Citizens For Responsible Government
Our Mission Hot Topics Voting Records Petitions Contact CFRG

Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance



In 1982, Chapel Hill led our region in adopting tree projection regulations. With strong community support, those regulations have been refined over the years and have been used as an example for many other North Carolina communities. These standards, combined with 1) strict limitations on the amount of impervious surface permitted on a property and 2) strong street and land use landscape buffer standards, have helped Chapel Hill retain its cherished wooded character.

On September 27th, the Town Council will again consider changes to "strengthen" the tree protection standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance. The major new concept of the proposed changes is that every property in Chapel Hill will have a mandatory minimum tree (canopy) requirement.

After about 5 months of review and modification of the proposed ordinance, the Planning Board has recommended an ordinance that still has "a required minimum tree canopy" as its base concept.

A long and very legitimate list of questions still remains to be answered.
  1. Does Chapel Hill really need new, more onerous tree protection standards?
  2. Is there really a problem that needs to be solved?
  3. Why should every property (both residential and commercial) be required to have a minimum tree requirement?
  4. What is the likely effect of these regulations on businesses seeking to expand or come to Chapel Hill?
  5. What does it cost property owners to comply?
  6. If adopted, how will it be implemented technically – staff and process?
  7. What will it cost the taxpayers to pay for the needed additional Town staff? If no new Town employees are added, what other activities are negatively affected?
  8. How will we know if it works or there is a benefit – is there going to be an evaluation process? Are there sufficient examples that the Town staff can present that show what they think the differences and benefits will be – prior to adoption of the proposed standards?
  9. How will property owners be notified of these sweeping changes?
  10. If the Council really wants people to understand the reasons for any change, when will they distribute the proposed new regulations and a staff report identifying the new obligations to all property owners affected?
  11. A posting of this material the Friday afternoon before the Council meeting on Monday, September 27th is not a responsible method of soliciting good citizen input.
  12. The technical mechanisms for implementing these standards include many requirements, some still undefined for methodology or practical usefulness. At the February 2010 hearing, the Council did ask the staff to provide the related changes that would be needed in the Town’s Design Guidelines. To date, proposed changes to this document that are needed for the implementation of any new ordinance have not been presented.
  13. At the point when a Tree Ordinance is enacted, will the Council make these regulations retroactive so that developments in the middle of the review process will need to change their plans – most likely a costly and time-consuming event?
CFRG Comment:
The current process of reviewing and updating the Tree Protection Ordinance is now in it 4th year, and yes, the Planning Board's recommended ordinance is substantially better than the one Council considered in February 2010. We still question whether a new Tree Protection Ordinance is necessary for our community.

Furthermore, don't residents, property owners, and business owners in Chapel Hill – and more importantly the Town Council – have the right to expect that a coherent and complete proposal for the change to the tree protection standards and the methods of implementation would be available more than one business day before the Council meeting at which these standards might be adopted?

Apart from this ordinance looking much like a solution in search of a problem, significant questions still remain about how the Town would implement and evaluate any new standards. These should not be made up as we go along. The Council and citizens have the right to know what these new regulations would cost in time and money prior to any action.



Advisory Boards



CFRG supports the Council and staff efforts to study Chapel Hill's existing Advisory Board system with the goal of improving the process.

As structured, there is considerable overlap. Many of the same issues are discussed before each advisory board. We believe this is very inefficient for the Town citizens that serve, the Town staff that support each board, and the applicants/citizens that appear before the boards.

CFRG recommendations for board responsibilities:
  • Combine the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Greenways Commission.
  • Combine the Transportation and Bikeways / Pedestrian Boards.
  • Justice in Action Committee becomes ad hoc, not permanent.
  • Every 5 years, Advisory Board composition, charge and 'reason for being' is reviewed/evaluated by the Council.
  • The Council needs to reinforce the charge to each Board to keep them focused on the specific items delegated to that Board.

CFRG recommendations for appointments:
  • To provide good advice, boards and commissions need some seats devoted to professionals in the field of a board’s responsibility. For example, the CDC and Planning Board are charged with reviewing technical design plans. CFRG recommends that the majority of the seats be staffed with citizens that are trained to make those reviews. These seats might be filled by citizens who work at the School of Regional and City Planning, by working and retired professionals with relevant education and professional backgrounds.

CFRG recommendations for Board efficiency:
  • Most major development proposals currently have to appear before a minimum of six advisory boards (sometimes multiple times) on the way through the Town's development review process: Planning Board, Community Design Commission, Parks & Rec, Greenways, Bike & Pedestrian, and Transportation Board. This is a very costly and inefficient use of Town resources (staff, citizen, volunteer and applicant). For the review of development applications, we recommend that our Advisory Boards conduct a combined meeting, with one common presentation by Staff and Applicant. After Q&A and a discussion, the boards would separate and discuss their specific topic considerations. With these board meetings conducted at the same time in Town Hall, easy communication between the Boards, applicant and staff is possible. This may make one longer night, but it will achieve a shorter, less expensive and more cohesive process.


Glenn Lennox Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District



The Town is beginning the second stage of a multiyear, three stage process to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for Glenn Lennox.

Stage One occurred in 2009 at which time the Town Council defined the boundaries of the Neighborhood Conservation District and determined that the proposed neighborhood met the NCD qualifications.

The goal of Stage Two is to create a Citizen Committee from neighborhood property owners in order to craft the neighborhood's recommendations for proposed NCD zoning rules, with guidance from the Town Staff/Town Consultant to the Committee. On Tuesday, February 2, 2010, the Planning Board voted to recommend to the Chapel Hill Town Council that the Council initiate the development of a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood. The Planning Board also recommended that the Council appoint a committee to work on the development of the Neighborhood Conservation District plan and zoning rules.

The next step is to forward the Planning Board's recommendation to the Council. The date of the Council meeting and the schedule for the Council Committee appointment process will be determined during the week of February 15, 2010.

Stage Three will occur when the Planning Board/Town Council actually adopt Neighborhood Conservation District zoning rules for Glenn Lennox.



Redevelopment of University Square and Granville Towers



In the past year, the property and existing buildings of University Square and Granville Towers were purchased by Chapel Hill Foundation Real Estate Holdings, a not-for-profit corporation founded by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Foundation to assist with real estate projects for the University and its affiliated organizations. Cousins Properties Incorporated, a national developer based in Atlanta that specializes in mixed use projects, is assisting Chapel Hill Foundation Real Estate Holdings in redeveloping the site. Elkus Manfredi Architects of Boston, selected by Cousins in fall 2009, will help plan and design the project. A series of three public meetings, as well as input through the project website (www.123westfranklin.com), will guide the development of a concept plan to be submitted to the Town next spring.

The project Mission Statement: To support both the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Town of Chapel Hill through the redevelopment of 123 West Franklin Street into a vibrant, appropriate, and commercially viable project that will enhance the quality of life at the University, in the Town and in the region.

Project goals include:
  • To make 123 West Franklin Street a 12-month destination with a mixed set of uses — retail, office, residential and civic — that will attract more people, more frequently, and for longer visits;
  • To provide a diverse mix of University-related residential options;
  • To deliver a project that is financially feasible and stimulates other commercial prosperity in Downtown Chapel Hill;
  • To provide a vibrant connection between the University and Downtown; and
  • To engage a wide range of stakeholders in the development of a plan that is feasible, durable and that benefits both Chapel Hill and the University.