Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-15-1994-X-B 1 w O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 15, 1994 Action A enda Item # SUBJECT: REPORT ON TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCILS (TACs) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x—No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell - TAC Survey/Response Presented Ext. 2589 to Planning Board on 5-17-93 - 5-17-93 Planning Board Minutes - Summary of TAC Membership and TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Activities for FY 1992-93 and Hillsborough - 732-8181 the first half of FY 1993-94 Durham - 688=7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive a report on the membership and activities of the County's seven TACs for Fiscal Year (FY) 1992- 93 and the first half of FY 1993-94. BACKGROUND: Section I (Introduction) of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan states that TACs were organized in the fall of 1977. Their purpose as stated in the Operating Guidelines for Township Advisory Councils is " . . .to advise the Planning Board concerning local opinions about planning matters as specified in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Orange County Planning Board Rules of Procedure. " Their first task was reviewing revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. Between January 1979 and February 1981 TACs were intensely involved in preparation of the Land Use Plan and over 75 meetings were held. Following Plan adoption, some TACs entered a period of inactivity. TACs were reactivated county-wide in early 1986 to participate in township updates to the Land Use Plan. Following the township plan updates, several TACs once again lapsed into periods of inactivity. With the exception of the Bingham TAC, it has often proven difficult to get a quorum of TAC members in the absence of a specific plan/project or pressing issue needing their review and comment. A report prepared for the Planning Board in May 1993 indicates a variable level of activity among the TACs. 2 A questionnaire was sent to TAC members in March 1993 to solicit input about the effectiveness of the TACs and to gather opinions about their activities, or lack thereof. Stamped return envelopes were mailed with the questionnaires, but only 44% were returned. Major findings were, 1) more than 80% believed that citizens were not aware of TAC meetings/agendas/issues, and 2) over 90% of respondents felt their TAC should meet on a regular basis. Over the past year-and-a-half, the Bingham TAC has met consistently. The Little River TAC was reactivated in December 1993 and plans to meet quarterly. While all TACs haven't met on a regular basis in recent years, they have all been invited to, and involved in, projects such as Rural Character, University Station, Economic Development Districts, watersheds/zoning, solid waste, Cooperative Planning, and historic preservation. RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information. However, if the Commissioners desire a more active role for TACs, the Administration recommends that it be referred to the Planning Board for handling. DK15:2-15TACS.DOC 3 TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY OF RESPONSES THE QUESTIONNAIRE On March 15, 1993, the Township Advisory Council questionnaire was sent out to each of the 54 current TAC members (For a copy of the questionnaire, see the first attachment to this document.). To encourage TAC members to return the survey, a self-addressed, stamped envelop was included with the questionnaire. The members were asked to respond by March 31, 1993. The Planning Department waited until April 13th to compile the results (For a detailed summary of the TAC member responses, see the second attachment to this document.). TAC RESPONSE Of the 54 questionnaires sent out, 24 were returned by the deadline. This is a 44.4% response rate. Below is a table summarizing the responses by township. TOWNSHIP NUMBER OF NUMBER OF ` ADVISORY. TAC '. RETURNED - PERCENT COUNCIL ,,:: MEMBERS QUESTIONNAIRES. RETURNED Bingham 9 7 77.8% Cheeks 10 4 40.0% Chapel Hill 4 2 50.0% Cedar Grove 11 4 36.4% Eno 5 2 40.0% Hillsborough 8 1 12.5% Little River 7 4 57.1 % TOTAL:. . 54.;.. 24. 44.4/o 0 OVERALL RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS Refer to the attached table for a detailed summary of the TAC members responses to each question. Question 1 : in what year were you appointed to the TAC? (22 of 24 responded) 50% (11 individuals) were appointed to their TAC before 1990. Four members could not remember when they were appointed (but knew they had been members "for a long time.") t 4 Question 2: Would you still be interested in serving on a TAC that met quarterly? (No / Yes) (24 of 24 responded) 70% (17 individuals) of those TAC members that responded to the questionnaire were still interested in serving on their TAC. The other 30% (7 individuals) were no longer interested in serving. Question 3: How often would you estimate the TAC has met since your involvement? (Quarterly/ Yearly/Less than once a year) (20 of 24 responded) 45% (9 individuals) believed that their TAC met less than once a year. 35% (7 individuals) of those TAC members that responded to the questionnaire believed that their TAC met quarterly. 20% (4 individuals) believed that their TAC met on a yearly basis. Question 4: Do you currently serve on any other Orange County Committees? (No / Yes) (24 of 24 responded) Approximately 65% of the respondents indicated that they were members of other Orange County Committees. Those committees include: the Human Services Advisory Commission (HSAC), the Water Resources Study Committee, the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), the Commission for Women, the Board of Adjustment, the Animal Control Board, the Cable Television Advisory Committee and the Rural Education Center. Question 5: Do people in the community (other than TAC members) generally attend TAC meetings? (No / Yes, often / Yes, occasionally/ Yes, rarely) (22 of 24 responded) Approximately 40% (9 individuals) of the respondents indicated that citizens occasionally attend TAC meetings. 27% (6 individuals) of those TAC members that responded to the questionnaire indicated that other people in the community do not attend the TAC meetings. 23% (5 individuals) indicated that citizens attended their TAC meetings, but only rarely, and approximately 10% (2 individuals) responded that people in the community attend their TAC meetings often. 5 Question 6: (a) Citizens in the township are generally aware of the existence of the TAC. (True /False) (23 of 24 responded) 74% (17 individuals) indicated that citizens were not aware of their TAC. (b) Citizens in the township are generally aware of TAC meetings / agendas. (True /False) (23 of 24 responded) 80% (20 individuals) responded that citizens were not aware of TAC meetings or their agendas. (c) Citizens in the township are generally informed on upcoming TA C issues. (True /False) (22 of 24 responded) 86% (19 individuals) believed that citizens were not informed on upcoming TAC issues. Question 7: STATEMENT. The Planning Board is responsive to our TAC's concerns. (Strongly Agree /Agree /Disagree /Strongly Disagree) (24 of 24 respondents) Half of respondents agreed (either agreed or strongly agreed) that the Planning Board is responsive to TAC concerns. Close to 20% did not have an opinion. Question 8: STATEMENT- The staff planner assigned to our TAC is responsive to our requests. (Strongly Agree /Agree /Disagree /Strongly Disagree) (24 of 24 responded) 83% of the respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that their staff planner was responsive to their requests. Only one individual expressed dissatisfaction with the staff planner's performance. 3 individuals (13%) had no opinion. Question 9: STATEMENT.• Our TAC should meet on a regular basis to receive updates and discuss issues of interest to the Township. (Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree /Strongly Disagree) (24 or 24 responded) 91 % (22 individuals) agreed that their TAC should meet on a regular basis and discuss issues that are of interest to the Township. Only two individuals (8.7%) disagreed. 6 Question 10: STATEMENT: Our TAC should not meet unless there is a "big issue" being discussed. (Strongly Agree /Agree /Disagree / Strongly Disagree) (24 of 24 responded) Of those TAC respondents, 96% (23 individuals) indicated that they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, "Our TAC should not meet unless there is a big issue being discussed." Only one respondent agreed with this statement. Question 11 : STATEMENT: It is more effective if I express my opinions and concerns at other public forums (e.g. public hearings or other Orange County meetings) than at TAC meetings. (Strongly Agree /Agree /Disagree /Strongly Disagree) (24 of 24 responded) Opinion was mixed as to the effectiveness of the TAC meeting for expression of opinions and concerns. Nearly half (45.8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, "It is more effective if I express my opinions and concerns at other public forums (e.g. public hearings or other Orange County meetings) than at our TAC meeting." Eight individuals (33.3%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. 20% (5 individuals) did not have an opinion. Question 12: STATEMENT. TAC meetings are useful, productive and informative. (Strongly Agree/Agree /Disagree/Strongly Disagree) (24 of 24 responded) 75% (18 individuals) of the respondents indicated that the TAC meetings were useful, productive and informative. Three respondents (12.5%) did not believe the meetings were useful, productive or informative. Three individuals (12.5%) did not have an opinion. r 7 COMMENTS Comments from TAC members were also solicited. Below is a selection from their written-in observations. CH1 "The staff was very responsive to the TAC.... If the TACs don't meet regularly, then it is too difficult to get 'up to speed' for "i issues." CH2 "The Chapel Hill Township TAC is no longer organized and has not met for several years." CK1 " [We] need to get more people involved with the meetings." CK3 "TAC meetings are only communications that many of our rural people have with County Administration other than taxes." LR2 "I don't have the feeling that we have a cohesive TAC group - more frequent meetings could help with that. It's never been clear to me exactly what the mission of TACs is (except as contact people for the Planning Staff). Some clarification of purpose might generate [a] more organized approach for the group." CG3 "TAC should meet before public hearings to obtain township views.... [The] Chair [should] give the community's opinion ... [to the] Commissioners...." E1 "When 'projects' can effect your neighborhood folks will turn out - if they don't know [about the projects] during planning stage, they get upset and rightly so.... If TACs do not have regular meetings discussing plans for their township, [there is] little reason to have them at this point. I don't know what the purpose is for the TACs. We had input for the landfill and what we thought about rural character. [Since] then, nothing. Evening meetings sometimes prevent older folks from attending." B1 "I feel that there is great opportunity for the many newcomers to Bingham and to Orange to learn about our community issues if there could be well- publicized, regular (quarterly) meetings of the TAC. There is a need to know out there, to alleviate the fear of 'being done to."' B3 "As long as the TAC is included in the decision making process they are useful. An example of not including the TAC in the proposed economic development districts. This county should continue to bring the government to each community and not depend on public hearings. The reason is, you will have less emotion in TAC meetings. You will get more meaningful communication from the citizens. I believe the County is just starting to see the positive effects of TACs. The county needs to advertise the TAC meetings better. If you have to buy adds, so be it." B7 "It takes one or two interested people to keep a TAC going. The other townships need to find some. Staff support has been great!" 8 RECOMMENDATION (1) Create a "fresh-start" for the TACs. To revive the TACs, the Planning Department should look towards a new beginning. The TACs should meet as one large group (possibly a day retreat) to work together to develop communication between TACs and with the Planning staff. This initial meeting would help all members to better understand the TAC system and purpose, and to know the members of other TACs (which could be valuable resources to their meetings). After this organizational meeting, TAC chairs should consider meeting (possibly quarterly or biannually) to discuss membership, communication, and meeting problems and solutions. (2) Solicit new TAC members. There were a significant number of respondents (30%) that indicated that they were no longer interested in serving. The 55% no-response rate to the questionnaire suggests that more individuals may no longer be interested in serving on their TAC. Therefore, the Planning Department should solicit for new members. Current and old members are a great resource for suggestions of new members. (3) Clarify mission of TACs. One TAC member expressed confusion about the purpose of the TACs. I believe that many more TAC members are confused about the mission of the groups. There seems to be a mix of expectations and goals. For instance, one Bingham TAC member sees the TAC as a place for newcomers to get to know about the area. Another member saw his/her TAC as a liaison between "the people" and the County Commissioners. Another suggested that the TACs be used to get peoples' opinions - replacing "public hearings." At the meeting/retreat of all the TACs, a work session should be devoted to developing a mission and a set of goals for the entire TAC system and each individual TAC. The mission and goals would be in line with the existing guidelines already established for TACs. (4) Advertise TAC meetings and agendas. Overwhelming majorities indicated that citizens in their community were unaware of TAC meetings, unaware of agendas at these meetings and unaware of up-coming issues. In addition, individuals wrote-in that the planning department should advertise these meetings (Example, see 133). In response to these comments, the Planning Department should increase the visibility of the TACs and their meetings. One member suggested advertisements or public announcements in the newspaper. (5) Hold regular (auarterly) meetings. An overwhelming majority (96%) of TAC members that responded to the questionnaire believed that they would be more effective if they met regularly. They did not believe that meeting for "big issues" was the way their groups should function. Once the TACs have been reorganized and new members have been appointed, starting a regular meeting schedule will be possible. 5-17-93 Planning Board Minutes g The May 1991 approach and the recommended course of action for the June meetings of this year are summarized in a memo dated May 10, 1993 (a copy is an attachment to these minutes on pages The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board endorse the proposed meeting framework, with additions as the Board deems appropriate. Discussion indicated that the Planning Board wanted input from as many citizens as possible, including additional options which they might suggest. b. Mike Tapp, Orange County Fire Marshall Mr. Tapp was investigating a fire and unable to attend. Archie Daniel, Deputy, presented comments/concerns from the Sheriff's Department earlier in the meeting. Mr. Tapp will be asked to present his concerns at a future meeting. C. TAC Survey/Response Presentation by David Stancil. There has been a variable level of activity among the TACs. Some TACs meet on a quarterly basis as recommended by the TAC Guidelines, many meet only when a county issues is important to their township and others do not meet at all. In March of 1993, a questionnaire was sent out to each of the 54 current TAC members. The purpose of the survey was to solicit input about the effectiveness of the TACs and to gather opinions about the councils and their activities or the lack of activities. Stamped return envelopes were mailed with the questionnaires, but only 44% were returned. There were two significant findings: ( 1) more than 80% of the respondents believed that citizens were not aware of TAC meetings and agendas, and were not informed about upcoming TAC issues; and (2 ) over 90% of respondents believed that their TAC should meet on a regular basis. The results of the survey will be used by the Planning Department to recommend changes in the organization and format of the TACs. Cynthia Shultz, Planning Intern, reviewed and summarized the responses. A copy of the questionnaire, responses, and summary is an attachment to these minutes on pages 4;L- ;47 10 Discussion indicated that the Planning Board would like more information from the TACs and regular meeting schedules. Collins noted the possibility of involving TAC chairs by providing copies of plats and applications for subdivisions that are proposed in thei-: respective townships . Board members expressed their appreciation for the information provided by Shultz. d. Small Area Plan Process Jobsis stated that she liked the idea of a pilot program for a small area plan as suggested by Commissioner Willhoit. She felt it would provide information needed to determine the workability of such a process in Orange County. Eidenier noted that her impression from the work session on March 10, 1993 was that Commissioner Willhoit felt that there were some areas of the County ready to adopt the Rural Character Strategies as proposed. He indicated he did not want anything to interfere with that, but, that there were other areas that would be good candidates for small area plans. Burklin stated that information could be provided from the TAC meetings as proposed by Staff that could indicate whether the townships felt their area was suitable for some of the rural character strategies and/or small area plans. He continued that the Board could help determine some questions for the Staff to ask that would help provide such information for the Board. Cantrell stated that her initial reaction to the small area planning process is open but she was concerned with the possibility of what was determined to be "patchwork" development over the county. She also expressed concern that there would be an extremely limited number of people actually participating in the extended work that would be necessary. She continued that the small area plan in the southern portion of Orange County had only four people working on it and she felt this did not represent all of the population. She expressed the fear that such planning would be a real "slick" move toward a completely elite Orange County and she was very much opposed to such a move. Her concern was that it may not be a truly representative process of the County. Waddell agreed with the concerns expressed by Cantrell. 11 TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCIL (TAC) MEMBERSHIP SINCE JULY 1992 The seven tables below track the memberships of the Township Advisory Councils (TACs) for Fiscal Year(FY) 1992-93 and the first half of FY 1993-94. Membership for 1994 is assumed to be the same as the last 1993 record. The records of membership varied by date among the TACs and in some cases it was necessary to include membership data prior to July 1992 for comparative purposes. Table 8 summarizes the membership totals for all of the TACs. TABLE 1 BINGHAM TAC MEMBERSHIP Name 3/92 1/93 3/93 6/93 7/93 8/93 James Gray PB PB PB Norm Gustaveson VC VC VC VC VC VC Edward Johnson X X X X X X Quentin Patterson X X X X X X Jane MacNeela X X X X X X Jeffrey Peloquin X X X X X X Miriam Murdock X X Marc-david Cohen X X X X X X Wendell Burch X X X X X X Patrick Mulkey C C C C C C Judy Cox X X X X X Doug Terry (OWASA) OW OW OW Bill Waddell PB PB PB Beth Barba X X TOTALS: 9 10 9 9 1Q 10 PB : Planning Board Representative C : Chair of TAC VC : Vice Chair of TAC 12 TABLE 2 CEDAR GROVE TAC MEMBERSHIP Name 3/91 6/93 7/93 8/93 Melvin Beasley X X X X Rocky Hall X X X X Michael Muller C C C C Roger Tate X X X X Elizabeth Walters X X X X Virginia Boland PB PB PB PB Daryl Clayton X X X X Frankie Pope X X X X Theresa Grywalski X X X X Sam Borland X X X X Larry Rogers X X X X Arthur Whiffed (info only) X X X X Joseph Seivold X X Tommy Pope X X X X TOTALS: 11 11 12 12 TABLE 3 CHAPEL HILL TAC MEMBERSHIP Name 9/92 7/93 8/93 Robert Gwyn X X X Kirk Pelland C C C Marvin Poythress X X X Burnice Hackney X X X William Strom X X Greg Heafner X Letitia Kelly X James Mathewson X TOTALS: 4 4 8 1 13 TABLE 4 CHEEKS TAC MEMBERSHIP Name 7/91 8/93 John Ward C C Marilyn Liner VC VC Jackie Bell X X Mary Bobbitt-Cooke X X Benny Cecil X X Ralph Edwards X X Sim Efland X X Samuel English X X Joan Jobsis PB PB Marie Tate X X Aimee Tattersall X X Matthew Beckwith X Leo Allison X TOTALS: 10 12 TABLE 5 HILLSBOROUGH TAC MEMBERSHIP Name 12/91 8/93 Moreland Claytor X X Tarleton Davis X X Wendy Olson X X Barbara Page X X Leigh Peek X X Richard Robinson X X Bob Rose X X Bev Webb X X James King X Tony Whitaker X E: TOTALS: 8 10 14 TABLE 6 ENO TAC MEMBERSHIP Name 1/92 3/93 4/93 8/93 Josephine Barbour X X X X Elizabeth Dyer X T. Wesley Simmons X X Donald Warren X X X X Jay Zaragoza X X X X TOTALS.. 5 4 3 3 TABLE 7 LITTLE RIVER TAC MEMBERSHIP Name 3/91 6/93 7/93 8/93 Steve Berry X X X X Calvin Davis X X X X Sharon Whitmore X X X X Karen Barrows PB PB PB PB Brad Walker X X X X George Horton X X X X Vern Miller X X X X Earl Davis X X Ralph Cain X William Corr X TOTALS: 6 6 7 9 r 15 TABLE 8 TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP SUMMARY TABLE TOWNSHIP 1991 1992 1993 Bingham 3/92 9 1/93 10 3/93 9 6/93 9 7/93 10 8/93 10 Cedar Grove 3/91 11 6/93 11 7/93 12 8/93 12 Chapel Hill 9/92 4 7/93 4 8/93 8 Cheeks 7/91 10 8/93 12 Eno 1/92 5 3/93 4 4/93 3 8/93 3 Hillsborough 12/91 8 8/93 8 Little River 3/91 6 6/93 6 7/93 7 8/93 9 16 REGULAR TAC MEETINGS DURING FY 1992-93 AND THE FIRST HALF OF FY 1993-94 The Bingham and Little River TACs have met during FY 1992-93 and the first half of FY 1993-94. The other TACs did not meet. Below is a summary of the Bingham and Little River TAC's meet dates and agendas. Bingham WHEN: September 1, 1992 WHAT: OWASA issues dominated this TAC meeting. Questions were answered about fencing and logging around Cane Creek. Landfill sites were also discussed. WHEN: November 10, 1992 WHAT: There were no items on the agenda for this TAC meeting. The chairman of the TAC invited the candidates for the Board of County Commissioners to speak to the residents of Bingham. WHEN: January 21, 1993 WHAT: A report on solid waste and greenboxes was presented by the Public Works Department. The other agenda items were as follows: 1 . Airport work group 2. Update on Rural Character Study and the watershed planning process 3. TAC membership vacancies WHEN: April 22, 1993 WHAT: The OWASA sludge recycling plant and a number of other issues were discussed at the TAC meeting. The agenda was as follows: 1 . OWASA sludge recycling program 2. TAC study / issues update a. Rural Character Study b. Water supply watershed C. Economic development districts d. Traffic issues 3. New development projects in Bingham 4. Other TAC business 1 S 17 WHEN: August 5, 1993 WHAT: Items to be presented at the August 23rd Public Hearing were the focus of the TAC meeting. The agenda consisted of the following items: 1 . Items on the August 23rd Public Hearing a. Water Supply Watershed Plans for Orange County b. CP-3-93, Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan filed by Bobby Kirk. 2. Planned community meetings in September for Rural Character Recommendations. 3. OWASA update 4. Update on Bingham Community Nodes 5. Other TAC matters WHEN: November 11, 1993 WhiAT: Two items dominated the TAC meeting: Recycling and Greenbox Locations, and OWASA's placement of a sludge storage facility in Bingham Township. The agenda consisted of the following items: 1. Recycling and Greenbox Update (Public Works) a. Recycling efforts in Orange County b. Recycling of household hazardous waste C. Changes in greenbox sites 2. OWASA Update a. Planning sludge storage facility b. Cane Creek Park operating hours 3. Other TAC Business a. Proposed January TAC/OWASA meeting Little River WHEN: December 14, 1993 WHAT: Reactivation of the TAC and identification of the issues to be addressed in 1994. The agenda consisted of the following items: 1 . Purpose and mission of the TAC; 2. Review of TAC operating guidelines; 3. History of the Little River TAC; 4. Profile of Little River Township; 5. Current issues facing the township; and 6. Future items for the TAC to consider. 18 PROJECTS / ISSUES WITH TAC INVOLVEMENT TACs were used by the Planning Department for a number of county issues in fiscal year 1992-93 and the first half of 1993-94. The Department will continue to solicit citizen opinion through the TACs as well as other sources. The list below summarizes the issues that TACs were involved in during the last year and a half. (1) Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Workgroups WHEN: Three (3) public meetings were held in August and September of 1992. WHAT: The sessions were used to inform the public on the work of the Cooperative Planning Committee. Two (2) meetings were held in the evening and one (1 ) was held in the afternoon. Members from the Hillsborough, Eno and Chapel Hill TACs were invited to attend these sessions. (2) University Station WHEN: TAC meetings were not held to specifically address the University Station project. WHAT: TAC chairs were informed of the status of the study and were informed of the general meetings and hearings about the study. (3) Watershed Regulations WHEN: Watershed regulations were heard at the September and November 1993 public hearings. WHAT: TAC members from affected townships were invited to attend the public hearings and voice their opinions. (4) Zoning in Little River and Cedar Grove Townships WHEN: Meetings were held in August 1993 in Little River and Cedar Grove Townships. WHAT: At these information sessions, staff explained zoning to area residents and answered questions.TAC members were encouraged to attend. (5) Long-term Solid Waste Management WHEN: Throughout fiscal year 1992-93 the Public Works Department held a series of meetings. ti t 19 WHAT: Public works staff addressed the issue of solid waste management in Orange County. Green box locations and hours were discussed, as well as trash limitations and ways to prevent non-Orange residents from using the facilities. TACs for the respective areas were invited. (6) Rural Character WHEN: TAC members were invited to two sets of meetings on the Rural Character Study. The first set was held in February of 1992, and the second set in January of 1994. To accommodate a large number of citizens, the meetings were held on different nights of the week in various locations across the county. WHAT: TAC members were individually invited to attend the sessions and voice their opinions. (7) Economic Development Districts WHEN: The Economic Development Districts went to public hearing a number of times (February 1993, May 1993, January 1994). There have also been a number of work sessions and meetings throughout fiscal years 1992-93 and 1993- 94. WHAT: TAC members, especially chairs, have been kept abreast of the meetings and the actions of the study group. TAC members were invited to attend the public hearings to voice their opinions. (8) Historic Preservation Inventory Presentation (Char)el Hill Township) WHEN: The Chapel Hill historic resources inventory presentation was held in August of 1993. WHAT: The Chapel Hill TAC members, along with owners of study list properties were invited individually to attend this information session.