   Allowable    Prohibited
                                                                        with
                                                                     Mitigation
Playground equipment:
   Playground equipment on single                X
    family lots provided that installation
    and use does not result in removal of
    vegetation
   Playground equipment installed on                       X
    lands other than single-family lots or
    that requires removal of vegetation
Ponds in natural drainage ways,
excluding dry ponds:
   New ponds provided that an UTB is                       X
    established adjacent to the pond
   New ponds where an UTB is NOT                                        X
    established adjacent to the pond
Protection of existing structures,                          X
facilities and streambanks when this
requires additional disturbance of the
UTB or the stream channel
Railroad impacts other than crossings of                                 X
streams and other surface waters
subject to this Ordinance
Railroad crossings of streams and other
surface waters subject to this Ordinance:
   Railroad crossings that impact equal          X
    to or less than forty (40) linear feet of
    UTB
   Railroad crossings that impact                          X
    greater than forty (40) linear feet but
    equal to or less than one hundred
    and fifty (150) linear feet or one-third
    (1/3) of an acre of UTB
   Railroad crossings that impact                                       X
    greater than one hundred and fifty
    (150) linear feet or one-third (1/3) of
    an acre of UTB
Removal of previous fill or debris                X
provided that diffuse flow is maintained
and any vegetation removed is restored
Road impacts other than crossings of                                     X
streams and other surface waters
subject to this Ordinance
Road crossings of streams and other
surface waters subject to this Ordinance:
   Road crossings that impact equal to           X

                                                                     December 14, 2006
                                                                             Page 176
Activity                                        Exempt   Allowable   Allowable    Prohibited
                                                                        with
                                                                     Mitigation
    or less than forty (40) linear feet of
    UTB
   Road crossings that impact greater                      X
    than forty (40) linear feet but equal to
    or less than one hundred and fifty
                                    1
    (150) linear feet or one-third ( /3) of
    an acre of UTB
   Road crossings that impact greater                                   X
    than one hundred and fifty (150)
                              1
    linear feet or one-third ( /3) of an acre
    of UTB
Scientific studies and stream gauging             X
Stormwater management ponds
excluding dry ponds:
   New stormwater management ponds                         X
    provided that an UTB is established
    adjacent to the pond
   New stormwater management ponds                                      X
    where an UTB is NOT established
    adjacent to the pond
Stream restoration                                X
Streambank stabilization                                    X
Temporary roads:
   Temporary roads that disturb less             X
    than or equal to 2,500 square feet of
    UTB provided that vegetation is
    restored within six months of initial
    disturbance
   Temporary roads that disturb greater                    X
    than 2,500 square feet of UTB
    provided that vegetation is restored
    within six months of initial
    disturbance
   Temporary roads used for bridge                         X
    construction or replacement
    provided that restoration activities,
    such as soil stabilization and
    revegetation, are conducted
    immediately after construction
Temporary sediment and erosion control
devices:
   In Zone 2 and 3 only provided that            X
    the vegetation in Zone 1 is not
    compromised and that discharge is


                                                                     December 14, 2006
                                                                             Page 177
Activity                                      Exempt   Allowable   Allowable    Prohibited
                                                                      with
                                                                   Mitigation
    released as diffuse flow
   In Zones 1, 2, and 3 to control                       X
    impacts associated with uses
    approved by the Division or that
    have received a variance provided
    that sediment and erosion control for
    upland areas is addressed to
    maximum extent practical outside
    the buffer
   In-stream temporary erosion and             X
    sediment control measures for work
    within a stream channel
   Underground electric utility lines:
   Impacts other than perpendicular            X
    crossings in Zone 2 only3
   Impacts other than perpendicular            X
    crossings in Zone 13,4
Underground electric utility line
perpendicular crossings of streams and
other surface waters subject to this
Ordinance:3
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb        X
    less than or equal to forty (40) linear
    feet of UTB3,4
   Perpendicular crossings that disturb                  X
    greater than forty (40) linear feet of
    UTB3,4
Vegetation management:
   Emergency fire control measures             X
    provided that topography is restored
   Periodic mowing and harvesting of           X
    plant products in Zone 2 and 3 only
   Planting vegetation to enhance the          X
    UTB
   Pruning forest vegetation provided          X
    that the health and function of the
    forest vegetation is not
    compromised
   Removal of individual trees which           X
    are in danger of causing damage to
    dwellings, other structures or human
    life
   Removal of poison ivy                       X



                                                                   December 14, 2006
                                                                           Page 178
    Activity                                    Exempt     Allowable      Allowable      Prohibited
                                                                             with
                                                                          Mitigation
       Removal of understory nuisance            X
        vegetation as defined in: Smith,
        Cherri L. 1998. Exotic Plant
        Guidelines. Department of
        Environment and Natural Resources.
        Division of Parks and Recreation.
        Raleigh, NC. Guideline #30
    Water dependent structures as defined                       X
    in 15A NCAC 2B.0202
    Water supply reservoirs:
       New reservoirs provided that an UTB                     X
        is established adjacent to the
        reservoir
       New reservoirs where an UTB is NOT                                    X
        established adjacent to the reservoir
    Water wells                                   X
    Wetland restoration                           X

1
  Provided that, in Zone 1, all of the following WQBMPs for overhead utility lines are used.
If all of these WQBMPs are not used then the overhead utility lines shall require a no
practical alternatives evaluation by the Division of Water Quality.
     o A minimum zone of ten (10) feet wide immediately adjacent to the water body shall
          be managed such that only vegetation that poses a hazard or has the potential to
          grow tall enough to interfere with the line is removed.
     o Woody vegetation shall be cleared by hand. No land grubbing or grading is
          allowed.
     o Vegetation root systems shall be left intact to maintain the integrity of the soil.
          Stumps shall remain where trees are cut.
     o Rip rap shall not be used unless it is necessary to stabilize a tower.
     o No fertilizer shall be used other than a one (1) time application to re-establish
          vegetation.
     o Construction activities shall minimize the removal of woody vegetation, the extent
          of the disturbed area, and the time in which areas remain in a disturbed state.
     o Active measures shall be taken after construction and during routine maintenance
          to ensure diffuse flow of stormwater through the buffer.
     o In wetlands, mats shall be utilized to minimize soil disturbance.
2
  Provided that poles or towers shall not be installed within ten (10) feet of a water body
unless the Division of Water Quality completes a no practical alternatives evaluation.
3
  Perpendicular crossings are those that intersect the surface water at an angle between
75 degrees and 105 degrees.
4
   Provided that, in Zone 1, all of the following WQBMPs for underground utility lines are
used. If all of these WQBMPs are not used then the underground utility line shall require a
no practical alternatives evaluation by the Division of Water Quality.
     o Woody vegetation shall be cleared by hand. No land grubbing or grading is
          allowed.
     o Vegetative root systems shall be left intact to maintain the integrity of the soil.
          Stumps shall remain, except in the trench, where trees are cut.
     o Underground cables shall be installed by vibratory plow or trenching.


                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 179
      o   The trench shall be backfilled with the excavated soil material immediately
          following cable installation.
      o   No fertilizer shall be used other than a one (1) time application to re-establish
          vegetation.
      o   Construction activities shall minimize the removal of woody vegetation, the extent
          of the disturbed area, and the time in which areas remain in a disturbed state.
      o   Active measures shall be taken after construction and during routine maintenance
          to ensure diffuse flow of stormwater through the buffer.
      o   In wetlands, mats shall be utilized to minimize soil disturbance.

(F)       Description of Buffers on Site and/or Subdivision Plans

All UTBs shall be shown on all site plans and subdivision plats submitted for approval
within the Town's planning jurisdiction. In addition to UTBs, State of North Carolina and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdictional wetlands waters and buffers shall be shown
on the inventory of natural resources required as part of site and/or subdivision plan
approval site and/or subdivision plan.

(G)       Exclusion of Urban Transition Buffer from Lots

Generally, no single-family Lots created through a site and/or subdivision plan may
encroach upon any required or established UTB. However, single-family lots may
encroach upon a required or established UTB when all of the following conditions are met:

(1)     The total area of a parcel under single ownership is not greater than five (5) acres
and the Landowner establishes that he/she is unable to use any cluster development
option that may be available;

(2)  The proposed subdivision consists of fewer than ten (10) lots and has no
homeowners association;

(3)     There is no other reason for the formation of a homeowners association (e.g.,
covenant, other common areas, common facilities, engineered stormwater control
structures);

(4)    The area of the UTB is subject to a permanent conservation or other legal
instrument dedicated to a not-for-profit conservation entity approved by the Town. All
documents required for such a conveyance to a not-for-profit conservation entity shall be
provided to and approved by the Town, in writing on such instruments, prior to recording
any plat showing property proposed to be conveyed.

(H)       Modification of Urban Transition Buffers as part of Approving Development Plans

UTBs are part of the Town’s overall zoning, land subdivision and land use regulations. The
Town has collected these regulations together in the Town’s Land Development Ordinance
(LDO). UTBs are intended to assist the Town in accomplishing the broad and important
purposes of the LDO stated in 1.3 of the LDO as well as the specific purposes stated in
Sections 1.3.1-1.3.12 and 7.2.14(A). In any specific development plan, the Town reviews the
entire proposed development and determines whether the proposed development in its
entirety satisfies the LDO. The Town recognizes that UTBs will affect different property
and projects differently and that all circumstances or applications of UTBs cannot be
foreseen. Therefore, the Town has established a process by which the width of UTBs may
be modified in certain limited circumstances based upon review and approval of an
applicant’s application for modification which shall include the overall site development
plan or subdivision plan. Any modification granted shall be conditioned upon the
implementation of the related site or subdivision plan and shall be conditioned upon the

                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 180
applicant providing compensatory mitigation on at least a 1:1 ratio for any impact to the
UTB, as set forth below. Notwithstanding any provision of this Section 7.2.14(H) to the
contrary, in no event shall a General UTB be reduced pursuant to this section (a) by more
than fifteen percent (15%) of its total area or (b) to less than thirty feet (30’) in width at any
given point.

(1)     Town Manager or its Designee

The Town Manager or its designee, after receiving comment from the various Town
departments which review the proposed development plan pursuant to the LDO, may
reduce the total area of a General UTB by up to ten percent (10%) (but in no event shall its
width be less than thirty feet (30’) from top of bank), after finding the following:

(a)     the reduction will have a minimal impact upon the purposes of the General UTBs
stated in Section 7.2.14(A) and is consistent with general purposes of the LDO stated in
Section 1.3, and

(b)    the mitigation of impacts offered by the applicant as part of the proposed
development plan significantly outweigh the impacts of the reduction to the General UTBs
proposed by the applicant. In connection with proposing mitigation of impacts, the
applicant shall propose mitigation which has a reasonable hydrological connection to the
impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation shall include WQBMPs where necessary to
minimize disturbance and protect water quality.

(c)     the impact of the reduction in the General UTB is balanced by compensatory
mitigation, as required by the following:
1.      Compensatory mitigation on a 1:1 ratio for restoration of a degraded buffer or for
protection of ephemeral streams contiguous to protected streams;

2.      Compensatory mitigation on a 3:1 ratio for preservation of an existing buffer; and

3.      Compensatory mitigation on a 10:1 ratio for preservation of open space.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event Landowner provides written evidence that the
State of North Carolina has granted Landowner a variance to the riparian buffer required
by the State of North Carolina, then and in such event, the Town Manager, or its designee,
shall grant a modification to the UTBs applicable to such Landowner sufficient to permit
such Landowner to utilize the State variance granted.

(2)     Town Council

In the event the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Town Manager or its
designee pursuant to Section7.2.14(H)(1) above, or in the event the applicant proposes a
modification of General UTBs in excess of ten percent (10%) of the General UTBs’ area,
the applicant may request a modification of the width of General UTBs by the Town
Council. In addition to the mitigation required and the considerations provided in
7.2.14(H)(1)(a) and (b) above, the Town Council may consider other factors such as the
following:

(a)     Whether a substantial conflict exists between the General UTBs and other
provisions and provisions of the LDO (e.g., the appropriate layout of streets in a proposed
development conflicts with the location of the General UTBs);

(b)    Whether approvals of other governmental agencies impede the effectiveness of the
General UTBs or otherwise impact the layout or development of the proposed
development; or

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 181
(c)     Any other information which may be relevant to the Town Council’s determination
that the development plan otherwise satisfies the purposes and goals of the LDO.

(I)    Variances

(1)    Except where General UTBs are modified pursuant to Section 7.2.14(H) above,
General UTBs shall not be modified or varied unless the applicant is granted a variance
pursuant to this sub-section (I) and Section 3.20 of the LDO.

(2)    Application

A Landowner who can substantiate that the provisions of this Chapter 7.2.14 leave no
legally reasonable use of its property may apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a
UTB Variance. The scope of the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s review in connection with
the UTB Variance shall include the entire property that would be subject to the contested
UTB (the “Subject Property”), in addition to any property owned by the Landowner that is
adjacent to the Subject Property. An application for a UTB Variance shall be filed with the
Town Manager, or its designee. The Town Manager, or its designee shall prescribe the
form(s) on which applications are made, the number of copies provided, and any other
material that may reasonably be required to make the determinations called for in this
Section 7.2.14(I). The applicant must also comply with the requirements of Section 3.20 of
the LDO, unless inconsistent with this Section 7.2.14(I). Upon receipt of a complete
application, the Town Manager, or its designee shall cause an analysis to be made by
appropriate town staff based on the criteria required in subsection 7.2.14(I)(3) below.
Within a reasonable period of time, the Town Manager or its designee shall submit the
application and a report of staff analysis to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to establish
conclusively that the requested UTB Variance will comply with each of the criteria set forth
below.

(3)    Criteria for Issuance of an UTB Variance

In reviewing applications for UTB Variances pursuant to this Section 7.2.14(I), the Zoning
Board of Adjustment shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, and other
provisions of statutes or ordinances. An UTB Variance may be granted by the Zoning
Board of Adjustment if it finds that the following approval criteria have been met:

(a)      Unique circumstances or conditions exist on the Subject Property that are not
common to other properties. Unique circumstances or conditions may include, without
limitation, narrowness or topographical features of the Subject Property; and

(b)      That, due to the unique circumstances noted in subsection 3(A) above, practical
difficulty may result from strict compliance with the UTB. In determining whether practical
difficulties may result, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall consider:

1.      whether there can be any legally reasonable use of the Subject Property outside of
the area of the UTBs, with or without modification pursuant to Section 7.2.14(H);

2.      whether the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood would be
substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment
if the UTB Variance were granted;

3.     whether granting the UTB Variance would adversely affect the delivery of public
services to the surrounding neighborhood;

                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 182
4.     whether the applicant purchased the Subject Property with knowledge of the UTB
requirements;

5.     whether the practical difficulty can be mitigated through a modification or some
other measure.

(c)    That any proposed mitigation (such as WQBMPs) will be sufficient to outweigh the
impact of the reduction of the UTB, and that compensatory mitigation will be provided by
the applicant, pursuant to Section 7.2.14(H)(1)(c) above.

(d)     That granting an UTB Variance will not:

1.      result in significant unmitigated threats to water quality; or

2.      result in extraordinary public expense; or

3.      result in public nuisance; or

4.      conflict with the provisions of any other law or ordinance.

(4)     The Zoning Board of Adjustment may refuse to grant any UTB Variance if it finds
that the applicant, or any predecessor in interest with respect to the applicant’s Subject
Property (as well as property owned by the applicant that is adjacent to the Subject
Property) has subdivided the Subject Property or has otherwise acted in an attempt to
avoid or evade the provisions or intent of this Section 7.2.14.

(5)     In considering whether to grant an UTB Variance, the Zoning Board of Adjustment
shall also consider in its findings:

(a)    the uses available to the Landowner of the entire Subject Property, which includes
area subject to the UTB.

(b)   whether to attach reasonable conditions to the granting of an UTB Variance as
necessary to achieve the purposes of this Section 7.2.14 and the LDO.

(6)     Presumption

Notwithstanding subsection (I)(5) above, a showing that the UTB constitutes more than
seventy-five percent (75%) of the area of the applicant’s Subject Property shall establish a
rebuttable presumption that the UTB leaves the applicant no legally reasonable use of its
lot outside of the UTBs. Such presumption may be rebutted by substantial evidence
presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

(7)    The Town Manager, or its designee, shall notify the applicant of the Zoning Board
of Adjustment’s decision with respect to the UTB Variance in writing and shall file a copy
of such decisions with the Planning Department. If the UTB Variance is granted, the Town
Manager, or its designee, shall issue a variance permit stating the nature of the UTB
Variance and any conditions attached thereto, which permit, in order to become effective,
must be noted by the applicant on the development’s site or subdivision plan.

Item #S
7.3.1 Purpose
This section is intended to protect water quality for present and future residents of the Town and
surrounding regions by limiting the amount of pollutants, including but not limited to nitrogen, in
stormwater runoff. Specific objectives include: protection of riparian buffers, control of nitrogen

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 183
export from development, control of peak stormwater runoff, and the use of best management
practices.

Item #12
7.3.2 Protecting Riparian Buffers
(A)    Establishment of Buffer

(1)     All perennial and intermittent streams, including lakes, ponds, and other bodies of water
as indicated on the most recent version of the 1:20,000 scale (7.5 minutes) quadrangle
topographic maps prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shall have a 100-
foot-wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to such surface waters, excluding wetlands.

(2)    All other surface waters as indicated by the most recent version of the Soil Survey of
Wake or Chatham County, North Carolina, shall have a 50-foot-wide riparian buffer adjacent to
such waters.

(3)     In the Neuse River Basin, where obvious conflicts between actual field conditions and
USGS and Wake County Soil Survey maps exist, appeals may be made to the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality. All other appeals for obvious conflicts may be made to the Town
Manager or his or her designee.

(4)       Underground streams and hydrologically connected wetlands must be buffered where
stream delineations indicate a stream exists upstream and downstream of the area where a
stream has gone underground or entered wetlands. The area to be buffered will be based on
staff’s interpretation of USGS and Soil Survey maps and best professional judgment based on a
field evaluation.

(5)     Appeals to the 100-foot wide riparian buffer may be made as allowed by Section 7.3.7.

(B)     Delineation of Buffer Zones

This Ordinance establishes three zones of the riparian buffer which shall be measured
horizontally from the edge of the water body (i.e., top of bank), and shall be divided into the
following zones:

(1)     Zone 1 (30 feet landward adjacent to stream bank): Severe development restrictions.

(2)     Zone 2 (20 feet landward adjacent to Zone 1): Strict development restrictions.

GRAPHIC UNAVAILABLE: Click here

(3)     Zone 3 (50 feet landward adjacent to Zone 2): Moderate development restrictions.

(4)      Within a Watershed Protection Overlay District, stream buffers measured perpendicular
to the stream bank are established such that,

(a)     In all developments under the Low Density Option, a stream buffer of minimum width of
30 feet on each side of each stream is protected

(b)     In all developments under the High Density Option, a stream buffer of minimum width of
100 feet on each side of each stream is protected

(5)     For new developments, the most restrictive buffer ordinance shall apply.

Table 7.3-1 below identifies the component parts of a riparian buffer and the associated
governmental agency with jurisdiction over developmental activity based upon the type of stream

                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 184
and the river basin where the stream is located. Within a Watershed Protection Overlay District,
stream buffers are regulated by the Division of Water Quality and the Town of Cary.

TABLE 7.3-1 RIPARIAN BUFFER TYPES AND JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY
             NEUSE RIVER BASIN                   CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
Stream       Riparian Zone          Jurisdiction Riparian Zone          Jurisdiction
Type
USGS         Zone 1 (first 30 feet) NC DWQ       Zone 1 (first 30 feet) Town of Cary
Stream
             Zone 2 (20 feet beyond NC DWQ       Zone 2 (20 feet        Town of Cary
             edge of Zone 1)                     beyond edge of Zone
                                                 1)
             Zone 3 (50 feet beyond Town of Cary Zone 3 (50 feet        Town of Cary
             outer edge of Zone 2)               beyond outer edge of
                                                 Zone 2)
County Soils Zone 1 (first 30 feet) NC DWQ       Zone 1 (first 30 feet) Town of Cary
Map Stream
             Zone 2 (20 feet beyond NC DWQ       Zone 2 (20 feet        Town of Cary
             edge of Zone 1)                     beyond edge of Zone
                                                 1)

(C)     Activity within Buffer

Activity may take place within any riparian buffer zone as defined by 15A NCAC 2B.0233 as
amended, and if allowed by Section 3.22, Tree Clearing Certificate. Likewise, those activities are
also allowed within Zone 3. Within the Neuse River Basin, development activity may take place
within Zone 1 and Zone 2 provided that the landowner has obtained one of the following:

(1)    An authorization certificate that documents that the NC Division of Water Quality has
approved an allowable use.

(2)     An opinion from the NC Division of Water Quality that vested rights have been
established for that activity.

(3)     A letter from the NC Division of Water Quality documenting that a variance has been
granted for the proposed activity.

(4)     For development in Zone 3 of streams in the Neuse River Basin or within any riparian
zone of a stream within the Cape Fear Basin, such development may occur provided that the
landowner has obtained one of the following:

 (a)    An authorization certificate which documents that the Town has approved an allowable
use; or

(b)     An opinion from the Town that vested rights have been established; or

(c)       A letter from the Town documenting that a variance has been granted for the proposed
activity; or a letter from the NC Division of Water Quality documenting that a variance has been
granted for the proposed activity. Compensatory mitigation per LDO 7.3.7 shall be required.

(D)     Description of Buffers on Site and/or Subdivision Plans

Stream buffers shall be shown on all site plans and subdivision plats approved within the Town's
planning jurisdiction. In addition, riparian buffers and Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands
shall be shown on the inventory of natural resources required as part of site and/or subdivision


                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 185
plan approval site and/or subdivision plan.

(E)     Exclusion of Buffer from Lots

Generally, no single-family lots created through a site and/or subdivision plan shall be platted into
a riparian buffer. However, the Town Council may allow riparian buffers to be included in lots only
when all of the following conditions are met:

(1)     The subdivision is limited in size and has no homeowners association;

(2)     There is no other reason for the formation of a homeowners association (e.g., covenant,
other common areas, engineered stormwater control structures);

(3)    The buffer is placed in a permanent conservation or other legal instrument dedicated to
the Town (required documents must be provided prior to recording the plat for the impacted
area).

(F)     Exemptions

(1)     Within the Neuse River Basin, single family residential lots platted prior to July 27, 2000
or residential subdivision plans submitted to the Town prior to July 27, 2000 shall be exempt from
Section 7.3.2(C) Activity within Buffer requirements. A minimum 30 foot buffer shall be required
where practicable.

(2)      Greenways may be placed within Zone 3 of riparian buffers in either the Neuse River
Basin or the Cape Fear Basin, and shall be exempt from Sections 7.3.2(C) and 7.3.7,
Modifications and Variances. Greenways shall maintain sheet flow to the riparian buffer;
mitigation may be required where concentrated flow occurs.
                                               ...
7.3.32 Nutrient Reduction Requirements
                                               …
Item #T
                TABLE 7.3-21: NITROGEN EXPORT REDUCTION OPTIONS
                Residential                    Commercial/Industrial
                If the computed export is less If the computed export is less
                than 6.0 lbs/ac/yr then the than 10.0 lbs/ac/yr, then the
                owner may either: • Install owner may either: • Install BMPs
                BMPs to remove enough to remove enough nitrogen to
                nitrogen    to   bring     the bring the development down to
                development down to 3.6 3.6 lbs/ac/yr. • Pay a one-time
                lbs/ac/yr. • Pay a one-time offset payment to the Riparian
                offset    payment    to the UTB Restoration Fund to bring
                Riparian UTB Restoration the nitrogen down to the 3.6
                Fund to bring the nitrogen lbs/ac/yr. • Do a combination of
                down to the 3.6 lbs/ac/yr. • BMPs and offset payment to
                Do a combination of BMPs achieve a 3.6 lbs/ac/yr export.
                and offset payment to
                achieve a 3.6 lbs/ac/yr
                export.




                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 186
                TABLE 7.3-21: NITROGEN EXPORT REDUCTION OPTIONS
                Residential                     Commercial/Industrial
                If the computed export is If the computed export is greater
                greater than 6.0 lbs/ac/yr, the than 10.0 lbs/ac/yr, the owner
                owner must use on-site must use on-site BMPs to bring
                BMPs       to     bring     the the development's export down
                development's export down to 10.0 lbs/ac/yr. Then, the owner
                to 6.0 lbs/ac/yr. Then, the may use one of the three options
                owner may use one of the above to achieve the reduction
                three options above to between 10 and 3.6 lbs/ac/yr.
                achieve       the     reduction
                between      6.0    and     3.6
                lbs/ac/yr.

Item #U
7.3.43 Peak Runoff Control
                                               …

7.3.54 Allowable Best Management Practices

Neuse River buffers required by the Division of Water Quality may not be used for compliance
with nitrogen reduction requirements; however, additional 50-foot buffers (including locally
required buffers) may be used as nitrogen control BMPs. New development outside of the Neuse
basin may use riparian buffers UTBs for nitrogen control. The following best management
practices may be utilized for nitrogen reduction:

(A)     Wet detention ponds;

(B)     Constructed wetlands;

(C)     Grass Swales;

(D)     Riparian buffersUTBs;

(E)     Bioretention;

(F)     Dry Detention

(G)     Proprietary BMPs;

(H)     Others, as approved by the Town of Cary and the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality

The total nitrogen (TN) BMP removal rates are provided in the table below.




                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 187
          TABLE 7.3-32: BMP TYPES, TN REMOVAL RATES, AND DESIGN
          STANDARDS
          BMP Types               TN Removal Rate      Design Standards
                                  Based on Current
                                  Literature Studies
          Wet detention ponds     25%                  NC and MD Design
                                                       Manuals
          Constructed wetlands 40%                     NC and MD Design
                                                       Manuals
          Grass Swales            20%                  NC and MD Design
                                                       Manuals
          Riparian buffersUTBs 30%Neuse Riparian
                                  Buffer UTB Rule (15A
                                  NCAC2B.0233)
          Riparian buffers UTBs 20%
          with a greenway
          Vegetated filter strips 20%                  NC and MD Design
          with level spreader                          Manuals and other
                                                       literature information
          Bioretention            35%                  NC and MD Design
                                                       Manuals
          Sand filters            35%                  NC and MD Design
                                                       Manuals
          Dry Detention           10%                  NC and MD Design
                                                       Manuals
          Proprietary BMPs        Varies               Per manufacturer subject
                                                       to DWQ approval
          Other BMPs              Varies               Subject to DWQ
                                                       approval

Staff may modify the effective removal efficiency for a BMP based on deviations from design
standards. For example, where there are significant impacts to buffers, no nitrogen removal
credits will be allowed.

If more than one BMP is installed in series on a development, then the removal rate shall be
determined through serial rather than additive calculations. For example, if a wet detention pond
discharges through a riparian buffer UTB, then the removal rate shall be estimated to be 47.5
percent. The pond removes 25 percent of the nitrogen and discharges 75 percent into the buffer.
The buffer then removes 30 percent of the nitrogen discharged from the pond, which is 22.5
percent. The sum of 25 and 22.5 is 47.5. The removal rate is not 25 percent plus 30 percent.

Item #V
7.3.65 Maintenance of Best Management Practices
                                        …

7.3.76 Modifications and Variances
(A)     Variances by Town Council
All requests for relief from the requirements of this Section, only as they apply to Zone 3 of an
UTB riparian buffer within the Neuse River Basin or any riparian buffer UTB Zones within the
Cape Fear River Basin, shall be decided by the Town Council in accordance with the process
requirements included for a variance through the Board of Adjustment stated in Section of 3.20
Variances. Relief from the requirements of this Section may also be permitted through the
Planned Development District rezoning and/or site plan approval processes provided sufficient
documentation is provided to meet criteria listed below. Banking land within the same watershed


                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 188
may be required. The land to be banked shall have significant water quality value, such as being
contiguous to an existing flood plain, wetland, or riparian UTB area. The land to be banked shall
be preserved in a permanent conservation easement or other legal instrument whose provisions
prohibit both farming and unapproved logging. This variance shall be based on documentation of
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships and documentation of the effects on water quality
caused by development within the buffers as related to the following criteria. This documentation
must include but not be limited to concept plan for the use of the site and data showing the impact
on water quality.

(1)     The basic project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner that would
better minimize disturbance and protect water quality;

(2)     The use cannot practically be reduced in size or density or redesigned to minimize
disturbance and protect water quality;

(3)     BMPs will be used if necessary to minimize disturbance and protect water quality;

(4)     Impact to the UTB riparian buffer must be minimized to the maximum extent practical;

(5)     Unnecessary hardships would result from strict application of this ordinance;

(6)      The hardships result from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as the
location, size, or topography of the property;

(7)     The hardships did not result from actions taken by the petitioner;

(8)      The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of this ordinance;
will secure public safety and welfare; and will preserve substantial justice;

(9)      Compensatory mitigation must be done on at least a 1:1 ratio on a square foot basis for
any impacts to the Zone 3 riparian buffer UTB. Mitigation ratios will be determined on a case-by-
case basis. Additional mitigation may be required based upon the severity of impacts. Suggested
mitigation ratios are listed below:

(a)    1:1 for restoration of a degraded buffer or protection of ephemeral or underground
streams contiguous to protected streams;

(b)     3:1 for preservation of an existing buffer; and

(c)     10:1 for preservation of open space.

(10)   The applicant must receive written approval from the Stormwater Services Manager
acknowledging that these conditions have been met before any impacts to the riparian buffer
UTB shall occur;

If a Planned Development (PD) exceeds the open space requirement, the PD may qualify for land
banking.

PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION: The intent of the compensatory mitigation shall be met when
land of water quality value is restored or preserved which would not otherwise have been
protected by this site plan. The preferred mitigation area is off-site. However, in some cases
mitigation requirements may be met by protecting land on-site which would otherwise not be
protected through another avenue such as buffer, wetlands, floodplain or open space
requirements.

(B)     The Town of Cary may impose reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 189
upon any variance it grants.

(C)     Variances Granted Only by the Environmental Management Commission

Only the Environmental Management Commission shall have the authority to grant variances
from any other provisions of this Section.

(D)     Other Modifications

(1)     Watershed Plans

The Town may develop and implement comprehensive watershed protection plans that may be
used to meet part, or all, of the requirements of this Ordinance.

(2)     Management on Case-by-Case Basis

In some cases, the Stormwater Services Manager may require more stringent stormwater
management measures on a case-by-case basis where it is determined that additional measures
are required to protect water quality and maintain existing and anticipated uses of these waters
and/or to minimize off-site damage from stormwater runoff.

Item #13
7.3.87 Illegal Discharges to the Storm Sewer System
(A)      Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the health, safety, and general welfare of
the citizens of the Town of Cary through the regulation of non-storm water discharges to
the storm drainage system to the maximum extent practicable as required by federal and
state law. This ordinance establishes methods for controlling the introduction of
pollutants into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) in order to comply with
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
process. The objectives of this ordinance are:

(1)    To regulate the contribution of pollutants to the MS4 by storm water discharges by
any user.

(2)     To prohibit illicit connections and discharges to the MS4.

(3)    To establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance, monitoring,
and enforcement procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance.

This section is intended to provide for the enforcement of the Town's Storm Water Management
Program, to prohibit non-storm water discharges to the Town storm sewer, to require the removal
of illicit connections to the Town storm sewer, and to prevent improper disposal of materials that
degrade water quality.

(B)       Depositing Certain Substances in Storm Sewer System
It is unlawful for any person to empty or deposit in any storm sewer system in the Town, directly
or indirectly, any substance, liquid or solid, which by reason of its nature, it:

(1)     Is or may become a public health hazard endangering human or animal health;

(2)     Is a nuisance, including substances which are unsightly or malodorous or may become
so;

(3)     Interferes or may interfere with free and rapid flow of surface water;


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 190
(4)     Is inflammable or explosive;

(5)     Is toxic to plant or animal life;

(6)     Is corrosive or has properties which may damage or render unsightly the storm sewer
system; or

(7)     Affects adversely the State of North Carolina classification of the stream into which the
storm sewer system discharges.

(C)     Obstructing Storm Sewer Systems

It is unlawful for any person to place any obstruction in any storm sewer system in such a manner
as to obstruct or impede the free flow of surface water. This section does not apply to the
construction, reconstruction, or alteration of storm sewer systems in manner consistent with
sound engineering practices.

(D)     Permit Required for Construction, Repair or Alteration of Storm Sewer Systems

No person shall construct, repair, or alter any storm sewer for the purpose of draining water from
any land or premise unless he shall have first applied for and obtained therefore a permit from the
Stormwater Services Manager. The application shall be in writing and on a form provided by the
Stormwater Services Manager. The Stormwater Services Manager shall issue the permit unless
the Stormwater Manager finds that the construction or repair work or alter proposed would be
contrary to the provisions of this section. The Stormwater Services Manager may impose
reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit to ensure compliance with this article.
Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited to: specifications of the materials to be used
and the manner in which the work or alteration is to be performed. It is unlawful for any person to
perform any work or make any alteration for which a permit is required under this section except
in compliance with said permit.

(E)     Nuisances

(1)     The existence of any condition that obstructs or impedes the free flow of surface water
contrary to the provisions of this section shall constitute a nuisance.

(2)     Any condition that violates the provisions of Section 7.3.8(B) constitutes a nuisance.

(F)     Notice to Property Owner of Obstruction

If the Stormwater Services Manager finds any storm sewer system to be constructed, arranged,
clogged, or in such disrepair as to impede, obstruct or hinder the free flow of surface water in a
manner that conflicts with acceptable engineering practices, he shall give notice in writing to the
owner of the premises on which the condition exists to remedy the condition within such times as
the Stormwater Services Manager may reasonably prescribe. It shall be the duty of said owner to
remedy or cause to be remedied the said condition within the time prescribed by the Stormwater
services Manager, provided however, said owner may request an informal hearing before the
Stormwater Services Manager or his or her designee by giving written notice of such request to
the Stormwater Services Manager within the time prescribed by the Stormwater Services
Manager. The Stormwater Services Manager or his or her designee shall fix the time and place
for such informal hearing. A timely request for informal hearing made pursuant to this section
suspends the requirements of the Stormwater Services Manager's earlier notice until the
Stormwater Services Manager or his or her designee issues a further notice subsequent to the
informal hearing.

(G)     Violations; Penalties

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 191
(1)    A violation of Section 7.3.8(A), (B), or (C) shall be a misdemeanor punishable in the
manner prescribed by G.S. 14-4 for each separate violation.

(2)      Any person who fails to comply with a notice issued by the Town Manager pursuant to
this section shall upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor as provided by G.S. 14-4.

(3)     This article may be enforced by any remedy prescribed by G.S. 160A-175.

(B)     Applicablity

This ordinance shall apply to all water entering the storm drain system generated on any
developed and undeveloped lands unless explicitly exempted by the [authorized
enforcement agency].

(C)     Responsibility for Administration

The Town Manager shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this
ordinance. Any powers granted or duties imposed upon the Town Manager may be
delegated in writing by the Town Manager to persons or entities acting in the beneficial
interest of or in the employ of the Town

(D)     Compatibility with other Regulations

This ordinance is not intended to modify or repeal any other ordinance, rule, regulation, or
other provision of law. The requirements of this ordinance are in addition to the
requirements of any other ordinance, rule, regulation, or other provision of law, and where
any provision of this ordinance imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any
other ordinance, rule, regulation, or other provision of law, whichever provision is more
restrictive or imposes higher protective standards for human health or the environment
shall control.

(E)     Severability

The provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any provision,
clause, sentence, or paragraph of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person,
establishment, or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the
other provisions or application of this ordinance.

(F)     Ultimate Responsibility

The standards set forth herein and promulgated pursuant to this ordinance are minimum
standards; therefore this ordinance does not intend or imply that compliance by any
person will ensure that there will be no contamination, pollution, or unauthorized
discharge of pollutants.

(G)     Discharge Prohibitions

(1)     Prohibition of Illegal Discharges

No person shall throw, drain, or otherwise discharge, cause, or allow others under its
control to throw, drain, or otherwise discharge into the MS4 any pollutants or waters
containing any pollutants, other than stormwater. The commencement, conduct or
continuance of any illegal discharge to the storm drain system is prohibited except as
described as follows:



                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 192
(a)     The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions established by
this ordinance: water line flushing, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising
ground waters, uncontaminated ground water infiltration, uncontaminated pumped ground
water, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning
condensation, irrigation water, springs, water from crawl space pumps, footing drains,
lawn watering, individual residential car washing, flows from riparian habitats and
wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, and street wash water.

(b)     Discharges or flow from firefighting, and other discharges specified in writing by
the [authorized enforcement agency] as being necessary to protect public health and
safety.

(c)     Discharges associated with dye testing, however this activity requires a verbal
notification to the [authorized enforcement agency] prior to the time of the test.

(d)     The prohibition shall not apply to any non-stormwater discharge permitted under
an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and
administered under the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the
permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided that
written approval has been granted for any discharge to the storm drain system.

(2)    Prohibition of Illicit Connections

(a)     The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of illicit connections to
the storm drain system is prohibited.

(b)    This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections made in
the past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices
applicable or prevailing at the time of connection.

(c)     A person is considered to be in violation of this ordinance if the person connects a
line conveying sewage to the MS4, or allows such a connection to continue.
(d)     Improper connections in violation of this ordinance must be disconnected and
redirected, if necessary, to an approved onsite wastewater management system or the
sanitary sewer system upon approval of the Town Manager.

(e)     Any drain or conveyance that has not been documented in plans, maps or
equivalent, and which may be connected to the storm sewer system, shall be located by
the owner or occupant of that property upon receipt of written notice of violation from the
Town Manager requiring that such locating be completed. Such notice will specify a
reasonable time period within which the location of the drain or conveyance is to be
determined, that the drain or conveyance be identified as storm sewer, sanitary sewer or
other, and that the outfall location or point of connection to the storm sewer system,
sanitary sewer system or other discharge point be identified. Results of these
investigations are to be documented and provided to the Town Manager

(H)    Watercourse Protection

Every person owning property through which a watercourse passes, or such person's
lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within the property free of
trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate,
or significantly retard the flow of water through the watercourse. In addition, the owner or
lessee shall maintain existing privately owned structures within or adjacent to a
watercourse, so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or
physical integrity of the watercourse.

                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 193
(I)    Industrial or Construction Activity Discharges

(1)    Submission of Notice of Intent to the Town of Cary

(a)    Any person subject to an industrial or construction activity NPDES stormwater
discharge permit shall comply with all provisions of such permit. Proof of compliance with
said permit may be required in a form acceptable to the Town Manager prior to the
allowing of discharges to the MS4.

(b)     The operator of a facility, including construction sites, required to have an NPDES
permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activity shall submit a copy of
the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Town Manager at the same time the operator submits the
original Notice of Intent to the EPA as applicable.

(c)    The copy of the Notice of Intent may be delivered to the Town Manager either in
person or by mailing it to: Notice of Intent to Discharge Stormwater Services Manager, 316
N. Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513

(d)    A person commits an offense if the person operates a facility that is discharging
storm water associated with industrial activity without having submitted a copy of the
Notice of Intent to do so to the Town Manager

(J)    Compliance Monitoring

(1)    Right of Entry: Inspection and Sampling

The Town Manager shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities subject to regulation
under this ordinance as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this
ordinance.

(a)    If a discharger has security measures in force which require proper identification
and clearance before entry into its premises, the discharger shall make the necessary
arrangements to allow access to representatives of the Town of Cary

(b)     Facility operators shall allow the Town Manager ready access to all parts of the
premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling, examination and copying of records
that must be kept under the conditions of an NPDES permit to discharge stormwater, and
the performance of any additional duties as defined by state and federal law.

(c)    The Town Manager shall have the right to set up on any permitted facility such
devices as are necessary in the opinion of the Town Manager to conduct monitoring
and/or sampling of the facility's stormwater discharge.

(d) The Town of Cary has the right to require the discharger to install monitoring
equipment as necessary. The facility's sampling and monitoring equipment shall be
maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition by the discharger at its
own expense. All devices used to measure stormwater flow and quality shall be calibrated
to ensure their accuracy.

(e)     Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to
be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the operator at the written or
oral request of the Town Manager and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such
access shall be borne by the operator.




                                                                         December 14, 2006
                                                                                 Page 194
(f)     Unreasonable delays in allowing the Town of Cary access to a permitted facility is
a violation of a storm water discharge permit and of this ordinance. A person who is the
operator of a facility with an NPDES permit to discharge storm water associated with
industrial activity commits an offense if the person denies the Town of Cary reasonable
access to the permitted facility for the purpose of conducting any activity authorized or
required by this ordinance.

(2)      Search Warrants
If the Town Manager has been refused access to any part of the premises from which
stormwater is discharged, and he/she is able to demonstrate probable cause to believe
that there may be a violation of this ordinance, or that there is a need to inspect and/or
sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program designed to verify
compliance with this ordinance or any order issued hereunder, or to protect the overall
public health, safety, and welfare of the community, then the Town Manager may seek
issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction.

(K)    Requirement to Prevent, Control, and Reduce Stormwater Pollutants by the Use of
Best Management Practices

The Town of Cary will adopt requirements identifying Best Management Practices
(BMPs)for any activity, operation, or facility which may cause or contribute to pollution or
contamination of stormwater, the storm drain system, or waters of the United States. The
owner or operator of such activity, operation, or facility shall provide, at their own
expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other
wastes into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses through the use of these
structural and non-structural BMPs. Further, any person responsible for a property or
premise that is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to
implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and non-structural BMPs to
prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the MS4. Compliance with all terms and
conditions of a valid NPDES permit authorizing the discharge of storm water associated
with industrial activity, to the extent practicable, shall be deemed compliance with the
provisions of this section. These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater management plan
(SWMP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit.

(L)    Notification of Spills

Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a
facility or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation has
information of any known or suspected release of materials which are resulting or may
result in illegal discharges or pollutants discharging into storm water, the storm drain
system, or waters of the United States, said person shall take all necessary steps to
ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release. In the event of such a
release of hazardous materials said person shall immediately notify emergency response
agencies of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services. In the event of a release of
non-hazardous materials, said person shall notify the Town Manager in person or by
phone or facsimile no later than the next business day. Notifications in person or by
phone shall be confirmed by written notice addressed and mailed to the Town Manager
within two business days of the phone notice. If the discharge of prohibited materials
emanates from a commercial or industrial establishment, the owner or operator of such
establishment shall also retain an on-site written record of the discharge and the actions
taken to prevent its recurrence. Such records shall be retained for at least five (5) years.
Failure to provide notification of a release as provided above is a violation of this
ordinance.

(M)    Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties



                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 195
(1)    Violations

It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the
requirements of this ordinance. Any person who has violated or continues to violate the
provisions of this ordinance, may be subject to the enforcement actions outlined in this
section or may be restrained by injunction or otherwise abated in a manner provided by
law.

In the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public
safety, the Town Manager is authorized to enter upon the subject private property, without
giving prior notice, to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or
restore the property. Town Manager is authorized to seek costs of the abatement as
outlined in Section 17.

(2)    Warning Notice

When the Town Manager finds that any person has violated, or continues to violate, any
provision of this ordinance, or any order issued hereunder, the Town Manager may serve
upon that person a written Warning Notice, specifying the particular violation believed to
have occurred and requesting the discharger to immediately investigate the matter and to
seek a resolution whereby any offending discharge will cease. Investigation and/or
resolution of the matter in response to the Warning Notice in no way relieves the alleged
violator of liability for any violations occurring before or after receipt of the Warning
Notice. Nothing in this subsection shall limit the authority of the Town of Cary to take any
action, including emergency action or any other enforcement action, without first issuing a
Warning Notice.

(3)    Notice of Violation

Whenever the Town Manager finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to
meet a requirement of this ordinance, the Town Manager may order compliance by written
notice of violation to the responsible person. The Notice of Violation shall contain:

(a)    The name and address of the alleged violator;

(b)    The address when available or a description of the building, structure or land upon
which the violation is occurring, or has occurred;

(c)    A statement specifying the nature of the violation;

(d)    A description of the remedial measures necessary to restore compliance with this
ordinance and a time schedule for the completion of such remedial action;

(e)    A statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the
person to whom the notice of violation is directed;

(f)     A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the Stormwater
Services Manager by filing a written notice of appeal within thirty (30) days of service of
notice of violation; and

(g)     A statement specifying that, should the violator fail to restore compliance within
the established time schedule, the work will be done by a designated governmental
agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator.

Such notice may require without limitation:



                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                   Page 196
1.     The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting;

2.     The elimination of illicit connections or discharges;

3.     That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall cease and desist;

4.     The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards
and the restoration of any affected property

5.     Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs; and

6.     The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs.

(4)    Compensatory Action

In lieu of enforcement proceedings, penalties, and remedies authorized by this ordinance,
the Town of Cary may impose upon a violator alternative compensatory actions, such as
storm drain stenciling, attendance at compliance workshops, creek cleanup, etc.

(5)    Suspension of MS4 Access

(a)    Emergency Cease and Desist Orders

When the Town Manager finds that any person has violated, or continues to violate, any
provision of this ordinance, or any order issued hereunder, or that the person’s past
violations are likely to recur, and that the person’s violation(s) has (have) caused or
contributed to an actual or threatened discharge to the MS4 or waters of the United States
which reasonably appears to present an imminent or substantial endangerment to the
health or welfare of persons or to the environment, the Town Manager may issue an order
to the violator directing it immediately to cease and desist all such violations and directing
the violator to:

1.     Immediately comply with all ordinance requirements; and

2.     Take such appropriate preventive action as may be needed to properly address a
continuing or threatened violation, including immediately halting operations and/or
terminating the discharge.

Any person notified of an emergency order directed to it under this Subsection shall
immediately comply and stop or eliminate its endangering discharge. In the event of a
discharger’s failure to immediately comply voluntarily with the emergency order, the town
of Cary may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize harm to the MS4
or waters of the United States, and/or endangerment to persons or to the environment,
including immediate termination of a facility’s water supply, sewer connection, or other
municipal utility services. The Town of Cary may allow the person to recommence its
discharge when it has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town Manager that the
period of endangerment has passed, unless further termination proceedings are initiated
against the discharger under this ordinance. A person that is responsible, in whole or in
part, for any discharge presenting imminent endangerment shall submit a detailed written
statement, describing the causes of the harmful discharge and the measures taken to
prevent any future occurrence, to the Town Manager within thirty (30) days of receipt of
the emergency order. Issuance of an emergency cease and desist order shall not be a bar
against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the violator.

(a)    Suspension due to Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations



                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                   Page 197
The Town Manager may, without prior notice, suspend MS4 discharge access to a person
when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which
presents or may present imminent and substantial danger to the environment, or to the
health or welfare of persons, or to the MS4 or waters of the United States. If the violator
fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the Town Manager may
take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the MS4 or waters
of the United States, or to minimize danger to persons.

(b)    Suspension due to the Detection of Illicit Discharge

Any person discharging to the MS4 in violation of this ordinance may have their MS4
access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The Town
Manager will notify a violator of the proposed termination of its MS4 access. The violator
may petition the Town Manager for a reconsideration and hearing. A person commits an
offense if the person reinstates MS4 access to premises terminated pursuant to this
Section, without the prior approval of the Town Manager.

(6)    Civil Penalties

In the event the alleged violator fails to take the remedial measures set forth in the notice
of violation or otherwise fails to cure the violations described therein within five days, or
such greater period as the Stormwater Services manager shall deem appropriate, after the
Stormwater Services manager has taken one or more of the actions described above, the
Stormwater Services Manager may impose a penalty not to exceed $1000 (depending on
the severity of the violation) for each day the violation remains unremedied after receipt of
the notice of violation.

(7)    Criminal Prosecution

Any person that has violated or continues to violate this ordinance shall be liable to
criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, and shall be subject to a criminal
penalty of $1000 per violation per day and/or imprisonment for a period of time not to
exceed 30 days. Each act of violation and each day upon which any violation shall occur
shall constitute a separate offense.

(N)    Appeal of Notice of Violation

Any person receiving a Notice of Violation may appeal the determination of the Town
Manager. The notice of appeal must be received within five days from the date of the
Notice of Violation. Hearing on the appeal before the appropriate authority or his/her
designee shall take place within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal.
The decision of the municipal authority or their designee shall be final.

(O)    Enforcement Measures After Appeal

If the violation has not been corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Notice
of Violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within thirty (30) days of the decision of the
municipal authority upholding the decision of the Town Manager, then representatives of
the Town of Cary shall enter upon the subject private property and are authorized to take
any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. It shall
be unlawful for any person, owner, agent or person in possession of any premises to
refuse to allow the government agency or designated contractor to enter upon the
premises for the purposes set forth above.

(P)    Cost of Abatement of the Violation



                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 198
Within thirty (30) days after abatement of the violation, the owner of the property will be
notified of the cost of abatement, including administrative costs. The property owner may
file a written protest objecting to the amount of the assessment within thirty (30) days. If
the amount due is not paid within a timely manner as determined by the decision of the
municipal authority or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal, the charges
shall become a special assessment against the property and shall constitute a lien on the
property for the amount of the assessment. Any person violating any of the provisions of
this article shall become liable to the Town of Cary by reason of such violation. The
liability shall be paid in not more than ten (10) equal payments. Interest at the rate of eight
percent per annum shall be assessed on the balance beginning on the first day following
discovery of the violation.

(Q)     Violations Deemed a Public Nuisance

In addition to the enforcement processes and penalties provided, any condition caused or
permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance is a threat to
public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance, and may be
summarily abated or restored at the violator's expense, and/or a civil action to abate,
enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be taken.

(R)     Remedies Not Exclusive

The remedies listed in this ordinance are not exclusive of any other remedies available
under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within the discretion of the
Stormwater Services Manager to seek cumulative remedies. The Town of Cary may
recover all attorney’s fees court costs and other expenses associated with enforcement of
this ordinance, including sampling and monitoring expenses.

(S)     Adoption of Ordinance

This ordinance shall be in full force and effect [___] days after its final passage and
adoption. All prior ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are
hereby repealed.

Item #14
7.5 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
7.5.2 Applicability
(A)     Purpose
This section shall apply to all areas of flood hazard including one percent (1%) annual chance
floodplain within the jurisdiction of this Ordinance, and all development in and near such areas
shall comply with the requirements of this section. Areas of one percent (1%) annual chance
floodplain floodplain include those Special Flood Hazard Areas and Future Conditions Flood
Hazard Areas identified by:

(1)      The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or produced under the
Cooperating Technical State (CTS) agreement between the State of North Carolina and FEMA in
its Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and its accompanying
flood maps such as the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRM) and/or the Flood Boundary
Floodway Map(s) (FBFM), for Wake County dated May 2, 2006, which, are adopted by reference
and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The Special Flood Hazard Areas also include those
defined through standard engineering analysis for private developments or by governmental
agencies, but which have not yet been incorporated in the FIRM.

(2)     Residential development that contains a significant watercourse that has a contributory
drainage area of fifty (50) acres or greater shall require the applicant to provide a signed and
sealed engineered study prepared by a qualified professional that determines the extent of

                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 199
flooding limits experienced by the one percent (1%) annual chance flood event.

(B)     Exemptions

(1)      All new residential construction and substantial residential improvements proposed on a
parcel of land that has no buildable area outside the Special Flood Hazard Area or Future
Conditions Flood Hazard Area, and that was recorded prior to June 1978, shall be exempt from
the requirements for residential construction set forth in this section, but shall be developed in
strict accordance with the requirements for non-residential construction.

(2)     Residential subdivisions submitted for review prior to May 10, 2001, shall be exempted
from the requirements prohibiting the platting of lands located within the Special Flood Hazard
Areas and Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas, provided the section complies with the
requirements in place prior to May 10, 2001.

(3)     Site and/or subdivision plans submitted prior to May 10, 2001, shall be exempted from
the special use permit for filling in the flood fringe portion of the Special Flood Hazard Areas or
Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas.

7.5.3   Development Restrictions and Related Standards In and Near the Special Flood
        Hazard Areas and Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas

(A) Establishment of Floodplain Development Permit

A Floodplain Development Permit shall be required in conformance with the provisions of
this ordinance prior to the commencement of any development activities within Special
Flood Hazard Areas and Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas determined in accordance
with Section 7.5.2(A) of this ordinance.

(AB)    Development Restrictions

In general, no development is allowed in the Special Flood Hazard Areas or Future Conditions
Flood Hazard Areas unless one or more of the following are met:

(1)     A special use is approved;

(2)     The property/use is exempted from this requirement; and/or

(3)      The development is for roads, greenways, pedestrian crossings, park-related equipment,
or public utilities and facilities such as waste water, gas, electrical, and water systems that are
located and constructed to minimize flood damage.

Structures for pedestrian crossings (e.g., footbridges, etc.), playground equipment, and other
similar items may be permitted if the applicant provides certification by a professional registered
engineer, architect, or landscape architect that these encroachments will not result in any
increase in flood levels during the base flood.

(BC)    Development Standards

No structure or land shall hereafter be located, extended, converted, altered, or developed
in any way without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable
regulations.

If development or encroachments are permitted, the following standards shall apply in the
Special Flood Hazard Areas and Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas.



                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 200
(1)     All new non-residential construction and substantial improvements to existing non-
residential construction shall be:

(a)     Anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure; and

(b)     Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; and

(c)     Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage.

(2)     All new and replacement electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning
equipment, and other service facilities shall be designed and constructed to prevent water from
entering or accumulating in or on the components.

(3)     All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or
eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system.

(4)        New and replacement sanitary sewer systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharges from the system into flood waters.

(5)    On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or
contamination from them during flooding.

(6)      Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the repair, reconstruction, or replacement
of a building or structure existing on the effective date of this ordinance and located
totally or partially within the floodway, non-encroachment area, or stream setback,
provided there is no additional encroachment below the regulatory flood protection
elevation in the floodway, non-encroachment area, or stream setback, and provided that
such repair, reconstruction, or replacement meets all of the other requirements of this
ordinance.

(7)      New solid waste disposal facilities and sites, hazardous waste management
facilities, salvage yards, and chemical storage facilities shall not be permitted in Special
Flood Hazard Areas or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas, except by variance as
specified in Section 3.20. A structure or tank for chemical or fuel storage incidental to an
allowed use or to the operation of a water treatment plant or wastewater treatment facility
may be located in a Special Flood Hazard Area or a Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area
only if the structure or tank is either elevated or floodproofed to at least the regulatory
flood protection elevation and certified according to Section 7.5.2(E)(3)(a) of this
ordinance.

(CD) Additional Development Standards and Restrictions for Areas with Established
Base Flood Elevation Data

(1)     Residential Construction

(a)      New construction of or substantial improvements to any residential structure shall be
located outside the Special Flood Hazard Areas and Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas
and shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated no lower than the regulatory at
least two feet above the base flood protection elevation as defined. "Substantial improvement"
is defined in Chapter 12.

(b)      No proposed building lot that is wholly or partly subject to flooding shall be approved
unless there is established on the final plat a line representing an actual contour as determined
by field survey at an elevation of the regulatory two feet above the one percent (1%) annual
chance flood crest protection elevation as determined by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Special Hazard Area Flood Insurance Rate Maps, or by other studies approved

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 201
by the Town. Such a line shall be known and identified on the site and/or subdivision plan and
final plat as the "Building Restriction Floodline."

(c)      Placement of fill within the floodway, non-encroachment area, and/or flood fringe is
prohibited unless such activities are authorized through a Special Use Permit.

(d)     Subdivisions submitted after May 10, 2001, may not plat house lots located within the
Special Flood Hazard Areas or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas unless one of the
following exemptions are met:

1.       This requirement does not apply to subdivisions within Planned Developments provided
that the master plan and/or conditions have exempted lots from this provision.

2.       The Town Council may allow these areas to be included in lots only when all of the
following conditions are met:
a.       The Special Fflood Hhazard Aarea or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area impacts a
limited section of the subdivision (i.e., less than ten percent (10%) of the total land area of the
subdivision);

b.     There is no other reason for the formation of a homeowner's association to retain
ownership and maintenance responsibility for the Special Flood Hazard Area or Future
Conditions Flood Hazard Area(e.g., covenant, other common areas);

c.      The Floodplain Special Flood Hazard Area or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area
is placed in a permanent maintenance easement prior to plat recordation.

(2)   Non-Residential Construction Approved within the one percent (1%) Annual
Chance Floodplain Special Flood Hazard Areas and Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas

(a)     New construction of or substantial improvements to any commercial, industrial, or other
non-residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated at least two
feet above no lower than the regulatory base flood protection elevation as defined in Chapter
12, with attendant utilities and sanitary facilities flood-proofed.

(b)      For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the
lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic
flood forces on the exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for
meeting this requirement must be certified by a registered Professional Engineer or architect, or
must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:

1.       A minimum of two (2) openings having a total net area of not less than one (1) square
inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided;

2.      The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above grade;

3.      Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices,
provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters; and

4.     A registered professional engineer or architect shall certify to the Town Manager that the
standards of this section are satisfied.

(E)     Application Requirements

(1)    Application for a Floodplain Development Permit shall be made to the floodplain
administrator prior to any development activities located within Special Flood Hazard
Areas and Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas. The following items shall be presented

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 202
to the floodplain administrator to apply for a floodplain development permit:

(a)     A plot plan drawn to scale which shall include, but shall not be limited to, the
following specific details of the proposed floodplain development:

1. the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area of
development/disturbance; existing and proposed structures, utility systems,
grading/pavement areas, fill materials, storage areas, drainage facilities, and other
development;

2. the boundary of the Special Flood Hazard Area or Future Conditions Flood Hazard
Area as delineated on the FIRM or other flood map as determined in Section 7.5.2(A), or a
statement that the entire lot is within the Special Flood Hazard Area or Future Conditions
Flood Hazard Area;

3. flood zone(s) designation of the proposed development area as determined on the
FIRM or other flood map as determined in Section 7.5.2(A);

4. the boundary of the floodway(s) or non-encroachment area(s) as determined in Section
7.5.2(A);

5. the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or Future Conditions Flood Elevation where provided
as set forth in Section 7.5.2(A), Section 7.5.4;

6. the old and new location of any watercourse that will be altered or relocated as a result
of proposed development;

7. certification of the plot plan by a registered land surveyor or professional engineer.

(b) Proposed elevation, and method thereof, of all development within a Special Flood
Hazard Area or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area including but not limited to:

1. Elevation in relation to mean sea level of the proposed reference level (including
basement) of all structures;

2. Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any non-residential structure in Zone
AE, A or X (Future) will be flood-proofed; and

3. Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any proposed utility systems will be
elevated or floodproofed;

(c) If floodproofing, a Floodproofing Certificate (FEMA Form 81-65) with supporting data
and an operational plan that includes, but is not limited to, installation, exercise, and
maintenance of floodproofing measures.

(d) A Foundation Plan, drawn to scale, which shall include details of the proposed
foundation system to ensure all provisions of this ordinance are met. These details
include but are not limited to:

1. The proposed method of elevation, if applicable (i.e., fill, solid foundation perimeter
wall, solid backfilled foundation, open foundation on columns/posts/piers/piles/shear
walls);




                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                   Page 203
2. Openings to facilitate equalization of hydrostatic flood forces on walls in accordance
with Section 7.5.3 (D)(2)(b)1-4, when solid foundation perimeter walls are used in Zones A,
AE and X (future);

(e) Usage details of any enclosed areas below the regulatory flood protection elevation.

(f) Plans and/or details for the protection of public utilities and facilities such as sewer,
gas, electrical, and water systems to be located and constructed to minimize flood
damage;

(g) Copies of all other Local, State and Federal permits required prior to floodplain
development permit issuance (Wetlands, Endangered Species, Erosion and Sedimentation
Control, Mining, etc.)

(h) Documentation for placement of Recreational Vehicles and/or Temporary Structures,
when applicable, to ensure Section 7.5.3(G)(5)(b) ordinance are met.

(i) A description of proposed watercourse alteration or relocation, when applicable,
including an engineering report on the effects of the proposed project on the flood-
carrying capacity of the watercourse and the effects to properties located both upstream
and downstream; and a map (if not shown on plot plan) showing the location of the
proposed watercourse alteration or relocation.

(2) Permit Requirements

The Floodplain Development Permit shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) A description of the development to be permitted under the floodplain development
permit.

(b) The Special Flood Hazard Area or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area determination
for the proposed development per available data specified in Section 7.5.3(A).

(c) The regulatory flood protection elevation required for the reference level and all
attendant utilities.

(d) The regulatory flood protection elevation required for the protection of all public
utilities.

(e) All certification submittal requirements with timelines.

(f) A statement that no fill material or other development shall encroach into the floodway
or non-encroachment area of any watercourse, as applicable.

(g) The flood openings requirements, if in Zones A, AE or X (Future).

(3) Certification Requirements.

(a) Elevation Certificates

1. An Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form 81-31) is required prior to the actual start of any
new construction. It shall be the duty of the permit holder to submit to the floodplain
administrator a certification of the elevation of the reference level, in relation to mean sea
level. The floodplain administrator shall review the certificate data submitted. Deficiencies
detected by such review shall be corrected by the permit holder prior to the beginning of



                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                    Page 204
construction. Failure to submit the certification or failure to make required corrections
shall be cause to deny a floodplain development permit.

2. An Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form 81-31) is required after the reference level is
established. Within seven (7) calendar days of establishment of the reference level
elevation, it shall be the duty of the permit holder to submit to the floodplain administrator
a certification of the elevation of the reference level, in relation to mean sea level. Any
work done within the seven (7) day calendar period and prior to submission of the
certification shall be at the permit holder’s risk. The floodplain administrator shall review
the certificate data submitted. Deficiencies detected by such review shall be corrected by
the permit holder immediately and prior to further work being permitted to proceed. Failure
to submit the certification or failure to make required corrections shall be cause to issue a
stop-work order for the project.

3. A final as-built Elevation Certificate (FEMA Form 81-31) is required after construction
is completed and prior to Certificate of Compliance/Occupancy issuance. It shall be the
duty of the permit holder to submit to the floodplain administrator a certification of final
as-built construction of the elevation of the reference level and all attendant utilities. The
floodplain administrator shall review the certificate data submitted. Deficiencies detected
by such review shall be corrected by the permit holder immediately and prior to Certificate
of Compliance/Occupancy issuance. In some instances, another certification may be
required to certify corrected as-built construction. Failure to submit the certification or
failure to make required corrections shall be cause to withhold the issuance of a
Certificate of Compliance/Occupancy

(b) Floodproofing Certificate

If non-residential floodproofing is used to meet the regulatory flood protection elevation
requirements, a Floodproofing Certificate (FEMA Form 81-65), with supporting data and an
operational plan, is required prior to the actual start of any new construction. It shall be
the duty of the permit holder to submit to the floodplain administrator a certification of the
floodproofed design elevation of the reference level and all attendant utilities, in relation to
mean sea level. Floodproofing certification shall be prepared by or under the direct
supervision of a professional engineer or architect and certified by same. The floodplain
administrator shall review the certificate data and plan. Deficiencies detected by such
review shall be corrected by the applicant prior to permit approval. Failure to submit the
certification or failure to make required corrections shall be cause to deny a floodplain
development permit. Failure to construct in accordance with the certified design shall be
cause to withhold the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance/Occupancy.

(c) If a manufactured home is placed within Zone A, AE or X (Future) and the elevation of
the chassis is more than thirty-six (36) inches in height above grade, an engineered
foundation certification is required per Section 7.5.7(A)(B) and (C).

(d) If a watercourse is to be altered or relocated, a description of the extent of watercourse
alteration or relocation; a professional engineer’s certified report on the effects of the
proposed project on the flood-carrying capacity of the watercourse and the effects to
properties located both upstream and downstream; and a map showing the location of the
proposed watercourse alteration or relocation shall all be submitted by the permit
applicant prior to issuance of a floodplain development permit.

(e) Certification Exemptions




                                                                            December 14, 2006
                                                                                    Page 205
The following structures, if located within Zone A, AE or X (Future), are exempt from the
elevation/floodproofing certification requirements specified in items (a) and (b) of this
subsection:

1. recreational Vehicles meeting requirements of Section 7.5.4(F);

2. temporary Structures meeting requirements of Section 7.5.4(F); and

3. accessory Structures less than 150 square feet meeting requirements of Section
7.5.3(H).

(F)    Additions/Improvements

(1)Elevated Buildings

Fully enclosed area, of new construction and substantially improved structures, which is
below the lowest floor:

(a)     shall not be designed or used for human habitation, but shall only be used for
parking of vehicles, building access, or limited storage of maintenance equipment used in
connection with the premises. Access to the enclosed area shall be the minimum
necessary to allow for parking of vehicles (garage door) or limited storage of maintenance
equipment (standard exterior door), or entry to the living area (stairway or elevator). The
interior portion of such enclosed area shall not be finished or partitioned into separate
rooms, except to enclose storage areas;

(b)     shall be constructed entirely of flood resistant materials below the regulatory flood
protection elevation;

(c)    shall include, in Zones A, AE and X (Future), flood openings to automatically
equalize hydrostatic flood forces on walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters.
To meet this requirement, the openings must either be certified by a qualified professional
or meet or exceed the following minimum design criteria;

1. a minimum of two (2) flood openings on different sides of each enclosed area subject
to flooding;

2. the total net area of all flood openings must be at least one (1) square inch for each
square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding;

3. if a building has more than one (1) enclosed area, each enclosed area must have flood
openings to allow floodwaters to automatically enter and exit;

4. the bottom of all required flood openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above the
adjacent grade;

5. flood openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices,
provided they permit the automatic flow of floodwaters in both directions; and

6. enclosures made of flexible skirting are not considered enclosures for regulatory
purposes, and, therefore, do not require flood openings. Masonry or wood underpinning,
regardless of structural status, is considered an enclosure and requires flood openings as
outlined above.

(G) Additions/Improvements



                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 206
(1) Additions and/or improvements to pre-FIRM structures when the addition and/or
improvements in combination with any interior modifications to the existing structure are:

(a) not a substantial improvement, the addition and/or improvements must be designed to
minimize flood damages and must not be any more non-conforming than the existing
structure.

(b) a substantial improvement, both the existing structure and the addition and/or
improvements must comply with the standards for new construction.

(2) Additions to post-FIRM structures with no modifications to the existing structure other
than a standard door in the common wall shall require only the addition to comply with the
standards for new construction.

(3) Additions and/or improvements to post-FIRM structures when the addition and/or
improvements in combination with any interior modifications to the existing structure are:

(a) not a substantial improvement, the addition and/or improvements only must comply
with the standards for new construction.




                                                                        December 14, 2006
                                                                                Page 207
(b) a substantial improvement, both the existing structure and the addition and/or
improvements must comply with the standards for new construction.

(4) Where an independent perimeter load-bearing wall is provided between the addition
and the existing building, the addition(s) shall be considered a separate building and only
the addition must comply with the standards for new construction.

(5) Recreational Vehicles

Recreational vehicles shall either:

(a) be on site for fewer than one hundred and eighty (180) consecutive days and be fully
licensed and ready for highway use (a recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is
on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type
utilities, and has no permanently attached additions); or

(b) meet all the requirements for new construction.

(6) Temporary Non-Residential Structures
Prior to the issuance of a floodplain development permit for a temporary structure, the
applicant must submit to the floodplain administrator a plan for the removal of such
structure(s) in the event of a hurricane, flash flood or other type of flood warning
notification. The following information shall be submitted in writing to the floodplain
administrator for review and written approval;

(a) a specified time period for which the temporary use will be permitted. Time specified
may not exceed three (3) months, renewable up to one (1) year;

(b) the name, address, and phone number of the individual responsible for the removal of
the temporary structure;

(c) the time frame prior to the event at which a structure will be removed (i.e., minimum of
seventy-two (72) hours before landfall of a hurricane or immediately upon flood warning
notification);

(d) a copy of the contract or other suitable instrument with the entity responsible for
physical removal of the structure; and

(e) designation, accompanied by documentation, of a location outside the Special Flood
Hazard Area or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area, to which the temporary structure will
be moved.

(H) Accessory Structures

When accessory structures (sheds, detached garages, etc.) are to be placed within a
Special Flood Hazard Area or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area, the following criteria
shall be met:

(1) Accessory structures shall not be used for human habitation (including working,
sleeping, living, cooking or restroom areas);

(2) Accessory structures shall not be temperature-controlled;




                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                  Page 208
(3) Accessory structures shall be designed to have low flood damage potential;

(4) Accessory structures shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to
offer the minimum resistance to the flow of floodwaters;

(5) Accessory structures shall be firmly anchored in accordance with Section 7.5.4(c)(1);

(6) All service facilities such as electrical shall be installed in accordance with Section
7.5.3(D)(2)(a);

(7) Flood openings to facilitate automatic equalization of hydrostatic flood forces shall be
provided below regulatory flood protection elevation in conformance with Section
7.5.3(D)(2)(b)(1)-(4).

An accessory structure with a footprint less than one hundred and fifty (150) square feet
that satisfies the criteria outlined above does not require an elevation or floodproofing
certificate. Elevation or floodproofing certifications are required for all other accessory
structures in accordance with Section 7.5.3(E)(3).

7.5.4   Limitations on Encroachments in Floodways and Non-Encroachment Areas

The Ffloodways and non-encroachment areas, located within the Special Flood Hazard Area
or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas, are is an extremely hazardous areas due to the
velocity of flood waters that carry debris, potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion.
Therefore, encroachments, including fill, in the floodways or non-encroachment areas are
permitted only in limited circumstances and only under the following restrictions:

(A)     There shall be no encroachment, including fill, unless the applicant has received a
Special Use Permit (see Section 3.8) or the use is permitted (see Section 7.5.3(A). The applicant
for a special use involving the floodway portion of the a Special Flood Hazard Area or Future
Conditions Flood Hazard Area shall provide certification by a professional registered engineer,
architect, or landscape architect that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood
levels during the discharge of the base flood or provide a Conditional Letter or Map Revision
issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(B)    Once paragraph (A) above is satisfied, all new construction and substantial
improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction requirements of this section.

7.5.5           Standards for Streams without Established Base Flood Elevations and/or
                Floodways

Located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas are small streams where no base flood data has
been provided or where no floodways have been identified. The following provisions apply within
such areas:

(A)      No encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or new
development, shall be permitted within a distance of the stream bank equal to five times the width
of the stream at the top of the bank or twenty (20) feet each side from the top of the bank,
whichever is greater, unless a special use is approved or the use is permitted.

(B)     In cases where the streams lacking base flood data are USGS or County Soils Map
streams, then the limitations upon encroachments shall apply to the entire area within the
associated riparian bufferUTBs, or an area five times the width of the stream at the top of the
bank, whichever is greater.

(C)     If paragraph (A) above is satisfied, and base flood elevation data is available from other

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 209
sources, all new construction and substantial improvements within such areas shall comply with
all applicable flood hazard ordinance provisions of this Section and shall be elevated or flood-
proofed in accordance with elevations established under Section 7.5.2. When base flood
elevation data is not available from a federal, state, or other source, the lowest floor, including
basement, shall be elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade to or above the
regulatory flood protection elevation as defined in Chapter 12.

7.5.6   Cross Drainage Area Standards and Restrictions

For any new proposed development subject to flooding which includes, but is not limited to, those
lots along any significant watercourse, whether or not the stream or water course is enclosed with
a pipe or culvert; the applicant shall make a determination of the crest elevation of the flood
expected to be equaled or exceeded that has a one (1) percent chance of annual occurrence in
accordance with generally accepted engineering practice, which is to be submitted with the seal
and signature of a Professional Engineer to the Director of Engineering. Any new construction of,
or substantial improvements (see Chapter 12, Definitions) to, any residential or non-residential
structure shall comply with Section 7.5.3(C).

7.5.7   Special Requirements for Manufactured Homes

(A)      No manufactured home shall be placed in the Special Flood Hazard Areas or Future
Conditions Flood Hazard Areas, except when located within an existing manufactured home
park. In existing manufactured home parks, all manufactured homes to be placed or substantially
improved within Zones A1-30, AH and AE, as indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, shall
be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is
two feet above no lower than the regulatory base flood protection elevation as defined in
Chapter 12 and shall be securely anchored to an adequate foundation system in accordance with
the provisions of (e) below.

(B)     Manufactured homes may not be placed in the floodway.

(C)     All manufactured homes within the Special Flood Hazard Areas or Future Conditions
Flood Hazard Areas shall be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement in
accordance with the Regulations for Mobile Homes and Modular Housing adopted by the
Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-15. Where the required elevation can
be met by elevating the chassis no more than thirty-six (36) inches above grade at the site, the
chassis shall be supported by reinforced piers or other foundation of equivalent strength. When
the elevation of the chassis is above thirty-six (36) inches in height an engineering certification is
required.

7.5.8 Special Requirements for Development Proposals Requiring Site and/or
Subdivision Plan Approval
For purposes of this section only, the boundaries of the Special Flood Hazard Area or Future
Conditions Flood Hazard Area for a subdivision or a discrete phase of a subdivision are
established if all of the following conditions are met:

(A)     The subdivision is approved for construction through approval of a preliminary
subdivision plan and all other applicable permits;

(B)     A substantial investment is made in constructing the subdivision.

(C)     In addition to satisfying the other requirements of this Ordinance, all proposals for
subdivisions and site plans shall:

(1)     Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 210
(2)     Have public utilities and facilities, such as wastewater, gas, electrical, and water systems,
located and constructed so as to minimize flood damage;

(3)     Have all proposed residential structures located outside the Special Flood Hazard Area
or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area, with the lowest floor, including basement, elevated at
least two feet above the base flood elevation;

(4)     Have all proposed non-residential structures located outside of the Special Flood Hazard
Area or Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area, with the lowest floor, including basement,
located at least two feet above the base flood elevation. (Note that an approved special use may
permit structures in a flood fringe - see Section 3.12.3).

(5)     Have all drainage structures located within the Flood Hazard Area designed to
accommodate the one percent (1%) annual chance flood without causing increased base flood
elevations on properties other than that for which development approval is being requested;

(6)     Shall provide base flood elevation data along with the subdivision plan or site plan, which
is submitted to the Town for approval.

Item #W
7.8.3 Parking Alternatives
The Planning Director shall be authorized to approve alternatives to providing the number of off-
street parking spaces required by Table 7.8-1 in accordance with the following standards:
                                                  …
(E)      Other Eligible Alternatives
The Planning Director may approve any other alternative to providing off-street parking spaces on
the site of the subject development if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director
that the proposed plan will protect surrounding neighborhoods, maintain traffic circulation
patterns, and promote quality urban design to at least the same extent as would strict compliance
with otherwise applicable off-street parking standards. The Planning Director may approve
different parking requirements for mixed use projects. The different parking requirement
must be based on studies and documentation validated by national studies and/or
research and recommendations from nationally accredited institutions.

Item #X
7.10.3 Standards for Streets/On-Site Vehicular Circulation
(B)     Street Arrangement

(1)      The proposed public or private street system shall be designed to provide vehicular
interconnections to all similar or compatible adjacent uses (existing and future) when such
interconnections would facilitate internal and external traffic movements in the area. Such
connections shall be provided during the initial phase of the project approximately every 1,250 to
1,500 linear feet for each direction (north, south, east, west) in which the subject property abuts
similar or compatible uses. If the common property boundary in any direction is less than 1,250
linear feet, the subject property will be required to provide an interconnection if it is determined by
the Planning Director that the interconnection in that direction can best be accomplished through
the subject property. When the Planning Director deems a vehicular connection impractical,
he/she can increase the length requirement and/or require pedestrian connections. The Planning
Director may delay the interconnection if such interconnection requires state approval or will
result in significant hardship to the property owner. The intent of this standard is to improve
access/egress for Town neighborhoods, provide faster response time for emergency vehicles,
and improve the connections between neighborhoods.

Item #Y
8.1.2 (G) Reserved Land
(2)     Usability

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 211
The total reserved tract shall be outside the Flood Hazard Area, alluvial soils, lakes and other
water bodies, and wetlands subject to Federal or State regulatory jurisdiction, and shall not
include Urban Transition riparian buffers; and

Item #Z
8.2.2 Required Improvements
(D)     Private Open Space
The developer of each residential development requiring development approval shall set aside at
least 500 square feet of open space for each dwelling unit. Such open space shall meet the
standards of this section:

(1)     Locational Criteria

To the maximum extent feasible, where significant natural and scenic resource assets exist on a
property, the developer shall give priority to their preservation through public park or greenway
dedication or as private open space. In reviewing the location of private open areas, the Planning
Director shall use all applicable plans, maps, and reports to determine whether significant
resources exist on a proposed site that should be protected, with priority being given to the
following areas (which are not listed in a particular order):
(a)     Wetlands;

(b)     Flood Hazard Area;

(c)     Lakes, rivers, and stream/riparian UTB corridors;

(d)     Wildlife migration corridors; and

(e)     Steep slope areas.

Item #15
8.3 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTION: CLUSTER HOUSING
8.3.1 Purpose

This section provides an optional process and standards for cluster housing development. The
section is intended to encourage and allow for new concepts of traditional single-family housing
development so that variations of design may be allowed, provided that the net residential density
shall be no greater than permitted in the district in which the development is proposed. This shall
not be construed as granting variances to relieve hardship. The intent is to develop less land area
while allowing the same number of housing units that would be permitted under a conventional
subdivision. This, in turn, provides the Town with a means of permanently protecting open space,
rural character, and important environmental resources such as those identified in the Open
Space and Historic Resources Plan.

A Conventional Subdivision generally covers the entire buildable portion of a site with
residential lots. These lots are equal to or greater than a required minimum size designed
to approximate the maximum permitted development density under the zoning
regulations. A Cluster Subdivision has the same overall gross density of total dwelling
units per total acres and the same permitted uses under the existing zoning district,
however lot dimension and setback requirements are less restrictive. This permits greater
unit per acre net densities on portions of the site while permanently preserve additional
open space and other important environmental resources such as those identified in the
Open Space and Historic Resources Plan than a Conventional Subdivision.
This type of development is more sensitive to the natural environment by reducing the
total amount of disturbance that may occur to the land in comparison to a conventional
development while allowing the developer to reduce site improvement costs. The use of
Clustered Subdivisions is not intended to allow increased density for undevelopable or

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 212
unusable land already protected by other provisions of this ordinance. The remnant land
not designated as building lots is required to be left undeveloped, and must serve the
purpose of effective buffering, passive recreation, protection of significant vegetation,
significant historic preservation or scenic qualities.

8.3.2   Applicability

The cluster development option is available for conventional single-family dwelling developments
on parcels which contain significant resources as indicated by the Open Space and Historic
Resources Plan as well as within the Watershed Protection Overlay dDistrict. Regardless of the
presence of significant resources or location within a Watershed Protection Overlay, the cluster
development option is only allowed on parcels or sites where detached dwellings are a permitted
use within the parcel's zoning designation.

8.3.3   Approval of Cluster Site and/or Subdivision Plans

The Town may allow subdivision development on reduced lot sizes in return for the provision of
additional open space, where the Town determines that the benefits of the cluster approach will
prevent the loss of natural features without increasing the overall net density or impervious
surface of the development. Cluster developments follow the same review and approval process
that conventional developments follow as required by this Ordinance.

8.3.4   Basic Requirements for Cluster Development

(A)     Cluster developments shall meet all requirements for a subdivision/site plan and all other
applicable Town ordinances, except in for lot size, which is defined in this Section. Cluster
subdivisions within the Jordan Lake Wwatershed may be constructed without the standard curb
and gutter required in other areas of Town. Alternative street designs may also be considered if
such designs further protect on-site resources.

(B)       Each structure shall be an element of an overall plan for site development. Only
developments having a total site plan for structures shall be considered. The developer shall
illustrate the placement of structures and on the site and/or subdivision plan the treatment of
open spaces, trails, roads and parking, and existing vegetation to be retained, and in doing so
shall take into consideration all requirements of this Ordinance.

(C)      In order to determine the maximum number of lots permitted on a tract of land the net
residential acreage shall be divided by the minimum lot size required in the Town. A high-density
soil survey map, certified by a Registered Soil Scientist licensed by the State of North Carolina,
shall be submitted. No structure shall be constructed on soil classified as being very poorly
drained. In order to determine the maximum number of lots permitted on a tract of land
through a cluster subdivision, the lots permitted under a conventional subdivision must
be determined by taking the net residential acreage divided by the minimum lot size
required in the tract of land’s designated zoning district. To determine the net residential
acreage, the applicant must submit a sketch plan that identifies the areas and total
acreage containing roadway right-of-way, riparian buffers, floodplain, and all other
ordinance-required buffers/streetscapes/open space (See Chapter 7: Development and
Design Standards) and subtract this from the gross acreage of the site

The lot yield may be increased for a Cluster Subdivisions if additional open space above
that already required by other sections of this Ordinance is provided as follows:

Up to twenty percent (20%) more lots above the lots permitted under a Conventional
Subdivision may be allowed for ten percent (10%) of additional open space of the net
residential acreage of the site or any other equal ratio (example: ten percent (10%) more
lots for five percent (5%) more open space). The reduction of the lot size to provide the

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 213
additional open space should generally be distributed throughout all the lots.

(D)       At a minimum, lot sizes and related setbacks shall conform to the standards of the TR
District (see Chapter 6) for single family detached or patio home development. If the zoning
district allows for attached dwelling units, then lots smaller than 6,000 square feet shall be
permitted. However, where lots in a Cluster Development abuts property that is not
developed as a Cluster Development or Planned Development, it shall have a side or rear
yard not less than the required side or rear yard required on the abutting property.

(E)      The total area of the common land within the development shall equal or exceed the sum
of the areas by which any structure lots are reduced below the minimum lot area normally
required in the area. Cluster Subdivisions shall be adequately buffered from adjacent
Conventional Subdivisions in accordance with Chapter 7 based on lot size, and where
possible should include open space or public space adjacent to the conventional existing
subdivision.

(F)    Where possible structures shall be oriented with respect to scenic views, natural
landscape features, topography of the site, solar energy, and natural drainage areas, in
accordance with an overall plan for site development.
(G)    There shall be no further subdivision of land. However, easements for public utilities may
be permitted.

8.3.5   Provision and Maintenance of Common Open Space and Facilities

(A)     Additional Open Space Areas

Common open space shall be provided pursuant to this Section. All common open space shall be
marked in the field with appropriate permanent signage markers in order to distinguish these
areas from private property.
The proposed additional open space areas shall be treated as permanent open space, and
can not be developed in the future. These areas shall be functional in terms of providing
realistic areas that provide for passive recreation, scenic views, protection of significant
vegetation, significant historic preservation or effective buffering. Undevelopable or
undesirable areas shall not constitute additional open space for Cluster Subdivision if
they do not serve such a function. It is the burden of the developer to prove that these
areas can serve one of the required uses, and is not just an attempt to increase density by
accounting for undevelopable or undesirable land. At a minimum pedestrian access to the
open space areas, either private or public, shall be provided. Exceptions for pedestrian
access to these areas may be granted by the Planning Director if access is impractical due
to topography or environmental constraints.

(B)     The total area of the additional common open space shall be determined as listed in
8.3.4 (C) above through limitations on impervious surface, residential density, or by the amount
by which all dwelling unit lots are reduced below the base zoning.

(C)     Safe and convenient pedestrian access as well as access for maintenance purposes
shall be provided to the common open space.

(D)     The additional common open space shall be shown on the site and/or subdivision plan,
with a notation to indicate that the common space shall not be used for future structures.

(E)       The developer shall establish and incorporate a property owners association, which shall
have the responsibility for maintaining the local neighborhood open space and associated
facilities at its own expense.

(F)     As an alternative to a property owners association, a private, non-profit organization,

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 214
whose primary purpose is open space conservation or preservation can own and manage the
common open space within a cluster housing development.

(G)     A portion or all of the additional common open space may be conveyed to the Town
for use as greenways and parkland, provided it meets Town standards for such facilities and is
agreed to by the Town. Such conveyance would occur at no cost to the Town.

8.3.6   Use of Open Space and Facility

The reserved common open space shall be used for the following:

(A)    Open space uses that are primarily passive in nature, including wildlife sanctuaries, forest
preserves, nature centers, trails, picnic areas and similar uses;

(B)     Conservation of natural features in their existing state;

(C)     Allowable stormwater facilities (e.g., vegetated bio-retention areas);

(D)     Agricultural activities consistent with the open space being preserved; and

(E)     Utilities

(F)      Such uses shall not include rights-of-ways for roads or parking areas, tennis courts,
swimming pools, or similar recreational development. The use of open space may be further
limited or controlled at the time of final approval where necessary to protect adjacent properties.

Item #AA
9.3.2 Conditions
(H)    Flag and Flagpole
(2)    Sites Showing Flags and Flagpoles on Site Plans and Uniform Sign Plans

Flags may be included on a site plan and located as shown on that site plan, provided that:

(a)    Flagpoles shall be limited to three per principal building or multi-family residential
complex;

(b)     Flags are limited to two flags per pole; and

(c)    Flagpoles shall be located outside of the public or private street right-of-way.
                                               …
(6)    Public parks that serve as a memorial to a particular event, individual(s) or
group(s) may contain more than three (3) flagpoles, however the total number of flags
displayed may not exceed six (6); all flag(s) displayed shall be directly related to such
memorial and shall not be used for commercial advertising purposes.

(7)     For public athletic fields/complexes, a total of two (2) additional flags shall be
allowed for each playing field containing permanent seating for spectators; the additional
flags may be displayed on separate poles or on the same pole; the additional flags may be
displayed at such field(s) only while used for games, and all additional flag(s) displayed
shall be directly related to the teams participating and shall not be used for commercial
advertising purposes.




                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 215
           PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

           The intent of this provision is to allow and even encourage the installation
           and use of flags for patriotic purposes, where such flags relate to the
           principal building on the site, but at the same time to discourage the use of
           flags at entrances or along street frontages as "attention attracting
           devices."


(V)     Temporary Sign
Signs for temporary uses, special events or the opening of businesses, as expressly permitted
under Section 5.4, provided that:

(1)     Such signs shall be located only on private property;

(2)     Sign permits shall be limited to a duration of 30 days or, for a temporary use, for the
period of time stated on the temporary use permit; The Planning Director shall have the
authority to extend the duration of the temporary sign permit for new business up to a
maximum of 90 days;
                                                  …




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 216
Item #BB
           TABLE 9.3-3: SUMMARY OF PERMANENT NON-RESIDENTIAL SIGN REGULATIONS WITHIN TOWN CENTER
           Type              Number      Size             Location         Conditions        Other
           Wall Signs        1           1:1    ratio  to Parallel      to 9.3.2(W) 9.3.2(X) May not project
                                         frontage         building face                      more     than     6
                                                                                             inches
           Real       estate 1           5 sf per side    Behind ROW                         Must meet Sec.
           ground sign                                                                       9.3.2 (RQ) (2) (c)




                                                                                                          December 14, 2006
                                                                                                                  Page 217
Item #CC
9.6.4 Signs Not Included in Total Area Allowance
(F)    Wall Sign, Non-Residential
Non-residential wall signs shall be allowed in accordance with the provisions of Section
9.3.2(WX) of this chapter except as follows:
                                                 …
(J)    Exceptions to (I) Prohibited Signs and Devices

(1)     Projecting signs.

(2)     Umbrellas, as portable signs, at sidewalk cafes;
                                               …

Item #DD
9.8 SIGN APPEARANCE, LOGOS, AND SYMBOLS
9.8.1 Applicability
The provisions of this section are applicable to all signage located outside the Town Center. and
These provisions are intended to encourage a high-quality attractive built environment, where in
which signage is appropriate, and architecturally compatible. The provisions of this section shall
not apply to developments with approved Uniform Sign Plans or to existing signage in
developments without a Uniform Sign Plan in place unless there is a proposal to modify the
Uniform Sign Plan or existing signage. Any amendments to existing legally erected signage or
Uniform Sign Plans after the effective date of this amendment shall be required to meet all
standards of this section.

9.8.3 Colors
(E)    Signage may not utilize more than one color for the primary message copy. If more than
one color is utilized for the primary message copy, the colors shall be used in a consistent
manner throughout the primary message copy.

Item #EE
9.10.3 Subdivision/Neighborhood Identification Signs
Ground signs with the name of the residential or non-residential subdivision or multifamily
development shall comply with Section 9.3.2(T), and may be located on one or both sides of each
principal roadway entrance into the development or in the roadway median, under either of the
following alternatives:
                                                 …
(B)      Alternative 2: Median
A single ground sign with the name of the subdivision or multi-family development may be located
within the right-of-way of one major entrance to the residential development or an office park
ground sign may be located within the private right-of-way of one major entrance to the
development, provided that

(1)     Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in area on each side;

(2)     Such sign shall not exceed 42 inches in height;

(3)     Such sign shall not contain a commercial message;

(4)     Such sign may only be installed where the entrance is divided by a median of not less
than 50 feet in length and ten feet in width, unless this requirement is reduced by the Planning
Director; and

(5)      Such sign shall be located within the median and setback at least ten feet from the right-
of-way line when projected across the entrance;

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 218
(6)      Such sign may be integrated into a wall or other entrance feature, which feature shall be
subject to approval through the applicable site plan review provisions of the LDO; the sign portion
of such wall or feature, however, shall be limited to the dimensions set forth in this section.

Item #FF
9.11.6 Amendment Procedures
A Uniform Sign Plan may be amended by filing a new master plan with the Planning Director:

(A)      The application may be filed only by the owner of the land affected by the proposed
change; or an agent, lessee or contract purchaser specifically authorized by the owner to file such
application. Before filing the application, all landowners affected by the proposed change must
give written authorization. If a governing board for the property affected exists, then the
governing board is able to provide written authorization for all landowners affected.

Item #GG
9.16 VARIANCES FOR SIGNS
No provisions of this Chapter may be varied with the exception of the following:

(A)    The square footage limitations for verandah and wall signs as specified in Sections
9.3.2(W) and (X);

(B)     The setback requirements for real estate signs listed in Section 9.3.2(RQ).

All variance requests associated with signage within the Town Center area shall be reviewed by
the Town Center Review Commission prior to the public hearing held by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment (see Section 3.20).

Item #HH
11.4.3          Civil Penalties
Except as provided herein, there are three options for civil penalties for violations of this
Ordinance based upon the type of violation.

(A)     General violations of this Ordinance shall subject the offender to a civil penalty in the
amount of $100.00 for the first day, $200.00 for the second day, $300.00 for the third day,
$400.00 for the fourth day, and $400.00 for each day thereafter that the violation continues, to be
recovered by the Town in a civil action in the nature of debt if the offender does not pay the
penalty within the prescribed period of time after he or she has been cited for violation.

(B)     Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the soil erosion and sedimentation control
provisions in Section 7.4 of this Ordinance, or who initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity
for which an erosion control plan is required other than in accordance with the terms, conditions
and provisions of an approved erosion control plan, is subject to a civil penalty as provided in
G.S. 113A-64, as amended, the provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. If the
Director determines that a person engaged in a land-disturbing activity has failed to
comply with Section 7.4, the Director shall serve a notice of violation upon that person.
The notice may be served by any means authorized under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4, and shall
specify a date by which the person must come into compliance and shall inform the
violator of the actions that need to be taken to comply. Any person who fails to comply
within the time specified is subject to additional civil and criminal penalties of a continuing
violation. The maximum civil penalty for the violation of Section 7.4 other than for a violation of a
stop-work order issued under G.S. 113A-65.1 and Section 11.4.3(C) below is $5,000.00 per day,
which may be assessed from the date the notice of violation is served. Each day of a
continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation. In determining the amount of the
penalty, the Director shall use the following fine schedule, and consider the degree and extent of
harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator
saved by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully and the prior record of the

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 219
violator in complying or failing to comply with Section 7.4. The Director shall notify the person
who is assessed the civil penalty of the amount of the penalty and the reason for
assessing the penalty. The notice of assessment shall be served by any means authorized
under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4 and shall direct the violator to either pay the assessment or
contest the assessment within thirty (30) days by filing a petition for a contested case
under Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. An assessment that is not
contested is due when the violator is served with a notice of assessment. If a violator
does not pay the penalty assessed within thirty (30) days after it is due the town may
institute a civil action to recover the amount of the assessment.
                                                  …
11.5 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
11.5.1 Notice of Violation Procedure
Except as otherwise provided, the following notice procedure shall be used to enforce the
provisions of this Ordinance. The notice of violation and assessment procedure for
violations of the soil erosion and sedimentation control provisions in Section 7.4 of this
Ordinance are set forth in Section 11.4.3 (B).

(A)     Notice Required Before Penalty

No penalty shall be assessed pursuant to this chapter unless and until the person alleged to be in
violation has been notified of the violation in accordance with this section, with the exception of a
violation of a stop work order, or illegal placement of a temporary sign or violation of the soil
erosion and sedimentation control provisions in Section 7.4. In the case of stop work orders,
violations shall subject the violator to immediate imposition of a penalty. In the case of an illegal
temporary sign, the Director shall be authorized to remove such sign immediately without notice.
In the case of violations of Section 7.4, violations are subject to the notice provision of
Section 11.4.3(B).
                                                   …
11.5.2 Citation Procedure
Any person who, after being given a notice of violation pursuant to Section 11.5.1, does not
comply with this Ordinance within the time period set forth in the notice of violation, and who
continues such violation, or who violates a stop work order, shall be subject to the penalties and
remedies set forth in Section 11.4. The following citation procedure shall be used to enforce the
provisions of this Ordinance except that the assessment procedure for violations of Section
7.4 are set forth in Section 11.4.3(B).

(A)     Citation for Violation

The Director shall serve a written citation on the alleged violator by any of the methods specified
in Section 11.5.1. If the violator cannot be ascertained, then the notice of violation shall be sent to
the record owner of the land on which the violation occurs.

(B)     Content of Citation

The citation shall again describe the nature of the violation and any actions that the alleged
violator must take to cure or correct the violation, and shall specify the amount of any civil penalty
that shall be levied against the alleged violator.

(C)     Corrective Action Required

The civil penalty shall be paid, or and the violation shall be cured or corrected, within seventy-
two (72) hours of receipt of the citation by the alleged violator, or such other time period, not to
exceed thirty (30) days, as the citation may specify.
                                                   …
Item #II
12.3 USE CLASSIFICATIONS

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 220
12.3.2 (A) Group Living
(2)      Group Home
A dwelling unit in which unrelated persons with handicaps, as such term is defined in the Fair
Housing Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602 and Chapter 168, Article 3 of the North Carolina
General Statutes, live together as a single housekeeping unit. Supervisory and support personnel
who assist in rehabilitation and personal care for the residents with disabilities may, but are not
required to, reside in the dwelling. All group homes must comply with all applicable federal, state
and local licensing requirements and health regulations. A group home may house up to ten six
(6) residents. The term "group home" does not include a facility that provides the full range of
medical services found in health care institutions or dependent living facilities, and the term
"handicapped" does not include mentally ill persons who are dangerous to others as defined in
N.C.G.S. 122C-3(11)b. A group home may not serve the purpose of, or as an alternative to,
incarceration.

12.3.3(D)      Day Care
(2)     Day Care Home, Large

A day care facility established in a residential dwelling for the care and keeping of three to
twelve unrelated children when any preschool-aged children are in care, or for three to
fifteen unrelated children when only school-aged children are in care.unrelated children or
between four and six adults.

12.3.5            (A) Industrial Service
(1)      General Industrial Service
Manufacturing of finished parts or products, or storage and handling of such products and
materials. Examples include, without limitation: welding shops; machine shops; tool repair;
electric motor repair; repair of scientific or professional instruments; sales, repair, storage,
salvage or wrecking of heavy machinery, metal, and building materials; building, heating,
plumbing or electrical contractors with on-site storage; publishing and lithography; exterminators;
janitorial and building maintenance services with on-site storage; fuel oil distributors; sawmills;
solid fuel yards; laundry, dry-cleaning and carpet cleaning plants; and photo-finishing
laboratories.

Item #16
12.4   Definitions
ADDITION (to an existing building)
An extension or increase in the floor area or height of a building or structure.

BASEMENT
Any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides.

BASE FLOOD
The flood having a one percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year
based on current conditions hydrology. Also known as the "100-year flood."

BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)
A determination of the water surface elevations of the base flood based on current
conditions hydrology as published in the Flood Insurance Study. When the BFE has not
been provided in a Special Flood Hazard Area, it may be obtained from engineering
studies available from a federal, state, or other source using FEMA approved engineering
methodologies. This elevation, when combined with the Freeboard, establishes the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation in Special Flood Hazard Areas.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 221
A structural or nonstructural management-based practice used singularly or in combination to
reduce non-point source inputs to receiving waters in order to achieve water quality protection
goals.
Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good house keeping practices,
pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other
management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or
indirectly to storm water, receiving waters, or storm water conveyance systems. BMPs
also include treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to control site
runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage.

BUFFER, STREAM
The area of natural or planted vegetation through which stormwater runoff flows in a diffuse
manner so that the runoff does not become channelized and which provides for infiltration of the
runoff and filtering of pollutants (see Section 7.3). The buffer is measured landward from the
normal pool elevation of impounded structures and from the bank of each side of streams, rivers,
or lakes, and may also be known as a riparian buffer.

CLEAN WATER ACT
The federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), and any subsequent
amendments thereto.

CHEMICAL STORAGE FACILITY
A building, portion of a building, or exterior area adjacent to a building used for the
storage of any chemical or chemically reactive products.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY (for purposes of NPDES PhII Permit)
Activities subject to NPDES Construction Permits. These include construction projects
resulting in land disturbance of one acre or more. Such activities include but are not
limited to clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition.

CURRENT CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY
The flood discharges associated with the land-use conditions existing within the drainage
area of a watercourse at the time a flood study of the watercourse was conducted. Current
conditions flood discharges and historical flood study information are published in the
Flood Insurance Study.

DEVELOPMENT
The initiation, construction, change, or enlargement of any use or structure, the disturbance of
land through the removal of ground cover, or the division of land into two or more parcels.
"Development" shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Construction or enlargement of a building or structure;

• Change in the type of use of a building, structure, or land;

• Material increase in the intensity of use of land, such as an increase in the number of
businesses, offices, manufacturing establishments, or dwelling units located in a building or
structure or on the land;

• Commencement or expansion of resource extraction, agricultural, horticultural, or forestry
activities on a parcel of land;

• Demolition of a structure or the removal of trees from a parcel of land;

• Deposition of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a parcel of land;


                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 222
• Alteration, either physically or chemically, of the shore, bank, or channel of any stream, lake, or
other body of water or alteration of any wetland; and

• Any land disturbing activity that adds to or changes the amount of impervious or partially
impervious cover on a land area or which otherwise decreases the infiltration of precipitation into
the soil.

• Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited
to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or
drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials.


DISPOSAL
As defined in NCGS 130A-290(a)(6), the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking, or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water so that the solid waste
or any constituent part of the solid waste may enter the environment or be emitted into the
air or discharged into any waters, including groundwaters.

ELEVATED BUILDING
A non-basement building which has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by
foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns.

ENCROACHMENT (for the purposes of floodplain management)
The advance or infringement of uses, fill, excavation, buildings, structures or development
into a floodplain, which may impede or alter the flow capacity of a floodplain.

FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP (FHBM)
An official map of a community, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
where the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard have been designated as zone "A."

FLOOD INSURANCE
The insurance coverage provided under the National Flood Insurance Program.

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM)
An official map of a community, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, on
which delineates both the areas of the special flood hazard areas, the future conditions flood
hazard areas, and the risk premium zones applicable to the community are delineated.

FLOODPLAIN, one percent (1%) ANNUAL CHANCE OR BASE FLOODPLAIN
The area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, as shown on
the current floodplain maps prepared pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program or
approved by the Department. This area may also be identified by other engineering studies that
are approved by the Town.
Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source.

FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR
The individual appointed to administer and enforce the floodplain management
regulations.

FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Any type of permit that is required in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance,
prior to the commencement of any development activity.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
The operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing
flood damage and preserving and enhancing, where possible, natural resources in the


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 223
floodplain, including, but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans, flood control
works, floodplain management regulations, and open space plans.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
This ordinance and other zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes,
health regulations, special purpose ordinances, and other applications of police power
which control development in flood-prone areas. This term describes federal, state or
local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for preventing and
reducing flood loss and damage.

FLOODPROOFING
Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to
structures, which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real
property, water and sanitation facilities, structures, and their contents.

FLOODWAY
The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in
order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation
more than one (1) foot.

FLOOD ZONE
A geographical area shown on a Flood Hazard Boundary Map or Flood Insurance Rate Map
that reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.

FREEBOARD
The height added to the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or the Future Conditions Flood
Elevation to account for the many unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights
greater that the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such
as wave action, bridge openings, and the hydrological effect of urbanization on the
watershed. The Base Flood Elevation plus the freeboard establishes the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation.

FUNCTIONALLY DEPENDENT FACILITY
A facility which cannot be used for its intended purpose unless it is located in close
proximity to water, such as a docking or port facility necessary for the loading and
unloading of cargo or passengers, shipbuilding, or ship repair. The term does not include
long-term storage, manufacture, sales, or service facilities.

FUTURE CONDITIONS FLOOD
The flood having a one percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year based on future conditions hydrology.

FUTURE CONDITIONS FLOOD ELEVATION
A determination of the water surface elevations of the one percent (1%) annual chance
flood based on future conditions hydrology as published in the Flood Insurance Study.
This elevation, when combined with the freeboard, establishes the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation in Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas.

FUTURE CONDITIONS FLOOD HAZARD AREA
The land area that would be inundated by the one percent (1%) annual chance flood based
on future conditions hydrology as determined in Section 7.5. 3 (A) of this ordinance.

FUTURE CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY
The flood discharges associated with projected land-use conditions based on the Town’s
comprehensive land-use plans and without consideration of projected future construction
of flood detention structures or projected future hydraulic modifications within a stream or

                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 224
other waterway such as bridge and culvert construction, fill, and excavation. Future
conditions flood discharges are published in the Flood Insurance Study.

HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
As defined in NCGS Article 9 of Chapter 130A, a facility for the collection, storage,
processing, treatment, recycling, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.

HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE (HAG)
The highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, immediately
next to the proposed walls of the structure.

ILLEGAL DISCHARGE
Any direct or indirect non-storm water discharge to the storm drain system, except as
exempted in Section 7.3.8(G)(1)(a)-(d) of this ordinance.

ILLICIT CONNECTION
An illicit connection is defined as either of the following:

(a)      Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface that allows an
illegal discharge to enter the storm drain system including but not limited to any
conveyances that allow any non-storm water discharge including sewage, process
wastewater, and wash water to enter the storm drain system and any connections to the
storm drain system from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether said drain or
connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved by an authorized
enforcement agency or,

(b)     Any drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land use to
the storm drain system that has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent
records and approved by an authorized enforcement agency.

LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE (LAG)
The elevation of the ground, sidewalk or patio slab immediately next to the building, or
deck support, after completion of the building.

MARKET VALUE
The building value, not including the land value and that of any accessory structures or
other improvements on the lot. Market value may be established by independent certified
appraisal; replacement cost depreciated for age of building and quality of construction
(Actual Cash Value); or adjusted tax assessed values.

MEAN SEA LEVEL
For purposes of this ordinance, the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) as corrected
in 1929, the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) as corrected in 1988, or other vertical
control datum used as a reference for establishing varying elevations within the
floodplain, to which Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) shown on a FIRM are referenced. Refer
to each FIRM panel to determine datum used.

MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4)
The system of conveyances (including sidewalks, roads with drainage systems, municipal
streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains) owned
and operated by the Town of Cary and designed or used for collecting or conveying
stormwater, and that is not used for collecting or conveying sewage.

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORMWATER
DISCHARGE PERMIT.



                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                   Page 225
A permit issued by EPA (or by a State under authority delegated pursuant to 33 USC §
1342(b)) that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, whether
the permit is applicable on an individual, group, or general area-wide basis.

NEW CONSTRUCTION
As used in Section 7.5 of this Ordinance any construction of a new structure, building or dwelling
unit other than "Substantial Improvement" or an addition, repair or renovation to an existing
structure or building.
Structures for which the “start of construction” commenced on or after the effective date
of the original version of the community’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and
includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.

NON-ENCROACHMENT AREA
The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water
surface elevation more than one (1) foot as designated in the Flood Insurance Study
report.

NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE
Any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed entirely of stormwater.

POLLUTANT
Anything which causes or contributes to pollution. Pollutants may include, but are not
limited to: paints, varnishes, and solvents; oil and other automotive fluids; non-hazardous
liquid and solid wastes and yard wastes; refuse, rubbish, garbage, litter, or other
discarded or abandoned objects, ordinances, and accumulations, so that same may cause
or contribute to pollution; floatables; pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; hazardous
substances and wastes; sewage, fecal coliform and pathogens; dissolved and particulate
metals; animal wastes; wastes and residues that result from constructing a building or
structure; and noxious or offensive matter of any kind.

POST-FIRM
Construction or other development for which the “start of construction” occurred on or
after the effective date of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area.

PRE-FIRM
Construction or other development for which the “start of construction” occurred before
the effective date of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area.

PREMISES
Any building, lot, parcel of land, or portion of land whether improved or unimproved
including adjacent sidewalks and parking strips.

PRINCIPALLY ABOVE GROUND
At least fifty-one percent (51%) of the actual cash value of the structure is above ground.


PUBLIC SAFETY and/or NUISANCE
For the purposes of Illegal Discharges to the storm sewer system, anything which is
injurious to the safety or health of an entire community or neighborhood, or any
considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the
customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin.

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV)
A vehicle that which is:
(a) 1. built on a single chassis;

                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 226
2. four hundred (400) square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal
projection;

(b) 3. designed to be self-propelled or permanently towedable by a light duty truck another
vehicle; and

(c) 4. designed primarily not for use as permanent dwelling, but temporary living quarters for
recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use.

REFERENCE LEVEL
The top of the lowest floor for structures within Special Flood Hazard Areas and Future
Conditions Flood Hazard Areas designated as Zone AE, A, A99 or X (Future).

REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION
The elevation above mean sea level to which the reference level of all structures and other
development located within Special Flood Hazard Areas and Future Conditions Flood
Hazard Areas must be protected.

(a)    In Special Flood Hazard Areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) have been
determined, this elevation shall be the BFE plus two (2) feet of freeboard.

(b)     In Special Flood Hazard Areas where no BFE has been established, this elevation
shall be at least two (2) feet above the highest adjacent grade.

(c)    In Future Conditions Flood Hazard Areas this elevation shall be the Future
Conditions Flood Elevation plus two (2) feet of freeboard.

REMEDY A VIOLATION
For the purposes of flood damage prevention, to bring the structure or other development
into compliance with State and community floodplain management regulations, or, if this
is not possible, to reduce the impacts of its noncompliance. Ways that impacts may be
reduced include protecting the structure or other affected development from flood
damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of the ordinance or otherwise
deterring future similar violations, or reducing Federal financial exposure with regard to
the structure or other development.

SALVAGE YARD
Any non-residential property used for the storage, collection, and/or recycling of any type
of equipment, and including but not limited to vehicles, appliances and related machinery.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
As defined in NCGS 130A-290(a)(35), any facility involved in the disposal of solid waste.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
As defined in (NCGS 130A-290(a)(36), any place at which solid wastes are disposed of by
incineration, sanitary landfill, or any other method.

SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (SFHA)
The land in the floodplain subject to a one (1%) percent or greater chance of being flooded
in any given year based on current conditions hydrology, as determined in Section
7.5.3(A) of this ordinance.

START OF CONSTRUCTION
The date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement including

                                                                             December 14, 2006
                                                                                     Page 227
substantial improvement was within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the permit date.
The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure
on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction
of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation, or the placement of a
manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land
preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filing; nor does it include the installation of
streets and/or walkways; nor does it include the excavation for a basement, footings,
piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the
installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not
occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial
improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling,
floor, or other structural part of the building, whether or not that alteration effects the
external dimensions of the building.

STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Publicly-owned facilities by which stormwater is collected and/or conveyed, including but
not limited to any roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, gutters, curbs, inlets,
piped storm drains, pumping facilities, retention and detention basins, natural and human-
made or altered drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
A document which describes the Best Management Practices and activities to be
implemented by a person or business to identify sources of pollution or contamination at
a site and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to stormwater,
stormwater drainage systems, and/or receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.

STRUCTURE
Any improvement upon land that requires more or less permanent location on the ground or
attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground. This includes buildings
(walled and roofed buildings), signs, manufactured or mobile homes, a gas, liquid, or
liquefied gas storage tank that is principally above ground, and impervious surfaces, except
for the purpose of the setback requirements contained in this Ordinance, the term "structure" shall
not include driveways, walkways, sidewalks, fences, retaining walls, greenways, and other similar
features that must of necessity pass through or encroach upon setbacks.

SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE
(a)      Damage of any origin sustained by a structure during any one-year period whereby the
cost of restoring the structure to its the before-damaged condition would equals or exceeds fifty
(50) percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.; or, See definition
of substantial improvement.
(b)      Flood-related damage sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a
10 (ten) year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event, on
the average, equals or exceeds twenty five percent (25%) of the market value of the
structure before the damage occurred.

SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT
As used in Section 7.5 of this Ordinance, which addresses flood damage prevention, any repair,
reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of
the market value of the structure either:

• Before the improvement or repair is started;

• If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred.




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 228
"Substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling,
floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the
external dimensions of the structure. This term does not, however, include either:

• Any project for improvement of a structure necessary to comply with existing state or local
health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living
conditions;

• Any alteration of a structure that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a state
inventory of historic places.
Any combination of repairs, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement
of a structure, taking place during any one-year period for which the cost equals or
exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of
the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred substantial damage,
regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include
either:

(a)      any correction of existing violations of State or community health, sanitary, or
safety code specifications which have been identified by the community code enforcement
official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or,

(b)     any alteration of a historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude
the structure's continued designation as a historic structure.

URBAN TRANSITION BUFFER (UTB)
A buffer established along streams within the Town of Cary Planning Jurisdiction effective
at protecting private and public investment, buffering incompatible uses, promoting
conservation, balancing the built environment with preservation of natural resources and
open spaces, and preserving the identity and character of the Town of Cary.

VIOLATION, FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
For the purposes of flood damage prevention, the failure of a structure or other
development to be fully compliant with the community's floodplain management
regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other
certifications, or other evidence of compliance required is presumed to be in violation until
such time as that documentation is provided.

WASTEWATER
Any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated stormwater, discharged from a
facility.

WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (WSE)
The height, in relation to mean sea level, of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies
in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas.

WATERCOURSE
A lake, river, creek, stream, wash, channel or other topographic feature on or over which
waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes specifically designated areas in
which substantial flood damage may occur.

Staff’s powerpoint presentations is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit S.

Mr. Chuck Smith, on behalf of several members of the development community, stated they
concur with the majority of the ordinance amendment. They are concerned with a couple of
issues and they have not yet completed their statement of concern. He asked that this be referred


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 229
to the February Planning and Zoning Board meeting to allow them time to complete their
comments.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

Ms. Currin stated staff has tentatively scheduled a Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) work
session to go over this issue in detail. Mayor McAlister suggested that council participate in the
P&Z work session. He asked if there is a need to extend this issue to a later P&Z meeting.

Mrs. Robison and Mrs. Robison would like a separate council work session on this issue,
because the council discussion and perspective might be different from P&Z.

Ms. Dorrel stated she recalls a past discussion on buffers, and staff did not independently
undertake these buffer changes.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith referenced unintended consequences; he stated the council should
understand all these issues.

ACTION: Mayor McAlister asked the clerk to schedule a council work session before
council sends this issue to the Planning and Zoning Board.

_________________________

    12. Citizen Initiated Annexation 06-A-22
        The property is located at 6419 McCrimmon Parkway and 6525 Koppers Road and
        contains 16.80 acres. The associated rezoning case is 06-REZ-19 (McCrimmon
        Corners), which was approved on November 14, 2006. Council may take action. (Mr.
        Barker)

Annexation Petition Number: 06-A-22
Property Address: 6419 McCrimmon Parkway, 6525 Koppers Road
Wake County Parcel Number: 0745173844, 0745172357
Real ID Number: 0293813, 0106113
Petition Date: 4/25/2006
Proposed Effective Date: 12/14/2006

OWNERS:
Milton & Gloria Maynard
1509 Old Maynard Road
Morrisville , NC 27560-8627

Billy & Margaret Maynard
1509 Old Maynard Road
Morrisville , NC 27560-8627

Jimmy & Gayle Davis
6525 Koppers Road
Morrisville , NC 27560-8627
LOCATION: At the intersection of Old Maynard Road and McCrimmon Parkway

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Office, Research, and Development (ORD)
Acreage: 16.80 plus 0.00 adjacent right of way = 16.80 total acres
% Contiguity: 16.67%
Contiguous to Corporate Limits: Yes
Proposed Use: Residential Multi-Family Conditional Use

                                                                                December 14, 2006
                                                                                        Page 230
Associated Rezoning Case: 06-REZ-19 (McCrimmon Corners)
Associated Development Plan: None
UTILITIES:
Water: On Site
Sewer: On Site

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Morrisville
Voting District: A
Tax Value: $317,060

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency and Resolution Ordering Public Hearing:
11/14/2006
Staff Recommendation:      Forward to public hearing on 12/14/2006
Action:    Forwarded to public hearing on 12/14/2006

Town Council – Public Hearing: 12/14/2006
Staff Recommendation: Adoption with an effective date of 12/14/2006

06-A-22
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING LANDS CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF
THE TOWN OF CARY
WHEREAS, on 4/25/2006, the Town Council has been petitioned under G.S. 160A-31 to annex
the area described below:

Milton & Gloria Maynard; Billy & Margaret Maynard; Jimmy & Gayle Davis; Wake
County Parcel Identification #0745173844, 0745172357; including 16.80 acres, plus 0.00
acres of adjacent right-of-way; which are Contiguous to the existing municipal limits of
the Town of Cary; and

WHEREAS, on 11/14/2006, the Town Clerk of the Town of Cary certified the sufficiency of said
Petition, the same being duly made after investigation; and

WHEREAS, on 11/14/2006, the Town Council of the Town of Cary ordered a public hearing on
the question of said annexation and Notice of a Public Hearing was published in the newspaper
of general circulation as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the matter came for public hearing before the Town Council of the Town of Cary on
12/14/2006, at which time all persons opposed and all persons in favor of said annexation were
allowed to be heard; and

WHEREAS, the Petition above mentioned meets all the requirements of G.S. 160A-31.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North Carolina
that:

Section 1. The area described in the petition and depicted on the attached map, is hereby
annexed to and made a part of the Town of Cary, effective on the 12/14/2006 with a condition
that the property owner connect to the Town of Cary sewer/water line based upon the Town’s
policy(ies) in place on the effective date of this ordinance. A map and description of the annexed
area are on file in the Planning Department, Cary Town Hall.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Wake County Parcel Identification #0745173844, 0745172357


                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 231
Section 2. That from and after the effective date of this ordinance, the territory and its citizens
and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in the Town of
Cary, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of the municipality.
Said annexed territory shall be subjected to municipal taxes according to G.S. 160A-58.10.

Section 3. The Mayor of the Town of Cary shall cause an accurate map of the newly annexed
territory together with a copy of this ordinance, duly certified, to be recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Wake County and in the Office of the Secretary of State of North Carolina.

Section 4. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-22, the Town Clerk is directed to update the Official Town Map
by drawing in the territory annexed, or setting out the boundaries in a written description, or
showing the current Town boundaries by a combination of these techniques. Such a map shall
also be delivered to the Wake County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1.

Section 5. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-23, the boundaries of Electoral District A are hereby revised to
account for and include the territory annexed, and the Official Town Map of Electoral Wards is
hereby amended to include the annexed territory in the said Electoral District.

Adopted on 12/14/2006.

Mr. Matthew Danielson, the applicant, stated this is a housekeeping item and the associated
development was approved by council at the November 14, 2006 council meeting.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Mrs. Robison moved to approve the annexation. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided
the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Ordinance 06-154 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

E. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT (one hour time limit)

No one spoke during this portion of the meeting.

_________________________

F. LAND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS (any item pulled from the land development
   consent agenda for discussion [item B.2. on this agenda] will be discussed during this portion
   of the agenda)

    1. West Chatham Townhomes (06-SP-043)
       Consideration of a request to approve the West Chatham Townhomes site plan. The site
       is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of High House Road and West
       Chatham Street, adjacent to the Highland Village Planned Development and abutting Old
       Apex Road to the North, and contains 9.63 acres. The Town Center Review Commission
       unanimously recommended approval with specific conditions; however, the applicant has
       not been able to meet all of the conditions. After removing this item from the table, council
       may take action. (Mr. Kevin Hales)

Summary: The proposed development consists of 80 townhouse units located on three tracts
totaling 9.63 acres. The tracts are zoned Town Center with three subdistricts (Mixed Use, Mixed
Density Residential and Medium Density Residential). No dwelling units will be constructed on
the Medium Density Residential, 33 units on 3.4 acres of Mixed Use (MXD) for a density of 9.7
units per acre (25/acre permitted) and 47 units on 6.08 acres of Mixed Density Residential

                                                                                  December 14, 2006
                                                                                          Page 232
(MXDR) for a density of 7.73 units per acre (50/acre permitted). Parking is provided primarily
within attached garages and driveways, with additional guest parking spaces throughout the site.

Considering the unique nature of the downtown area, certain development requirements are not
applicable within the Town Center district, such as:

       The streetscape and buffer widths normally required are not applicable in the Town
        Center District. Street tree plantings and screening from adjoining properties, however it
        must be consistent with Downtown Design Guidelines.

The plans will comply with all applicable Town Center Design Guidelines, which provide:

         That buildings fronting main streets will be located close to the street right-of-way and
         sidewalk, with parking located behind the buildings;

         That architectural form, facades, materials, and colors complement adjoining properties
         and eliminate blank walls;

         That parking be placed to the side or rear of buildings;

         That required landscaping consists of streetscape, of appropriate screening from
         adjoining properties, of screened parking areas, of foundation plantings, and of accent
         plantings.

The proposed development includes sidewalks throughout the site to provide connectivity for
pedestrians to the exterior of the site and within the site itself. The townhome uses provides a
good transition between the apartments in Highland Village to the detached single-family
residential across West Chatham Street.

LOCATION OF PROPERTY: The site is located on the NW corner of the intersection of High
House Road and West Chatham Street. It is adjacent to the Highland Village Planned
Development and also abuts Old Apex Road to the north.

APPLICANT:                                       OWNER:
Bass, Nixon & Kennedy, Inc.                      Beazer Homes
6310 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 250                 5811 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh , NC 27607                               Raleigh , NC 27612


TOWN OF CARY CASE MANAGER:
Kevin A. Hales
Planner II
Phone: 462-3944
Email: kevin.hales@townofcary.org
                                      PARCEL INFORMATION
        County Parcel                  Real Estate ID(s)                      Area (Acres)
         Number(s)

      0764103852,                0049017, 0296118, 0011568                     9.61 acres
 0764103321, 0764100787



ZONING AND LAND USE PLAN COMPLIANCE:
Current Zoning: Overlay District: Town Center
Sub District: Mixed Use (MXD), Mixed Density Residential (MXDR), Medium Density


                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 233
Residential (MDR)
Town Limits: The property is inside Cary’s town limits.
Land Use Compliance: The Land Use Plan allows for townhouse development. The portion of
the property designated for Medium Density Residential is not being built upon.



                 LOCAL WAKE COUNTY SCHOOL ESTIMATES AND CAPACITY IMPACTS
            th
Current 20 Day Enrollment at the                              Percent
                                           Building                            Projected Number of
schools for which this parcel is           Capacity          occupied               Students
currently zoned:
Turner Creek              725                 745             97%                        13
Elementary

Lufkin Road               981                1,023            96%                        8
Middle

Cary High                2,499               2,446            102%                       10

Total for all            4,205               4,214                                       31
Zoned
Schools

Current Enrollment and Permanent Seat Capacity are based on data for the school year 2005-
2006, as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. Actual school assignment will be
determined at the time of development.

MEETING SCHEDULE:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the plan. Approval of this plan is
recommended by staff because the plan complies with Cary ’s Town Center Design Guidelines
and with all other development standards applicable to the site.

TOWN CENTER REVIEW COMMISSION – October 11, 2006
Action: The Town Center Review Commission voted unanimously to forward the plan to Town
Council for action at the November 14th meeting with the following comments:

    1. The Commission expressed concern about the uniform appearance of the units fronting
       West Chatham Street. The Town Center plan describes this area as a gateway, and
       several Commission members felt that the units fronting West Chatham Street should
       have more architectural variety in order to increase the visual appeal and enhance the
       ‘gateway’ impression.

    2. The Commission felt that active recreational opportunities were limited in this area
       without residents having to cross a thoroughfare. Suggestions included a small
       playground or multi-purpose field to supply residents with active recreation opportunities
       interior to the site.

    3. The Commission discussed pedestrian connectivity at great length, expressing concern
       about connectivity between this site and the remainder of the Town Center area. The
       sidewalk along West Chatham will not be completed until the remaining properties re-
       develop or the stretch up to the merge with Old Apex Road is installed at a later date as
       part of a comprehensive improvement program. They also commented upon the lack of
       pedestrian crossings across High House Road and West Chatham Street.




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 234
Other topics of discussion, but which were not part of the motion to forward, were traffic impacts
on the adjoining neighborhoods, the existing underground stormwater pipes as a potential hazard
for children, the density of the development, and road improvements to the remainder of Old
Apex Road.

TOWN COUNCIL ACTION – November 14, 2006
Action: Town Council voted 4-2 in favor of tabling the plan until the developer addressed the
Council’s concerns, including:

    1. A more defined and structured proposal for the inclusion of a gathering place to serve as
       open space for the community.

    2. Provide more variation and architectural interest in the facades proposed for the
       townhouses.


PLANNING: Staff Contact: Kevin A. Hales
LANDSCAPING:
The plan is required to comply with all landscape requirements. The plans provide street trees,
foundation plantings, shade trees within the parking area, screening of the parking areas, and
landscape screening from adjoining properties. Width of perimeter buffers has been reduced
from the standard requirement as permitted within the Town Center zoning district; however, the
performance standard of the buffer is still being met within the remaining width.

BUILDING ELEVATIONS:
Building Height: 35' (45' maximum height)
Building Size: The townhouse units ranges from 1741 to 2545 square feet each. They are
arranged in blocks of 5 to 7 with a minimum of 16' separation between blocks.
Building Materials & Colors: Red-brown brick; a range of colors of hardi-plank siding;
complimentary wood trim, and asphalt shingles. The use of exterior materials complies with
Cary's Architectural Design Guidelines.

TRAFFIC: Staff Contact: Dick Moore
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Town of Cary traffic consultant Martin Alexiou Bryson
dated May 2006. No additional improvements required beyond the requirements of the Cary
Comprehensive Transportation plan.


ROADWAY DESIGN: Staff Contact: Tammy Spivey
In conformance with Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Land Development Ordinance
requirements, the plan proposes the following:

       Widening of Old Apex Road to one-half of an ultimate 5 lane section and installing
        sidewalk along the project frontage;

       Widening of West Chatham Street to one-half of a 3 lane section and installing sidewalk
        along the project frontage.

UTILITIES: Staff Contact: Shuyan Tian
This development has direct access to Town of Cary’s water and sanitary sewer systems. The
proposed waterline and sanitary sewer design meets Town of Cary utility policies and standards.


STORM WATER: Staff Contact: Tom Horstman
The project meets all of the requirements of the Stormwater section of the Town of Cary.




                                                                              December 14, 2006
                                                                                      Page 235
PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION:
Adjoining property owners were notified during staff's initial review of this plan. Staff has received
no inquiries objecting to this proposed development.

Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit T.
Refer to the November 14, 2006 minutes for the site plan that was originally submitted.

Mr. Matthew Danielson outlined the site plan and their recent revisions to the plan. He distributed
a two-page color conceptual depiction of the proposal, which is attached to and incorporated in
these minutes as Exhibit U. He stated Beazer Homes has reached out to each council member
to get their vision for the downtown community. He stated everything they have done meets or
exceeds Town requirements. He stated they have added brick that wraps around the corner end
units; they have a more defined architecture that better separates it so it’s clear they are homes
and not one large building; they have added shutters and shake siding; they have added a
gazebo; they are adding a fountain in the vicinity of the detention pond; they have muted the
colors. He stated they will either build an English garden or a tot lot based on the market. He
noted they are working on a timepiece, and they may lose a unit to do this. He requested that
council approve this site plan.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to remove this item from the table; Mr. Roseland provided
the second; council granted unanimous approval.

Mrs. Robinson asked if the rendering showing the brick only impacted houses 1-19 or if it applied
to the other units as well. Mr. Danielson stated those homes face Chatham Street, and he
confirmed that it impacts houses 1-19.

Mr. Danielson further described the aesthetics as having brick applications on the two-car garage
units. He stated the wood deck (street-side) will be – at a minimum – painted with the appropriate
color and they will require homeowners’ association covenants to stipulate that these decks must
be painted. The back decks will be regular decks. He stated they will investigate columns instead
of only posts.

Mrs. Robinson thanked Mr. Danielson for the improvements he made to the site plan.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the site plan as adjusted; Mrs. Robinson
provided the second. Council granted unanimous approval.

(The approved site plan will be maintained by the planning department according to records
retention requirements.)

_________________________

G. COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)

    1. Operations Committee, December 11, 2006 (any item pulled from the committee consent
       agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the
       agenda) (Mrs. Robinson)

There were no operations committee discussion items.

_________________________

H. OLD/NEW BUSINESS (any item pulled from the regular consent agenda for discussion
   [agenda item B.1.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)



                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 236
   1. Waterford Estates Subdivision – Request for Waiver of Thoroughfare
      Improvements (EN07-038a)
      Committee unanimously recommended denial of the request for waiver of thoroughfare
      improvement requirements. Council may take action. (Mr. Tim Bailey)

STAFF REPORT
Town Council, December 14, 2006

Waterford Estates Subdivision – Request to Make a Payment-in-Lieu of Thoroughfare
Improvements (EN07-038A)
Consideration of allowing the developer to pay a fee-in-lieu of thoroughfare improvements
associated with the proposed Waterford Estates development
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, P.E., Engineering Director
Prepared by: Tammy Spivey, Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

UPDATE
On October 26, the Planning and Development Committee forwarded the original request
for a complete waiver from improvements to Town Council with a recommendation for
denial. The applicant requested that the item be pulled from the November 14 Town
Council meeting in order to work with staff to come up with a solution that worked for all.
On November 30, Staff received a written request from Withers and Ravenel on behalf of
the developer, requesting to make a payment-in-lieu for the thoroughfare improvements
along the potions of land that will be dedicated to the Town and/or placed into
conservation easement. In consideration of the value of the property to be dedicated
and/or placed into conservation easement, the developer has requested that the Town of
Cary consider reduction of payment of the full fee-in-lieu. The engineer’s official cost
estimate for these improvements is $211,804.66. Based on the considerable amount of
open space to be dedicated, Staff recommends a 25% reduction in the payment-in-lieu.
The payment-in-lieu amount, therefore, would be reduced to $158,853.50. This payment-in-
lieu shall be paid prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the 25th dwelling unit, or
recording of the Phase 2 plat, whichever occurs first.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council approve the developer’s request
to make a payment-in-lieu in the amount of $158,853.50 for Alston Avenue Road improvements
along the parcels to be dedicated to the Town and/or placed into conservation easements.

Background Information from previous staff report below:

STAFF REPORT
Planning and Development Committee, October 26, 2006

Waterford Estates Subdivision – Request for Waiver of Thoroughfare Improvements
(EN07-038)
Consideration of waiving thoroughfare improvement requirements associated with the proposed
Waterford Estates development.
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, PE, Director of Engineering
Prepared by: Tammy Spivey, Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager


                                                                           December 14, 2006
                                                                                   Page 237
Waterford Estates is a single family subdivision proposed to be located off of Alston Avenue just
north of Stone Creek Village. Withers and Ravenel, civil designers for the project, have
requested a waiver from improving a portion of the property’s Alston Avenue frontage on behalf of
the developer.

The parcel is approximately 38 acres in size, including 1 +/- acre on the east side of Alston
Avenue and 6.3 +/- acres south of the existing bridge. The 1 acre and 6.3 acre pieces are
designated to be dedicated to the Town of Cary. The Town’s Land Development Ordinance
requires:
Chapter 8: Standards for Subdivisions and Uses Requiring Site Plans
8.1.2(C) Nature of Park Land to be Dedicated
5)    Access
      Where the dedicated land is located adjacent to a street, the developer or subdivider shall
      remain responsible for the installation of utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements
      required along that street segment.
8.2.2 Required Improvements
(A)   Required Features
      In addition to meeting the standards set forth in Section 8.2.1 above, the developer or
      applicant shall be required to do the following:

      (1)    Dedicate any additional right-of-way necessary to achieve the width required by the
             Town's Transportation Plan for all streets adjoining the property;
      (3)    Install curbs and gutters along all streets adjoining the property and to pave all
             streets adjoining the property, in accordance with the requirements set out in the
             Town's Standard Specifications and Details Manual and the Town's Transportation
             Plan;
      (4)    Install sidewalks and pedestrian pathways in accordance with the requirements set
             out in the Town's Standard Specifications and Details Manual where the Town
             Council or Planning and Zoning Board determines that the public safety and
             convenience warrant in view of existing and expected pedestrian traffic.

Staff has met the developer and/or the engineer on several occasions and at least once prior to
the land use approval. Staff provided information that allowed the developer to avoid providing
improvements at the bridge which is the most costly part of widening this section of Alston
Avenue. During those meetings staff encouraged payment in lieu if there were construction
phasing difficulties for the remaining improvements along their frontage. Offsite improvements to
meet the roads APF ordinance are not necessary for this development.

The 6.3 acre parcel will have a conservation easement to the Town, but the developer will retain
title to the property, and it will likely become part of the common open space owned by the home
owners association. While this tract will not have houses constructed on it, it does provide benefit
to the development overall. A few stormwater benefits will be gained by the developer that makes
it desirable to keep the land. First, the impervious surface area to meet the reservoir watershed
protection ordinance is determined for the entire boundary allowing the developer to take
advantage of less restrictive requirements. Second, the BMPs for nitrogen control will be smaller
to meet the nitrogen target. Both of these items can result in lower cost to the developer.

The 1 acre tract adjacent to the park is a direct dedication to the Town. If the waiver is granted,
the Town will make the improvements at a later date. The purpose of the ordinance is to avoid
land dedications that would allow a developer to avoid making otherwise required improvements.
The developer is eligible to receive park land dedication credit for this tract.




                                                                               December 14, 2006
                                                                                       Page 238
When waivers of the transportation development fee ordinance are granted, it significantly
reduces costs to the developer and transfers that cost to the Town in the future. It also could
potentially give a competitive advantage to one developer over a developer that meets Town
requirements. For this reason waiver should be considered very carefully.

The transportation development fee ordinance provides a mechanism for developer agreements.
This is the normal method for reimbursement of constructed road improvements and a large
majority of developers adhere to the policies. Reimbursements are provided through fee credits,
cash reimbursements from fees collected, or a combination of both.

Fiscal Impact: Frontage along these two tracts is approximately 550 feet. Staff estimates the
cost of road improvements to be $150,000 for construction and another $50,000 for design, utility
relocation and easement acquisition. If the waiver is granted, it is likely that the Town will pay the
cost at a later date.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request for a waiver of thoroughfare
improvement requirements.

This item was removed from the agenda at the applicant’s request to allow them time to
submit a revised proposal. This issue will be on the January 11, 2007 council meeting
agenda.

_________________________

I.   CLOSED SESSION

Closed session was not called.

_________________________

J. ADJOURNMENT

ACTION: At 9:34 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adjourn; Mrs. Robinson provided
the second; council granted unanimous approval.




                                                                                 December 14, 2006
                                                                                         Page 239

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:26
posted:8/31/2011
language:English
pages:239