[0:18] Good evening, everyone, and welcome to Durham City Hall.

[0:24] It's good to have you all here tonight. Colleagues, it's great

[0:29] to see you. If you will join me for a moment of silence. I'll

[0:48] now pass it over to Council Member Rist for the Pledge of

[0:52] Allegiance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If it is

[0:55] your practice, I invite you to rise with me and recite the

[0:57] Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:09] United States of America, and to the Republic for which it

[1:13] stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:19] justice for all. All right. All right. Madam clerk, if you

[1:28] will. All right. I am going to call the roll on. I'm Mayor

[1:40] Williams, and I'm here. Mayor Pro Tem.

[1:43] Here. Council Member Rist here. Councilmember Cooke.

[1:51] Here. Council Member Kopac here.

[1:56] Council member Baker here. Council Member Burris here.

[2:01] Thank you all so much. Madam clerk, everyone is here

[2:04] tonight. If you couldn't see. All right, we will start with.

[2:12] Our ceremonial items. And the first one will be National

[2:18] Poetry Month, read by Council Member Burris. She is not going

[2:28] to say. I'm just giving her this for the first time. She's

[2:30] going to say that she was well prepared and asked earlier this

[2:33] month if she would read the proclamation for tonight. And

[2:47] she'll be joined by our poet laureate, Chris Vitello. All

[2:54] right. See you. Thank you. Good afternoon. And

[2:57] I had a whole week to read this. Thank you so much. Mayor

[3:00] Williamstown. Okay. All right. So we're as National Poetry

[3:03] Month was established in 1996 by the Academy of American

[3:06] Poets to celebrate poetry's vital place in our culture and

[3:09] its enduring power to inspire, healed and unite communities.

[3:12] And whereas poetry enriches civic life by giving voice to

[3:16] diverse experiences, preserving history, advancing dialogue,

[3:19] and nurturing empathy. Our local poets, educators,

[3:22] librarians, and arts organizations cultivate

[3:25] creativity in classrooms, libraries, bookstores, and

[3:28] community spaces, ensuring that poetry remains accessible to

[3:31] all residents, to residents of all ages. And whereas the City

[3:35] of Durham Poet Laureate program was established in 2021 with

[3:38] the inaugural Poet Laureate appointment of D.J. Rogers from

[3:41] 2022 to 2023 and our current current laureate Chris Vitello.

[3:47] Hello. You got it. Thank you. Appointed in 2024 through 2027.

[3:53] And Whereas the City of Durham is committed to supporting the

[3:55] arts as an essential public service that enriches civic

[3:58] life, nurtures imagination and strengthens community

[4:00] connection through the city's Durham Poet Laureate program,

[4:03] supporting 910 students in 2025 through learning opportunities.

[4:07] And Whereas, the city. Whereas the arts in Durham are vital to

[4:11] our quality of life, our economy and reflect the beauty

[4:14] and vibrancy of our community. Poetry through reading,

[4:16] writing, performance and public art strengthens literacy,

[4:19] supports lifelong learning and contributes to our local

[4:22] economy and cultural landscape. Now, therefore, I. Leonardo

[4:26] Williams mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do

[4:28] hereby proclaim April 2026 as National Poetry Month in the

[4:33] City of Durham and encourage residents to celebrate by

[4:35] reading a poem, writing a poem, attending a poetry event, and

[4:38] sharing the power of words with others. Witness my hand the

[4:42] corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina. This

[4:45] 20th day of April, 2026. Thank you so much. Thank you

[4:53] madam. I have a few words. Thank you

[4:56] for reading that and thank you for the proclamation. We

[5:00] probably have a ton of poets in this room. Durham is full of

[5:03] poets. So is the whole area. When I proposed a theme of

[5:08] poetry everywhere, when I applied to be the Poet

[5:11] laureate, that was that was something that I was really

[5:16] committed to. Last week I was at the Hill Learning Center

[5:18] working with kids. I wrote at the Duke Children's Hospital

[5:22] prom on Friday night, the Scrap Exchange or Earth Day shebang.

[5:25] On Saturday, I was teaching a workshop on Memory Poems this

[5:29] morning at the East Regional Library. I'll be doing other

[5:33] Library Fest things. Something tomorrow night at the main

[5:35] branch just across the street. And and this month we're doing

[5:39] another cool thing to demonstrate this theme as you

[5:43] walk around downtown. Hopefully this coming weekend, there will

[5:46] be maybe some poems on the sidewalk that you can discover

[5:50] and stop and read, maybe even interact with physically. So

[5:53] keep your eyes on the ground as well as the sky, and look for

[5:56] some poems. And then on April 30th, if I can plug an event,

[6:02] over 20 poets will be reading. It's a reading that we're doing

[6:05] for the second year in a row called The Reading for the end

[6:07] of the world. Since the world seems perpetually to be ending.

[6:12] And then tomorrow we figure that out all over again. It'll

[6:15] be at the auditorium of the main branch of the library 6 to

[6:18] 9 p.m., 22 poets from Durham and the area all reading about

[6:23] 6 or 7 minutes each. Sounds like a long night. Three hours

[6:25] of poetry, but it will go fast. And it's a testament to how

[6:29] many poets we have in the area. And I wrote a quirky little

[6:32] Durham poem, if I may read it to you all. I understand hope,

[6:36] for Durham is a theme that will be used this week. So I wrote

[6:40] this poem. Hope. Hope is a dangerous thing. What if you

[6:45] had a hope and then had to follow through with it? What if

[6:49] others shared your hope and we all had to make it happen

[6:52] together? Hope for Durham in these fraught times, for both

[6:57] people and birds, means taking the risk that the future we

[7:01] hope for requires. We could huddle alone, hopeless at home,

[7:06] anywhere. But not in Durham, not here. Thank you all so

[7:12] much. Thank you sir. Thank you.

[7:26] Good evening. I would like to invite up Ashley Eason from the

[7:31] Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Alliance. Proclamation. Whereas

[7:47] tuberous sclerosis complex, TSC is a rare genetic disorder that

[7:52] leads to the growth of non-cancerous benign tumors in

[7:55] vital organs, including the brain, heart, kidneys, skin,

[8:00] liver and lungs. And whereas approximately 50,000 Americans

[8:05] and 1 million people worldwide are living with tuberous

[8:09] sclerosis complex, a disease that currently has no cure. And

[8:13] whereas TSC is a leading genetic cause of both epilepsy

[8:17] and autism, with varying degrees of severity in those

[8:20] affected. And whereas TSC affects individuals

[8:25] differently, with some experiencing severe

[8:27] complications and others remaining undiagnosed due to

[8:30] mild symptoms. And whereas TSC can result from a random

[8:35] genetic mutation or be inherited through family lines,

[8:39] the impact of TSC can lead to life threatening complications,

[8:42] including brain fluid build up, heart issues, kidney damage,

[8:47] lung failure, increased risk of cancerous growths, and vision

[8:51] impairment. And whereas the prevalence of TSC is comparable

[8:54] to other well-known conditions such as Lou Gehrig's disease,

[8:58] ALS and cystic fibrosis, underscoring the need for

[9:02] greater awareness and understanding. And whereas the

[9:05] City of Durham is committed to raising awareness about

[9:07] tuberous sclerosis complex, supporting individuals with TSC

[9:11] and advocating for continued research and access to medical

[9:14] care. Now, therefore, I. Leonardo Williams, mayor of the

[9:17] City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim. May 15th,

[9:20] 2026 as Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Awareness Day in the

[9:24] City of Durham. Encourage all citizens to join this

[9:27] observance to promote awareness, understanding and

[9:29] support for individuals affected by TSC. Witness my

[9:33] hand in corporate seal, city of Durham on this day Leonardo

[9:37] Williams mayor, City of Durham. Thank you so much. Yes.

[9:44] Thank you. We want to thank the City of

[9:50] Durham for recognizing tuberous sclerosis through this

[9:54] meaningful proclamation for our family. This recognition is

[9:58] deeply personal. Our daughter, Nora, she's right here, has

[10:01] been living with TSC since birth. This rare genetic

[10:04] condition again causes benign tumors to grow in vital organs

[10:08] such as your brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, eyes and skin.

[10:12] For Nora and many others, these growths in the brain often lead

[10:15] to debilitating seizures. She has seizures on a daily basis.

[10:18] There's not a day that goes by that she doesn't have a seizure.

[10:24] And it also causes developmental delays. From her

[10:28] earliest days in the NICU to the many medical challenges she

[10:31] has faced, Nora has shown incredible strength. With the

[10:34] help of physical therapy, she began walking just four months

[10:37] shy of her third birthday, a milestone that meant everything

[10:40] to our family through speech therapy. She is learning

[10:43] American Sign Language to communicate and with

[10:46] occupational therapy, she is gaining the skills to navigate

[10:49] a world that isn't always built for her. Nora's journey is a

[10:53] powerful reminder of why awareness, research, and

[10:56] support matters so much. This proclamation helped shine a

[10:59] light on children like Nora and the thousands of others living

[11:03] with the complexities of TSC. It reminds us that their

[11:07] stories matter, their voices matter, and they are never

[11:10] alone. So thank you, City of Durham, for standing with

[11:13] families like ours and helping bring in hope, understanding

[11:16] and visibility to the TSC community. With gratitude from

[11:20] the East and family and the TSC of the Carolinas. Also on May

[11:24] 2nd in Charlotte, North Carolina, will be having to

[11:27] step forward to TSC, where we're raising funds for

[11:30] research. So if you guys can come out, that would be nice.

[11:34] Thank you guys so much. Good evening to Randy McKay and

[11:59] Rebecca Lee from the Carolina Theatre. And actually all of

[12:03] the staff board members who are here. Come on and join us. Come

[12:05] on. There's a big crowd. This is a big event today. It's not

[12:09] often that we celebrate our 100th anniversary in Durham. So

[12:11] this is quite exciting. I am I have the great pleasure of

[12:14] being the City Council liaison to the Carolina Theatre, which

[12:17] has an amazing board and staff. And as you all know, it's a

[12:20] great institution in Durham. So glad that all these folks can

[12:23] be here. It's awesome. Thanks for coming everyone. Hey.

[12:30] Yay! All right. Okay. Whereas the

[12:48] Carolina Theatre of Durham first opened its doors in 1926

[12:52] as a centerpiece for entertainment, film, live

[12:55] performance and community gathering in downtown Durham.

[12:58] And whereas for 100 years, the Carolina Theatre has served as

[13:03] a cultural anchor, hosting films, concerts, theatrical

[13:07] productions, community events, educational programs, and film

[13:11] festivals that have enriched the lives of Durham residents

[13:13] and visitors, including the world premiere of the movies

[13:17] Bull Durham in 1988, The Best of Enemies in 2019, as well as

[13:22] live appearances by stars such as Katharine Hepburn, Ronald

[13:26] Reagan, Tallulah Bankhead, Jane Wyman, Montgomery Clift and

[13:31] Whereas. The theatre's historic architecture, marquee and

[13:35] interior spaces are emblematic of Durham's cultural heritage

[13:38] and contribute to the unique character and vitality of the

[13:41] downtown district. And whereas historic civil rights protests

[13:46] in the early 60s challenged the Carolina Theatre's own policy

[13:49] of racial segregation and ultimately led not only to full

[13:52] integration at the theatre, but also the recognition of youth

[13:56] led organizing tactics as a strategy that influenced the

[13:59] entire civil rights movement. Generations of Durham citizens,

[14:03] civic organizations, volunteers, donors, artists,

[14:06] and theater staff have contributed time, resources,

[14:09] and passion to preserve, restore, and sustain the

[14:12] Carolina Theatre as a welcoming public venue. And Whereas, the

[14:17] Carolina Theatre has supported local artists and non-profit

[14:20] organizations, promoted arts education, and help stimulate

[14:24] $10 million in direct economic impact, the City of Durham

[14:28] recognizes the role of the Carolina Theatre in advancing

[14:31] community engagement, cultural diversity, and the arts as

[14:34] essential elements of a vibrant and inclusive city. Now,

[14:39] therefore, I. Leonardo Williams, mayor of the City of

[14:41] Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim, I'm sorry,

[14:44] commemorate that 100th anniversary of the Carolina

[14:47] Theatre in the City of Durham and encourage residents to join

[14:51] in expressing deep appreciation for the 100 years of cultural,

[14:55] educational and civic contributions of the Carolina

[14:59] Theatre by participating in their centennial events and

[15:02] celebrating their rich history in Durham. Witness my hand in

[15:05] the corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina, the

[15:08] 16th day of March, 2026, Leonardo Williams mayor.

[15:24] 100 there aren't that many institutions in any city that

[15:31] survive 100 years. So I want to thank mayor, council members

[15:35] and staff and our team and all the generations of leaders that

[15:42] have gone before us to keep this jewel in the heart of the

[15:46] city for 100 years. And thank you to our community members

[15:50] who have consistently rallied to support the theatre from

[15:54] saving it from demolition to demonstrating to ensure that it

[15:58] was open to all our community members, to supporting its

[16:02] programming, community initiatives and school

[16:05] education programs. The theater is important to everyone in

[16:10] this room and everyone in our community. Even if you've never

[16:14] entered our doors, because every year we add $10 million

[16:19] to Durham's economy, we support more than 400 full time jobs in

[16:24] this community and see 15,000 school students through our

[16:27] education programs. And we return a significant amount of

[16:32] tax base to city and county coffers, which funds all the

[16:36] other priorities. This council and our county may have. In

[16:40] fact, every dollar that the city gives to the Carolina

[16:44] Theatre returns this $12.50 to the city's economy. We're a

[16:49] good investment, so thank you. Thank you all again for the

[16:54] recognition and for your continuing support. And as Carl

[16:58] said and read in the proclamation, we are

[17:01] celebrating our centennial for all of 2026 down to the very

[17:06] last seconds of it, with a gala New Year's Eve event that will

[17:09] be announcing soon. So please come celebrate our centennial

[17:14] with us. Join us at the theatre or in the many events that we

[17:18] are throwing out in the community. But most of all,

[17:21] thank you for your support all these years and we look forward

[17:26] to what the next 100 will bring.

[17:46] And as the Army for Carolina Theater is leaving, I'll invite

[17:50] the Army for tenants to join me. If we have representatives

[17:56] from the Durham, Orange County Community Tennis Association,

[18:02] you know, Community Tennis Association, the US Tennis

[18:06] Association of North Carolina. Central Tennis Association.

[18:16] Future Eagles. All right. Thank you.

[18:38] All right. Thank you all for coming up. I. I don't know who

[18:52] sends more emails. Pickleball. Zoning cases or tennis.

[19:05] Might be. I think it might be. Yes. Thank

[19:09] you all so much. Council Member Burris wanted this one. I also

[19:14] wanted it. So we're both up here. I always tell the story

[19:18] of when. When I was in high school, we started a tennis

[19:21] team because we didn't see any black kids playing on TV. And

[19:25] so in Halifax County we started the tennis team. We got beat by

[19:28] everybody, but we didn't really care to win or lose. We wanted

[19:31] to be represented. And so it feels good to have started that

[19:36] and continue our passion for it. Also, it gives me great joy

[19:41] to be a graduate of nCCU with Council Member Burris and they

[19:47] are winning championships out here. So congratulations again.

[19:53] All right, so the proclamation reads today, whereas tennis is

[19:58] a sport that can be played throughout an individual's

[20:01] lifetime and is accessible to people of all ages, skill

[20:07] levels, physical abilities, and levels of fitness, regardless

[20:12] of environment. And whereas tennis provides significant

[20:16] benefits across multiple dimensions of health, and

[20:19] research has shown that individuals who actively play

[20:22] tennis as a form of cardiovascular exercise may add

[20:26] an average of 9.7 years to their expected lifespan,

[20:30] compared to second, sedentary individuals. Please get out and

[20:36] play tennis if you want to live a long life. And whereas the

[20:40] City of Durham offers numerous opportunities for individuals

[20:43] both new to the sport and experienced players to

[20:46] participate in tennis through its public parks, schools and

[20:51] clubs located throughout the city. And Whereas, the Durham

[20:54] community provides opportunities for social play,

[20:57] tennis instruction, competitive leagues for residents and

[21:01] non-residents, as well as school matches and tournaments

[21:04] that foster community engagement and athletic

[21:07] development. And whereas local organizations, including Doctor,

[21:13] CTA and US to North Carolina provide valuable resources,

[21:18] programs, events and leagues that enhance the tennis

[21:21] experience and promote participation in the sport

[21:24] throughout our community. The City of Durham is committed to

[21:27] expanding access to tennis and ensuring opportunities for

[21:30] individuals of all ages and abilities to participate in the

[21:34] sport. In order to promote health, wellness and community

[21:38] connection. And we got your emails. We want to work on it

[21:44] now. Therefore, I Leonardo Williams mayor of the City of

[21:47] Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim April 26th,

[21:51] 2026. May 2026 National Tennis Month in Durham and encourage

[21:59] all residents to ensure to enjoy the sport and support its

[22:03] local national organizations. So witness my Hand and the

[22:07] Corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina. This

[22:10] 20th day of May 2026. Thank you so much. Thank you.

[22:25] Hey y'all. My name is Adrian Charleston and this is my eight

[22:31] year old son. His name is lightning and I am here with my

[22:34] son, my tennis community doctor. Durham, Orange County

[22:38] Tennis Community Association, you know, community and

[22:40] association. Of course, the illustrious North Carolina

[22:44] Central Tennis and just some other great tennis advocates in

[22:48] the city. I just really like to say, on behalf of our entire

[22:52] tennis community, thank you all for this acknowledgement and

[22:54] acknowledging the powerful sport of tennis in the

[22:57] community and just how it's a vehicle for community success

[23:02] in the community connection and health. Tennis is, of course,

[23:05] like you said, one of the few sports that really does that a

[23:09] person can play for a lifetime. And it brings a lot of people

[23:12] together of all skill levels, all ages, all backgrounds. We

[23:14] want to continue to grow that in the city of Durham. Whether

[23:17] you're picking up a racquet for the first time or returning

[23:19] from years of being off, we want to make sure that y'all

[23:22] have a safe place to continue to grow. And National Tennis

[23:25] Month is about more than just playing the sport of tennis.

[23:28] It's really about building community, which I've been able

[23:31] to grow since living in Durham and create spaces where people

[23:34] feel welcome. Kids can grow in confidence, and families and

[23:37] friends can come and enjoy time together in a healthy way.

[23:40] Right here in our community. We're seeing that impact every

[23:43] day. We're seeing it through local parks, schools, other

[23:46] community organizations like the organizations I named

[23:48] Doctor Eno, North Carolina Central Tennis Program, and

[23:52] Duke tennis programs. And we're all working to make tennis more

[23:55] accessible. And excuse me and inclusive in the city of

[23:59] Durham. And so I really do appreciate this proclamation

[24:02] today. And I would just like to invite you all to get out and

[24:05] play tennis, get on the tennis court. Even if you've never

[24:07] picked up a racquet before, come out, enjoy the nice

[24:10] weather we're having, and just remember that it's a place

[24:13] where you can continue to build community. And this is not just

[24:17] a game for us. It's not just a sport for us. It's actually a

[24:19] place where we have made family friends, and it's a passion for

[24:23] many of us in the community. So thanks again for this honor and

[24:26] we look forward to continuing to grow the game in the city of

[24:29] Durham. And my son wants to say one thing. I lift him up.

[24:34] Oh, oh, go ahead. , please come to the North

[24:40] Carolina Central Tennis mIAC championship and carry tennis

[24:48] Park. And that's this.

[24:52] Week. Yes. Like so you guys. Yeah. Come

[25:03] on. Yeah, yeah. Hey hold that. One more person.

[25:19] Oh. Oh!

[25:27] Yay! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Somebody.

[25:35] Oh, yes. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[26:07] All right. Thank you all so much for your

[26:11] patience with that. All right.

[26:12] At this time, I'll start to my left. And Council Member Kopac.

[26:17] Do you have any announcements? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[26:21] First of all, obviously Tax Day just passed and seemed like a

[26:24] good time to remind folks about the city's longtime homeowner

[26:28] grant program, which works alongside the county's low

[26:31] income homeowner relief program for the first time this year.

[26:34] We've used up all the funds for the program after extending

[26:37] eligibility to anybody who qualifies and also has been a

[26:42] homeowner for at least five years. You have until the fall

[26:45] to apply, but it's worth researching eligibility. Now,

[26:48] this is an important anti displacement tool that the city

[26:51] and county have put forward. And we know that one of the

[26:53] best ways to promote affordability is to keep people

[26:56] in their homes. Also happy Earth Day and Earth Month. One

[27:01] of my favorite authors Paul Hawken, wrote, if you look at

[27:04] the science about what's happening to the earth and

[27:06] aren't pessimistic, you don't understand data. But if you

[27:09] meet the people who are working to restore this earth and you

[27:12] aren't optimistic, you haven't got a pulse. I was sorry to

[27:16] miss the Earth Day celebration yesterday in Durham, but I was

[27:18] in Washington, D.C. leading a panel with Environmental

[27:21] Defense Fund on navigating these tumultuous times from the

[27:25] federal government on down. And the mood was somber, but there

[27:29] was clear energy for both resistance and for

[27:33] collaboration around pragmatic solutions. And we have to do

[27:36] both. I'm excited about what I'm seeing in Durham from our

[27:39] renewable energy plan to protecting the 30% of the

[27:42] county outside the urban growth boundary. Other plans to

[27:45] protect and expand protected areas across the city, and the

[27:50] advocacy I see by groups on a number of issues in our great

[27:53] city. I'm excited about Earth Day, but I'm looking forward to

[27:56] one day celebrating Regeneration Day. The day when

[28:00] we can say we have reversed the impacts of climate change and

[28:03] met our local, national and global goals for climate and

[28:06] nature. Because at the end of the day, we are not separate

[28:09] from nature. We are a part of it.

[28:17] Council Member Baker good evening everyone. I'll

[28:21] associate myself with the wonderful comments of my my

[28:25] colleague Council Member Kopac. May 1st is coming.

[28:29] International Workers Day it actually began in the United

[28:34] States. Although it's not federally recognized. We

[28:37] celebrate Labor Day in September, but there's a

[28:43] growing movement to to support. May day. And we will actually

[28:47] be having May day celebrations in Durham. People can show up

[28:51] at 5 p.m. at CCP Plaza a few blocks away. Friday, May 1st, 5

[28:59] p.m., CCP Plaza. For those of you who are interested and

[29:02] actually just saw that Durham Public Schools looks like is

[29:06] not going to have school that day. In in celebration of May

[29:12] day. So I want to encourage folks to to come out to that.

[29:15] And other than that, I look forward to a productive meeting.

[29:21] Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and

[29:25] welcome to those who are joining us in council chambers.

[29:27] We're also virtually as well. I'm excited to have you here

[29:30] tonight, and I look forward to what I know. It'll be a great

[29:32] meeting. I'll be brief with my announcements. Mostly, I want

[29:34] to extend gratitude to the various members, our community,

[29:37] who for inviting me to fellowship and join them over

[29:38] the past two weeks. So first, I want to extend gratitude to

[29:41] members of the Town Community Association. I had an

[29:44] opportunity to attend their monthly meeting where I learned

[29:46] a lot about the issues impacting our neighbors in that

[29:48] part of the area, but also really forward thinking about

[29:50] how we can collectively address some of the issues around

[29:52] affordable housing, but also some predatory towing

[29:55] practices. I look forward to unpacking that more. Next, I

[29:58] want to send my gratitude to students from Doctor Stanton

[30:01] Berries. An instance to use municipal politics class and

[30:04] also extend gratitude to my colleagues who answer their

[30:07] emails and engage with those. So thank you to Council Member

[30:09] Kopac and Council Member Rist, who I believe are also engaged.

[30:12] Those students as well, had a chance to be on a panel

[30:14] discussion with some other esteemed panelists, such as

[30:16] Doctor Henry McCoy, Commissioner Steven Valentine,

[30:19] doctor drivers in CCU and we really had a great time

[30:23] engaging students about just what they the role of local

[30:26] government. And I was really excited about participating

[30:28] because it shows that our students are actually watching

[30:30] and they have critical thinking and they understand that some

[30:33] there's some issues in government in Durham. They're

[30:35] not working for them, particularly around the topic

[30:37] of affordable housing, but also community safety. So I'm glad

[30:40] to know that our young folks are paying attention to the

[30:42] policies and the outcomes, and want to make sure that

[30:44] everything lines up. Also wanted to shout out to Grace,

[30:47] Inc. Tiffany, who's led by Tiffany Swoopes, for inviting

[30:50] me to participate in a panel discussion also led by,

[30:53] organized and led by youth leaders on the topic of gun

[30:56] violence. So I had a chance to share the stage with

[30:58] Representative Zach Hawkins and other esteemed panelists to

[31:01] share more insight about the toll that gun violence has on

[31:04] mental health. As someone who's experienced that in my

[31:07] childhood as well, so definitely wanting to hear from

[31:09] our kids and the theme that we heard and I'll never stop

[31:12] beating this drum, is that we are normalizing gun violence in

[31:14] our community. And just because some folks don't see it or hear

[31:17] the gunshots every night, doesn't mean that we all should

[31:19] not care about the lasting trauma that we are enduring.

[31:21] Our children in this community. And then finally had the

[31:25] opportunity to attend opening night of window taps. Third day

[31:28] was a very powerful play, attended on Friday night, and I

[31:31] know it was hope. If you got a chance to participate. It was

[31:34] really, really motivating and thought provoking. So thank you

[31:37] all for joining us tonight and look forward again to a great

[31:39] meeting. Thank you.

[31:43] Councilmember Wrist. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good

[31:47] evening colleagues. City manager staff, folks in

[31:50] attendance. Good to see you again. A couple things. Happy,

[31:55] happy poetry month. Thanks to the poetry box for being here

[31:57] for that proclamation. Also, happy early tennis month. Since

[31:59] it is May, but also I want to say Happy Earth Day. And thanks

[32:03] to the staff of the Durham Parks and Rec department who

[32:05] came out on Sunday and organize a great Earth Day festival at

[32:09] Central Park. Really amazing event. Happy to participate in

[32:11] that with Council Member Baker and and Mayor Pro Tem Caballero

[32:16] also had a great visit last week to the Durham Emergency

[32:19] Communications Center. That's where the 911 call center is

[32:21] for the City of Durham. For Emergency Communicators Week, I

[32:25] want to thank director Randy Beeman and his assistant,

[32:27] Tangelo Walker, for leading us there. I also want to thank

[32:30] Sarah Allen, who's one of the call takers. I was able to sit

[32:33] in on a call with Sarah and was just amazed by the amount of

[32:36] knowledge she brings to that, the quickness she brings to

[32:38] these calls that come in at a rapid fire pace on all kinds of

[32:41] things you can imagine. Also was amazed that you know you

[32:45] know how it is when you're talking to someone on a cell

[32:46] phone. It can be hard to hear sometimes, but you heard every

[32:48] word these people were saying is often hard to hear. So Sarah

[32:51] was an amazing, amazing, amazing talent of the call

[32:54] center. And I appreciate all the folks who work there and

[32:56] spend a lot of time and intense hours in the call center. Also

[33:00] last week I attended the Step Up Durham Impact Lunch 2026. I

[33:05] want to thank the director interim director of their

[33:07] Cashmere Bentley, who was also a participant, and step up

[33:09] earlier. If you don't know, step up. They spent about a

[33:12] decade in Durham empowering job seekers in the Durham community

[33:15] who faced significant barriers to finding employment. They're

[33:18] doing an amazing job at Step Up and hope you appreciate their

[33:20] work, and I want to congratulate them on their

[33:22] impact here in Durham. Finally, the last thing is last Thursday

[33:25] also participated in the 30th anniversary celebration or gala

[33:29] for the Durham Partnership for children, which really

[33:32] spearheads our work on early childhood education here in

[33:34] Durham, thanks to their director, Kate Irish, who leads

[33:37] that great organization. And also we had a great speaker

[33:39] there, Lieutenant Governor Rachel Hunt, whose dad, as you

[33:42] probably know, Jim Hunt is one that founded the whole Smart

[33:44] Start movement around Durham. So it was a great event there.

[33:47] The city is not directly involved in a lot of early

[33:49] childhood stuff. It's more the county, but so much of what we

[33:51] do in terms of parks and housing and other supports are

[33:54] supporting our kids in the earliest years as they prepare

[33:56] for for lives of meaning and and impact. So thanks to the

[34:02] Durham partnership, it's great to have strong partners like

[34:04] them in the world of early childhood. The last thing, Mr.

[34:07] Mayor, I do want to ask. I don't know if I should do it

[34:08] now or later, but I do need to ask for an excused absence from

[34:11] our May 7th work session. I'll be in a conference that day,

[34:15] and we'll do that now. Or do we do that later?

[34:18] Yeah, I'll. Entertain a motion to grant you

[34:20] an excuse. Absence for May 7th work session.

[34:24] Spent more than probably. A. second. Madam clerk, please

[34:26] open. The vote.

[34:37] Thank you so much. Please close the vote.

[34:40] Motion passes seven zero. Thank you so much.

[34:43] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Member Cook.

[34:47] Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you to my

[34:49] colleagues for those excellent announcements. I'm sitting

[34:52] pretty heavy tonight and I'm holding space for this week of

[34:58] men harming their intimate partners and children. We've

[35:01] been seeing everything from well-known political figures in

[35:04] Virginia to a man and his entire family of, I think,

[35:08] seven children in Shreveport, Louisiana. And then the

[35:13] tentatively identity hidden folks, 60 to 80 million per

[35:20] month visitors on online chat rooms to survivors. This is a

[35:25] this is a difficult week to those is still experiencing

[35:28] violence. And those who have experienced violence. We see

[35:31] you I believe you just want to hold some space for that today.

[35:35] It's it's been really hard news. Not that anything is

[35:40] surprising in that, but also always difficult to hear. I did

[35:44] have some really awesome opportunities this past week as

[35:46] well. One of the things that I got to do was with Council

[35:49] Member Rist and Mayor Pro Tem Caballero. Visit the 911 call

[35:53] center. Also want to send my thanks to Randy and Angela, and

[35:56] then my person that I got to sit with was Adriana and she

[36:01] was also incredible. Everyone there is amazing. She also made

[36:04] guacamole for the whole office and I get to have some. And it

[36:06] was really spicy and delicious. I also want to recognize that

[36:09] that day they were having a memorial for someone that they

[36:12] lost, Nakia Ferrer. And so I just want to recognize her

[36:18] memory as a city employee that was really, really special and

[36:21] beloved by so many. That's a really hard job to answer.

[36:25] Crises after crises. So yeah, but really meaningful work. And

[36:30] I'm so grateful for the folks to do that. I also got to go

[36:33] visit the Hillandale Golf course and talk to folks about

[36:36] Swing Pals. This is such a cool. It's a program for middle

[36:43] school students, public school students across the city. It's

[36:47] expanding. It's right now in six, I think out of nine cities

[36:50] are public schools, and they are hoping to expand to all

[36:53] nine of the public middle schools. And one of the one of

[36:57] the many incredible programs that are going on at Hillandale

[36:59] Golf Course. If you are a golfer, you've probably been

[37:01] over there. If you are not like me, you might not know that

[37:05] that is a place where you can go golf for $40, and if you

[37:08] can't pay that $40, they will work with you. So it's

[37:11] someplace that's open for everybody and with a real

[37:14] commitment to holding up community, which I really

[37:17] appreciated. So shout out to Carl and Doug for taking me on

[37:20] that tour. Also got to go to the Equity Before Birth dance

[37:24] party, which was super fun and people were like really

[37:28] breaking it down. So I was really happy to be there and to

[37:31] celebrate that awesome organization as well. And then

[37:34] finally got to go to the screening of Celebrating the

[37:38] Story of Grant Street with several of my colleagues, as

[37:41] well to the not old as they like to say to the young ladies

[37:46] of Grant Street who have ensured that their community

[37:49] survived urban renewal and will be something that can be passed

[37:53] down to future generations. Brenda Bradshaw, Vivian Gunn,

[37:56] Pam Blake, Diane Merritt, Joanne Brown, these women, if

[38:01] you haven't met them, are incredible. They're just

[38:03] amazing pillars of the hashtag community and of all of Durham.

[38:08] I also want to shout out to Council Member Burris, who had

[38:10] a a recognition was recognized in the film for the work that

[38:15] she's done in that community. And to Justin Reed, who was the

[38:18] filmmaker, and Jarvis McInnis, who hosted and forced us to

[38:22] talk to our neighbors and my audience neighbor was Mildred,

[38:27] who had lived here. She was for her entire life in Durham and

[38:31] specifically in Haiti, and shared her story with me. And

[38:34] that was really special. So thanks to all of those folks

[38:37] who made that happen this week. And those are my announcements.

[38:40] Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. Good evening

[38:43] everyone. Thanks. First up, it has been it's spring in Durham,

[38:48] which means that it's event season for us. So I have had

[38:51] the pleasure of seeing, I think every single one of us at one

[38:54] event or another that many of you all have named. So I'm not

[38:56] going to go through the list. I do just want to shout out

[39:00] Durham Parks and Rec for an excellent Earth Day Festival

[39:03] celebration yesterday, and look forward to a meeting and I will

[39:08] be brief. Thank you. Not with this sign up sheet. A

[39:16] lot of voices are going to be heard tonight. Looking forward

[39:18] to the engagement. Colleagues. Thank you all for traversing

[39:23] the city. There were lots of things happening. I

[39:28] unfortunately did not get a chance to get to the full frame

[39:31] festival, but I heard it was amazing and and just really,

[39:35] really, really good. Hope that I can go back and capture some

[39:38] of those with the Earth Day festivities and everything else

[39:41] that was going on. Reminds me of why there were seven of us.

[39:46] I was away at Harvard at a fellowship that Durham has won,

[39:50] and we will be bringing some of those resources to Durham. We

[39:55] will utilize the resources of the Graduate School of Design

[39:59] from Harvard, where they will be putting fellows into the

[40:03] mayor's office to work with our community engagement

[40:05] department, as well as our planning department. And we

[40:09] will be focusing on some very specialized projects throughout

[40:12] the city. So I'm really excited about those resources that we

[40:15] don't have to pay for. And they come with the resources and

[40:19] weight of Harvard University. I really want to thank my my

[40:23] special assistant, Emmanuel, a, and our Director of Community

[40:27] Engagement, Director, Starla Tanner, for joining me and of

[40:32] in Cambridge over the last week. Thanks to the Black

[40:36] Policy Summit by the Black Student Union at Harvard, also

[40:39] for inviting me there to represent the city of Durham

[40:42] and shout out to the African American Mayors Association and

[40:46] the American Beverage Association. I'll be talking

[40:49] about this more tomorrow. But the City of Durham won the

[40:52] largest award in the country for food insecurity. So

[40:57] tomorrow I'll be talking about the not only $25,000 award that

[41:02] Mayor Shaw helped us get, but also the $175,000 award that

[41:07] I'm I'm just really proud of my office staff who applied and

[41:12] got this grant for Durham. And I will be talking about that

[41:14] more in detail tomorrow. Speaking of tomorrow, tomorrow

[41:18] is while later in the year, tomorrow will be the state of

[41:22] the city. In past time, the state of the city has been just

[41:25] a part of a normal agenda item. And we would just have it in

[41:30] here. When I got elected, I thought it should be a city

[41:33] celebration to celebrate all the things that we have going

[41:36] on, and so we will do that tomorrow at Deepak. Doors will

[41:41] open at 5 p.m. and we will not only celebrate all of the

[41:46] grants and awards that we've gotten, the City Future Fund

[41:49] will be giving out an additional $30,000 tomorrow to

[41:52] youth serving organizations right here in Durham. Really

[41:54] excited about that. And I'll be bringing a close friend of mine

[41:57] to the town to be a guest speaker in a fireside chat.

[42:02] That's Mayor Brandon Scott from Baltimore, Maryland, so I hope

[42:05] you can make it tomorrow. Doors open at five and we'll be at

[42:08] Deepak tomorrow at and program starts at six and we will have

[42:13] the city on display. I thank you, Councilmember Cook, for

[42:18] mentioning this, something I've been paying close attention to

[42:20] as well. And I am looking at this though, as there are some

[42:24] serious mental health issues going on in our community. And,

[42:28] you know, people hurt people no matter whether they're black or

[42:31] white or whatever. We've seen some tragedies happen, and I

[42:35] really hope that we can really, really check on our neighbors.

[42:39] People are not okay. And and that's I'm really worried about

[42:43] that. So hopefully folks are taking care of one another the

[42:48] best we can. And we'll continue to strive together. All right.

[42:58] Okay. Thank you. We are going to get on with the agenda here.

[43:11] And before we get on to that, I'm going to before I get to

[43:14] the consent agenda, I'll go ahead and pass it to Mr.

[43:16] Manager for your priority items.

[43:18] Thank you. Mayor. Mayor Pro tem, members of council. The

[43:21] city manager's office does have one priority item this evening.

[43:23] That is for agenda item number 19. The American Rescue Plan

[43:27] Act update. There was additional information

[43:30] requested at the April 9th work session. And that's been

[43:32] attached under agenda item number 19, which is in the no

[43:36] action agenda items for informational purposes only

[43:39] section of the agenda this evening. Those are our priority

[43:41] items. Thank you so much, Madam

[43:44] Attorney. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Madam

[43:46] Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council, it's good to see you.

[43:49] The City Attorney's office has no priority items tonight.

[43:53] Thank you, Madam Clerk. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and

[43:56] city council members. The city clerk's office has no items

[43:59] this evening. Thank you. At this time, I'll

[44:04] go ahead and read the media. And I read the consent agenda.

[44:09] Item number two. Approval of City Council minutes. This item

[44:17] has been pulled. Item number three.

[44:26] Is my. You see, my son. Okay. Thank

[44:35] you. Okay. Oh, it's 1303. Hey, item number three. Item number

[44:42] two is approval of the City Council minutes, which has been

[44:45] pulled. Item number three, Durham Workers Rights

[44:48] Commission. Appointment number four. Item number four. Grant

[44:54] budget ordinance accepting a share. Our strength. No kid

[44:58] hungry grant, which is what I just referenced. Really excited

[45:03] to receive that. Item number five, approval of Wake County

[45:06] Emergency Operations Plan. Madam clerk, I will sign this

[45:11] after we pass on, and I'll get it back to you. Item number six

[45:17] interlocal agreement between the City of Durham and the

[45:19] County of Durham to fund community solutions consulting.

[45:21] Work on the homeless strategy, homeless Strategic framework.

[45:26] This item has been pulled. Item number seven, Street Dash 332.

[45:32] See pavement condition study presentation. Item number

[45:36] eight. Proposed ten year lease with Liberty Arts Incorporated

[45:39] for Arts Pavilion at 505 Rigsby Avenue. Item number nine Durham

[45:44] Rail Trail construction manager at risk CMR with Balfour Beatty

[45:50] Construction, holds Brothers Construction and a joint

[45:53] venture item number ten Interlocal agreement for Fire

[45:57] and Emergency Medical Services station 19, item number 11

[46:01] utility extension agreement with Jason Jones to serve 102

[46:05] North Maple Street. Item number 12. Utility extension agreement

[46:10] with The Light Is Red, LLC. The light is red. The light is Red

[46:16] okay, LLC to serve 2502 is your Avenue build. Since HQ. Item

[46:23] number 13, third amendment to the contract with Duke

[46:26] University for city Fiber at item has been pulled. Item

[46:30] number 14. Fiscal year 2023. State and Local cybersecurity

[46:34] Grant program grant project ordinance and authorization to

[46:39] execute memorandum of under Memorandum of Agreement. That

[46:44] item has been pulled. Item number 15. Federal Transit

[46:49] Administration Bus and Bus Facility Grant project

[46:51] ordinance, item number 16 purchase contract with Gillig,

[46:57] LLC for ten diesel buses for Go Durham. Number 17 service

[47:03] contract with Palmetto Underground Solutions, LLC for

[47:07] the 2026 Late Lead Service Line inventory. Field verifications

[47:12] project, item number 18 Award construction contract to PC

[47:18] Construction Company for the Williams Water Treatment Plant.

[47:21] Basin Improvements Project. Item number 25. Legislative

[47:25] priorities for the 2026 Short Session of the North Carolina

[47:31] General Assembly. Item number 21, its consolidated

[47:38] annexation. Beverage number 22 Consolidated annexation.

[47:42] Patterson Hall I don't remember 23 consolidated annexation,

[47:45] Morgan Farm, item number 24. Consolidated annexation 9415

[47:50] and 751 highway. Colleagues, I will probably change that order

[47:54] just a little bit. And we have the information section here.

[48:07] All right. Thank you all so much. That is our agenda. Thank

[48:11] you. Mine is somewhere around here. Oh it's right here. Yeah.

[48:15] There's a lot of papers. All right. I will entertain a

[48:19] motion to approve the consent agenda with the exceptions of

[48:23] items two, six, 13, 14, 21, 22. I'm sorry. Six, two, six, 13

[48:31] and 14. So moved by.

[48:33] Move the properly seconded. Madam clerk, please open the

[48:35] vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes seven zero.

[48:46] Thank you so much. We'll get right into it. Item number two.

[48:57] I have an online speaker. Two speakers, Abby Barcelo and

[49:04] Randy Stanley. Randy Sandy is a resource person. Abby Barcelo,

[49:11] can you hear me? Mr. mayor, I don't see Miss

[49:23] Barcelo on the queue. Okay.

[49:25] There's a phone number. There could be.

[49:29] Okay. All right. Thank you. I will. I'll come back. All

[49:39] right. Next up is. Well, I guess I should go ahead and

[49:44] call on it. Yeah, I'll go ahead and call on the vote. Okay,

[49:53] colleagues. Number two. I'll entertain a motion to. I'll

[50:00] entertain a motion to approve for the approval of City

[50:03] Council. Minutes. So moved second. It's been moved to

[50:08] properly. Seconded. Madam clerk, please open the vote.

[50:12] Please close the vote. Motion passes seven zero.

[50:17] All right. Thank you. Next, I have item number six. That is a

[50:23] interlocal agreement between the city and County of Durham

[50:27] to find community solutions. Consulting, work on the

[50:29] homeless strategic framework. This item was pulled by Reina

[50:34] Zenko. Can you hear me? You see her online? Okay. Reina, can

[50:45] you hear me? Yes, yes.

[50:51] All right. There you go. Welcome. You have three

[50:52] minutes. Great.

[50:53] Thank you. Good evening. My name is Reina Cinco. I'm a

[50:57] Durham resident and a sociologist specializing in

[51:00] homelessness in public policy. I'm commenting tonight because

[51:05] I have concerns regarding the direction of policies relating

[51:08] to homelessness here in Durham. For one, this year there has

[51:11] been a growing number of clearances impacting our

[51:14] unhoused neighbors, most recently in Oakwood Park. In my

[51:18] work, I detail how public policies from welfare to parks

[51:22] management, tend to systematically render

[51:24] homelessness and unprotected status. That is, many public

[51:28] sector regulations and practices often strip unhoused

[51:31] people of their democratic and human rights, even if they do

[51:35] not explicitly criminalize them. Clearances are one

[51:38] obvious example of this. My work also stresses that failing

[51:42] to protect unhoused persons, wherever they may be, is

[51:44] unacceptable. By refusing to protect the rights and dignity

[51:48] of unhoused persons unconditionally, the public

[51:51] sector compounds the insecurities they face in

[51:53] normalizes violence against them. To be clear, I'm saying

[51:57] that clearances normalize violence against unhoused

[52:00] persons. Last week, the indie publicist story on abuses at

[52:04] the Durham Rescue Mission. I name this to stress that while

[52:07] sleeping rough carries many risks, it is still preferable

[52:10] for many people who find no refuge in our present system

[52:13] through no fault of their own. We should be protecting people

[52:17] wherever they may be, even if it's on the street at all

[52:20] costs. I do also have concerns about built for Zero, which

[52:24] aims to achieve functional zero in homelessness. Built for zero

[52:27] has many problems, but I'll highlight just one here.

[52:30] Functional zero is a pivot from prior decades of earnest

[52:33] efforts to achieve an absolute zero in homelessness. Instead,

[52:37] this new approach is limited to managing data, treating

[52:40] homelessness itself as an inevitable stream of quote

[52:42] inflows and outflows, calculated using numbers that

[52:46] can be easily manipulated. For example, logic would imply that

[52:49] an outflow category would consist of people who have

[52:52] exited homelessness, but in fact it can typically include

[52:55] people whose service providers have lost contact with. Built

[52:58] for zero is not a system for developing solutions to

[53:01] homelessness, but a system for technocrats managing the status

[53:04] quo and quantitatively redefining progress, often to

[53:08] the qualitative detriment of users. By embracing a

[53:11] functional but not actual zero. Durham is signaling that

[53:14] homelessness is an acceptable status quo, and if, as a matter

[53:18] of policy, Durham is therefore allowing for in there be a

[53:22] built for zero calculations, hundreds or thousands of people

[53:25] to remain homeless, we should not be denying any unhoused

[53:29] neighbors maximal levels of protection or care. And that

[53:32] includes when they are in encampments and on the streets.

[53:35] It is imperative that Durham not conduct any more

[53:38] clearances. The city should do better and work harder to

[53:41] ensure all Durham sites have the social and economic

[53:44] security that they need. Lastly, I'd also like to

[53:47] encourage more Durham ites to extend their care to unhoused

[53:50] neighbors and not let the tide turn against them. Thank you.

[53:56] Thank you. All right. Colleagues at this time. Had a

[54:10] follow up. That was number six right? I'll entertain a motion.

[54:23] To resolve that, the city manager is authorized to

[54:27] execute interlocal agreement with Durham County to fund the

[54:30] community solutions consulting, work on the Homeless strategic

[54:33] Framework. So moved.

[54:36] Second. It's been moved and properly

[54:37] seconded. Please open the vote. Thank you. Please close the

[54:46] vote. Motion passes seven zero.

[54:50] Thank you. Next up, item number 13. Third

[55:01] amendment to the contract with Duke University. City fiber.

[55:04] Peterson. Welcome. You have three minutes.

[55:15] Thank you. Is Mr. Smith here? That's representing the city on

[55:20] this project. What? I would like to sort of find out. Close

[55:26] to $7 million. We're talking about this project for to bring

[55:31] fiber, to bring fiber to the community. I support fiber to

[55:37] every home, to every business, to every park. But here's my

[55:41] concern. And I like to sort of just round this off to 7

[55:46] million. What is the dollar amount that Duke has put in for

[55:51] this project? Because that's not here. In my understanding.

[55:57] This was a project for the city and Duke, and I don't know if

[56:04] Duke is in the house, but I'm hoping that they're here

[56:08] because I would like to know the dollar amount that they

[56:12] have put in so far with this project. Also, I heard the

[56:17] young lady speak about homeless. We've got to make

[56:21] sure that our local residents will get this job to lay the

[56:26] fiber. Now, my understanding a little bit about fiber, you

[56:30] have to put it, lay it in the ground. So that's one group of

[56:33] persons that need to have that skill to lay the fiber. Then

[56:38] you have to have persons to have the skill to bring the

[56:42] fiber to the building. Then you have to have another group of

[56:47] persons that know how to take the fiber from the building

[56:51] outside to bring the fiber inside of the building for your

[56:55] various hookups. If you're going to put the fiber out in

[56:59] the park, you've got to have some folks that know how to do

[57:02] all that. So we're really speaking about 3 or 4 different

[57:06] layers of fiber optic. Mr. mayor, I don't know if you know

[57:10] this or not, but I have a little background. Years ago,

[57:14] with fiber optic and matter of fact, I was so glad when Durham

[57:18] started to bring fiber into the community. But my two concerns

[57:22] are how much money? Because this is supposed to be a joint

[57:26] project with Duke and the city. How much money has already Duke

[57:31] thrown into this project? Also, once we put the fiber around

[57:36] into the community in the parks, we need to make sure

[57:41] that we're not going to have to pay for this. If the city is

[57:45] already putting out close to $7 million. Please don't send us a

[57:51] bill. If Duke is going to be involved with this, let's make

[57:55] sure that they put their dollars amount in this. We want

[58:00] to make sure that we're going to hire our local folks. When

[58:04] my husband and I, when we train, we had over 400 and some

[58:09] students in this community that were trained in copper cable

[58:12] and fiber optic, we need to try to reach back out to them, Mr.

[58:17] Mayor, and try to help them to get some employment. Thank you.

[58:21] Project. And as Mr. Smith here to answer some questions.

[58:25] I'm sure that staff could speak with you. I'm sure we can get

[58:33] some information for you if I'm sure we can get some

[58:36] information for you, but you gotta have to communicate with

[58:40] staff and they can they can answer your questions, whatever

[58:42] questions you may have, you may be better off sending an email

[58:46] so that that person can get in touch.

[58:48] So no one is here to tell us how much.

[58:50] I won't do the back and forth dialogue right now because

[58:52] we're in the middle of the meeting, but I can get staff

[58:54] hear you and they can. Okay. They just they'll speak with

[58:58] you once you finish your item number 14, because I have you

[59:02] pull for that as well. Okay.

[59:05] Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. One moment. Colleagues, I'll

[59:13] entertain a motion to authorize the city manager to execute the

[59:16] Third Amendment. Since item number 13, third amendment to

[59:21] the scope of services between Duke University and the City of

[59:23] Durham in the amount of $426,899 for revised total

[59:29] contract amount not to exceed 6,797,776.

[59:34] So moved. Second. So moved and properly seconded.

[59:36] Madam clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote.

[59:45] Motion passes seven zero. Thank you. Item number 14. Mr.

[59:49] Peterson, this is on you. I'm sorry. There was another

[59:53] person that also signed up to speak on number 13.

[59:57] But you didn't. Put our number.

[59:59] It's pretty soon. Okay.

[1:00:02] Mr. Peterson, you're Mr. Peterson, you're on number 14.

[1:00:05] You have three minutes. I'm waiting for the also for

[1:00:07] the timer to come up. There you go.

[1:00:12] Thank you. Well, I think I sort of have the same concern, too,

[1:00:15] about the cybersecurity, and I'm. I'm hoping that we have

[1:00:19] some young folks that are listening. Fiber optic

[1:00:23] cybersecurity, A1 awesome. Three three, three industries

[1:00:30] that we really need to make sure that our young people are

[1:00:35] going to be involved in these in these three areas, booming

[1:00:39] businesses, not just across this country, but across the

[1:00:43] world. So I would also like to know, I see it's only 138,000.

[1:00:49] Mr. Mayor, but can you tell us are they going to be reaching

[1:00:54] out into the community to make sure that our local young folks

[1:00:58] are going to be getting employment for this project?

[1:01:03] And I don't know if that person is here to speak, but once upon

[1:01:07] a time, Mr. Mayor, when we had the city council meetings,

[1:01:11] these persons names on these on these very projects, we're

[1:01:17] supposed to be here, sitting over there. And when we

[1:01:20] citizens have questions, they're supposed to come up and

[1:01:25] answer the questions. Now, here's going to be another

[1:01:28] project that we need to find out how many of our local

[1:01:31] citizens will be able to get employment on this project.

[1:01:36] Also, is that person here tonight?

[1:01:40] So, Mr. Peterson, you've been doing this longer than I have?

[1:01:45] Yes. We have work sessions and I'm

[1:01:47] going to pause your time because I don't want this to be

[1:01:49] misleading. We have work sessions, and that's where we

[1:01:52] go into detail about these things. And we also invite

[1:01:54] people to come to the meeting or we actually have, you know,

[1:01:58] some time where we can engage. That's why we do those things.

[1:02:01] Two weeks before tonight. Tonight, we're just we're

[1:02:03] getting to the voting of it. So staff is available to answer

[1:02:07] any questions. But tonight you're providing public

[1:02:10] comment. So you're letting us know how you feel about it

[1:02:12] before we actually take the vote, because the work on it

[1:02:14] has been done. And so we have time to go through that. And if

[1:02:18] there is other questions, you know, we want you to make sure

[1:02:21] you reach out ahead of time. But what I won't do is go back

[1:02:24] and forth at the podium with the staff member, myself and

[1:02:27] the speaker. That's just not how I facilitate the meeting,

[1:02:30] and that's just not how it works.

[1:02:32] Well, let me just share this with you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:02:34] Tom, go ahead. And I've been involved with

[1:02:37] this city since 1978. You're the first mayor that is not

[1:02:43] allowing your staff. That's being paid to come here and

[1:02:49] address us. Not everybody can get to the work session. And

[1:02:53] first thing, the room is too small. Okay? It's too small. I

[1:02:58] know in the past, persons can come to staff that's being paid,

[1:03:03] should be able to be here and answer the questions. We only

[1:03:07] have a few minutes and it should be very easy for

[1:03:10] somebody to tell us exactly what these dollars are going to

[1:03:14] be used for. Exactly. Had they gone out into the community,

[1:03:19] how many jobs are going to be set aside for the minority

[1:03:23] community? And the city has done that in the past. How many

[1:03:27] women, how many African-Americans? So here

[1:03:31] we've had one project over close to $7 million. We have

[1:03:36] another project here, 138,000, and we can't even get one

[1:03:41] answer to make sure that the community, particularly the

[1:03:46] African-American community, particularly women, that that

[1:03:50] that are going to be getting employment on a lot of these

[1:03:54] projects. And when I'm going to just say this last thing, this

[1:03:57] is our money, this is the people's monies, and we have a

[1:04:02] right to know who you're hiring, who you're hiring, and

[1:04:08] who is getting these dollars. And stop trying to act like

[1:04:12] when we ask questions, they're not important. They are

[1:04:17] important. You're speaking about tax dollars here. Thank

[1:04:21] you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. And I don't want you

[1:04:24] to feel misled. And I don't want anyone else to be misled.

[1:04:27] We provide ample amount of time so that we can engage on these

[1:04:30] things. Ample amount of time. And there's not a single time

[1:04:34] that anyone leaves this room without having a question

[1:04:36] answer. It won't happen while you're speaking at the podium.

[1:04:38] But if you have a question, that's why all of these very

[1:04:41] capable staff are here to be able to answer any questions.

[1:04:44] So I will not I will not let it be the narrative that people

[1:04:47] cannot be informed on how things on this agenda works.

[1:04:51] And that has always been the case. Okay, that I just want

[1:04:55] you said it and I want to make sure it's very clear. All right,

[1:05:01] all. Right. Answer the question. But

[1:05:04] you are not allowed to do that. And we're going to and I will

[1:05:10] and I and I also will love to speak with you afterward, but I

[1:05:13] don't I don't want to have narratives that are going to be

[1:05:15] misleading. All right, colleagues, I'll entertain a

[1:05:18] motion to adopt the fiscal year 2023 state and local

[1:05:22] cybersecurity grant program, SLC Grant Project Ordinance and

[1:05:27] authorizes the execution of the grant agreement and the amount

[1:05:32] of $138,059. So moved.

[1:05:35] It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam clerk, please

[1:05:37] open the vote. Please go to vote.

[1:05:43] Motion passes seven zero. Thank you so much.

[1:05:51] All right. First up, item number 21. This

[1:06:00] is consolidated Annexation Beverage. Ready for the staff

[1:06:04] report. Mayor Williams Mayor Pro Tem

[1:06:14] Caballero and honorable council members. Good evening. I am

[1:06:17] Peyton Burgess with the Planning and Development

[1:06:18] Department, and I am happy to be here with you tonight.

[1:06:21] Before I begin, staff would like to state for the record

[1:06:23] that all planning department hearing items have been

[1:06:25] advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local

[1:06:28] law, and affidavits of all notices are on file in the

[1:06:31] Planning Department. A request for a utility extension

[1:06:34] agreement, voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change

[1:06:38] has been received from Kate Murdoch, with McAdams for one

[1:06:41] parcel of land totaling 78.34 acres and located at 3013

[1:06:46] Burton Road. This annexation petition is for a contiguous

[1:06:50] expansion of the primary corporate limits. As a part of

[1:06:53] this application, the applicant is seeking a change to the

[1:06:55] zoning district from residential, rural, commercial,

[1:06:58] neighborhood and residential suburban ten to plan

[1:07:01] development. Residential 3.975 to allow up to 300 dwelling

[1:07:05] units and a maximum of 5000ft of non-residential uses. The

[1:07:10] property is currently designated Mixed Residential,

[1:07:12] neighborhood and Recreation and open space on the place type

[1:07:15] map. The proposed PDR 3.975 zoning is generally consistent

[1:07:20] with the designated place type. Thank you. Staff and the

[1:07:22] applicant are available for any questions.

[1:07:26] Thank you. You've heard the staff report. Are there any

[1:07:29] questions, technical questions or comments? All right. At this

[1:07:34] time, I'll declare the public hearing open. So an applicant.

[1:07:40] Welcome. How much time do you think you need?

[1:07:43] Six minutes. All right. Please put eight

[1:07:46] minutes on the clock. Thank you, Mr. Burgess, for

[1:07:50] your presentation. And good evening, Mayor Williams. Mayor

[1:07:52] Pro Tem Caballero and members of the City council. I'm Neil

[1:07:56] Ghosh, an attorney at the Morningstar Law Group at 700

[1:07:58] West Main Street. We have some folks from McAdams here with us

[1:08:01] tonight. And I know Laura is here. Maybe Ben is in the

[1:08:05] audience from McAdams, as well as our traffic consultant,

[1:08:08] Tyler Blaine with exalt. And our client on this project is

[1:08:12] Ashton Woods Homes. This property is located at the

[1:08:15] corner of Burton and East Geer Street, south of I-85, which is

[1:08:19] actually less than a 15 minute drive from right here. It's

[1:08:23] past the Walmart on Glenn School Road, past Glenn School

[1:08:25] Elementary, Eric Glenn Elementary School. And a few

[1:08:30] other businesses too. And I just wanted to point out that

[1:08:32] this is not like a rural area by any means. And in fact,

[1:08:36] between us and I-85 to the north, it's somewhat industrial

[1:08:40] in character, and that's actually reflected on the place

[1:08:43] side map. Currently, the properties in the county, it

[1:08:47] has a house on it and some old farm structures, and it also

[1:08:50] has an active cell tower. Historically, on the south side

[1:08:54] of this property, there was a railroad, and it was long ago

[1:08:57] abandoned. And now it's planned for the Panther Creek Rail

[1:09:00] Trail. And I'll touch more on that later. On the other side

[1:09:03] of that rail trail, there's an active residential development

[1:09:06] called Carpenter Falls. This assemblage is adjacent to the

[1:09:11] primary corporate limits of the city of Durham. At full build

[1:09:15] out, the project will include up to 300 homes, a minimum of

[1:09:19] 200 of which will be townhomes. And you can see on the graphic

[1:09:23] development plan that there is a stream pretty much down the

[1:09:26] entire west side of the property. You can also see that

[1:09:30] we are not crossing that stream, so there's a lot of

[1:09:33] undisturbed area. We also have a commitment that limits

[1:09:36] development within the floodplain to basically only

[1:09:40] infrastructure. There's also a wildlife corridor on this

[1:09:43] property, which mostly follows that old railroad area. At the

[1:09:47] Planning Commission hearing, our development plan showed our

[1:09:52] building and parking envelope within a small portion of the

[1:09:55] wildlife corridor, which was a mistake. And since then, we

[1:09:58] have revised our development plan so that the building and

[1:10:01] parking envelope are outside of the wildlife corridor. And

[1:10:06] that's reflected in your agenda materials. I mentioned before

[1:10:10] that the old rail trail area is planned for the Panther Creek

[1:10:13] Rail Trail, and at Planning Commission, we added a

[1:10:17] commitment to dedicate an easement for that trail, which

[1:10:20] is what we felt comfortable with on the spot. Since then,

[1:10:24] we've had the opportunity to study this some more, and I

[1:10:27] think we can improve upon that commitment rather than dedicate

[1:10:30] an easement for the Greenway. We want to commit to building

[1:10:34] the Greenway, at least a portion of the greenway that's

[1:10:36] on our property. And I think that's a great improvement from

[1:10:39] where we were and hopefully will help spur further

[1:10:41] development of that greenway by the city and by others. I also

[1:10:46] want to touch on traffic. The staff report indicates the most

[1:10:49] recent AA for both Cheek and Burton are well below the

[1:10:54] design capacity for each of those roads. Nevertheless, this

[1:10:58] project was required to do a Tia because of the projected

[1:11:03] number of trips, and that study was very conservative. In

[1:11:06] addition to the site driveways, it included studying eight

[1:11:09] intersections. The project site traffic triggered mitigation,

[1:11:14] and one of those intersections, which is east gear at Burton. A

[1:11:18] traffic signal will be required there, in addition to a

[1:11:21] westbound left turn lane. The project also will require left

[1:11:25] and right turn lanes on both site driveways. One of the more

[1:11:28] interesting things from the study is that the intersection

[1:11:31] there is expected to need these improvements, regardless of

[1:11:34] whether this development occurs just based off of the

[1:11:37] background growth alone. So this project will provide that

[1:11:41] infrastructure to the benefit of the public to the tune of

[1:11:44] about $2 million. As you all know, this is a growing area,

[1:11:49] but the growth right here has not been as rapid as it has

[1:11:52] been in other parts of the city. Many of the existing

[1:11:55] homes near this property were were built under the code that

[1:12:00] was active prior to the current UDL. So, you know, before 2005,

[1:12:04] a lot of the homes were built there. But there is, of course,

[1:12:07] the Carpenter Falls community, which starts to get developed

[1:12:09] in 2024 and still is under development. Nevertheless, the

[1:12:14] Comp plan recognizes the potential for growth here. The

[1:12:17] place type map designation for the property is mixed

[1:12:20] residential neighborhood, and the project includes a mix of

[1:12:22] housing types including affordable housing. We also

[1:12:26] have a monetary contribution to DPS that is $5,000, but we want

[1:12:30] to increase that amount to $12,750. We have open space and

[1:12:36] tree cover in excess of UDL requirements. We limit our

[1:12:40] impervious to no more than 50% and limit all impacts to the

[1:12:44] floodplain and wildlife corridor areas and limit them

[1:12:47] to essentially just infrastructure in the Greenway.

[1:12:49] I think this is an ideal development in this location.

[1:12:52] We added with the added commitment regarding, you know,

[1:12:56] now the construction of the trail and the roughly $2

[1:12:59] million worth of transportation infrastructure improvements and

[1:13:03] the affordable housing the project provides clear public

[1:13:06] benefits. And I will also say that I did not expect when we

[1:13:10] worked on this project, the amount of support that we had

[1:13:13] for this project. I know we have opposition as well, but a

[1:13:17] lot of property owners in this area have long desired to gain

[1:13:20] access to city water and sewer. There is already a water line

[1:13:24] in east gear which we will be extending down Burton. The real

[1:13:28] issue in this area has been access to sewer. The existing

[1:13:32] sewer force main that will be tapping into is south of us. So

[1:13:36] it's like in that railroad area and we will be extending sewer

[1:13:40] from there through our site up to both Burton and Geer, which

[1:13:45] will bring that utility a lot closer to many property owners.

[1:13:49] As you know, this project was strongly recommended for

[1:13:52] approval by the Planning Commission on an eight two

[1:13:55] vote. So we're very proud of that. We hope to have your

[1:13:58] support tonight as well, and our team is available to answer

[1:14:01] any questions you may have. Thank you for your time tonight.

[1:14:06] Thank you for your presentation. Good one. All right. I have

[1:14:22] just a few speakers here starting online. Penny mace.

[1:14:36] Penny Mayes, can you hear me? Mr. mayor, miss May's unmuted,

[1:14:48] but we can't hear her. Miss Mayes, can you hear us?

[1:14:59] All right. I'll go ahead and start in person. Donna, stand

[1:15:07] back. Thomas. Leighton. Tammy. Tammy. Not sure which one. Is

[1:15:16] that? Timisoara. All right. Pam Williams, Tina mottley.

[1:15:20] Pearson. Pam. Andrews, Wanda. Allen, Vicki King. I'm assuming

[1:15:32] you all know why I called you all up. Welcome. You have three

[1:15:57] minutes. Good evening. My name is Tina

[1:16:14] motley Pearson, and my address is on file. This area has

[1:16:19] already been overwhelmed by development over the past three

[1:16:22] years. The map clearly shows multiple approved projects

[1:16:27] totaling 890 new dwelling units, bringing an estimated

[1:16:31] 77,200 additional vehicle trips per day. That's not a small

[1:16:37] impact. That's a significant and growing strain on our roads

[1:16:42] and community. And yet, the biggest issue remains

[1:16:46] unresolved. The infrastructure simply does not exist to

[1:16:51] support this level of growth. We are already seeing the

[1:16:56] consequences. They are well documented concerns about sewer

[1:17:00] capacity. And just as critically, there are gaps in

[1:17:03] fire service, police and EMS coverage policy. 122 is not

[1:17:11] vague. It clearly designates these as future growth areas

[1:17:15] where infrastructure and service upgrades are required.

[1:17:19] Required, not optional. The data in front of you shows

[1:17:24] clear deficiencies. Fire service gaps across Fletcher's

[1:17:28] Chapel, Hamlin Road, Stallings Road and others, along with

[1:17:34] areas already struggling with sewer capacity. Approving more

[1:17:40] development under these conditions is not planning.

[1:17:44] It's ignoring reality. You're being asked to move forward

[1:17:47] without basic services needed to protect public safety and

[1:17:51] support existing residents. This is not responsible growth.

[1:17:55] This is growth. Without a foundation. Thank you very much.

[1:18:03] Welcome. You have three minutes.

[1:18:06] Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Pamela

[1:18:08] Andrews. Fire infrastructure is not adequate in southeast

[1:18:12] Durham, as Tina just showed you. Policy 122 clearly shows

[1:18:15] the need for fire service expansion before more homes are

[1:18:18] built. Four times within this policy, fire service needs are

[1:18:21] mentioned. It just as Tina shows you. That's correct

[1:18:24] there. The City of Durham fire stations, which would primarily

[1:18:27] serve Belle Reach, is station nine. Redwood Volunteer Fire

[1:18:30] Station, funded by the county, would likely respond as well.

[1:18:34] These units will respond to calls in over 68 new

[1:18:38] subdivisions in southeast Durham, along with current

[1:18:41] residents, as well, straining the current resources. Next

[1:18:45] slide. In October of 2022, the fire department audit was done.

[1:18:49] Recognizing that higher response times than the

[1:18:52] national standard dictated national Fire Code 1710 for

[1:18:57] fire response time is six minutes and 30s, the two

[1:19:01] nearest city fire stations are station nine and three, and

[1:19:04] will not likely meet the response time standards

[1:19:07] referenced in the audit. Even in ideal conditions. Station

[1:19:10] three A city station would be 5.6 miles away, or a 12 minute

[1:19:15] drive. During non-peak traffic hours. Station nine will be 7.4

[1:19:20] miles away or a 13 minute drive during non-peak hours as well.

[1:19:25] The County volunteer fire station, Redwood, is 2.3 miles

[1:19:29] away, or four minutes during non-peak hours. However, it

[1:19:33] does not have a ladder truck to service the 200 townhomes

[1:19:36] planned. Of the 300 dwellings. The city fire stations would

[1:19:40] not meet the NFPA 1710 standard of six minutes, and 30s

[1:19:45] referenced in the audit, because there is not a fire

[1:19:49] station in close proximity. The city might contact contract

[1:19:53] with Redwood Volunteer Fire Station. Again, City Station

[1:19:57] nine is the primary station for this parcel. However, mutual

[1:20:00] aid will come, of course, but how long will that take for

[1:20:03] this isolated corner of Durham County? The success of

[1:20:07] Abundance Agenda should be measured by outcomes. Housing

[1:20:11] supply, stronger infrastructure, reliable access

[1:20:14] to EMS, fire and police services, and fiscal

[1:20:17] resilience, not approvals alone. Do not approve density

[1:20:21] for the purpose of density or adding short term revenue

[1:20:24] without clarity on the downstream planning needed for

[1:20:27] resulting expenditures. To ensure public health and

[1:20:30] safety. This sets out in the county. There is nothing near

[1:20:35] it. Yes, 85 has a few industrials along the edges.

[1:20:40] The old Kenworth Park that's been there forever. The truck

[1:20:43] in store. But there's not other things around. Now you're going

[1:20:47] to extend fire services out whether it can't get there in

[1:20:50] the required National standard Time. That's just not

[1:20:54] acceptable. Guys, we're putting lives in jeopardy. Please say

[1:20:57] no. Thank you. Welcome. You have

[1:21:02] three minutes. Tammy. Sawyer, my address is on

[1:21:08] file. This is going to be like a broken record, but we need to

[1:21:12] be talking about this police shortage. We know we have a

[1:21:16] police shortage. It's 11 miles to this address. Policy 119

[1:21:22] says ensure new development within the IRB or within

[1:21:27] established levels of service for emergency services. That

[1:21:31] includes fire, medical, police and public safety EMS. This is

[1:21:39] the biggest concern right now. EMS is a county run function,

[1:21:46] not EMS has not been addressed or analyzed. With all these

[1:21:52] developments, and it's still not being analyzed before these

[1:21:56] annexations come here. We have a community member that

[1:22:00] monitors all the EMS. I'm going to state something of last

[1:22:05] Thursday that he talked about a pregnant woman. Cause EMS can't

[1:22:10] feel her legs. Durham has no first responders, no

[1:22:14] ambulances, no EMS. Durham X Roxboro and Person County. If

[1:22:20] they can respond, they could not. So what if it was you or

[1:22:25] your family member? The growth in this area. We have grown in

[1:22:32] southeast Durham to a population of Wilson. They will

[1:22:35] say we still need buildings. We still need development. No, we

[1:22:40] have meet our quota. We have to have our infrastructure and you

[1:22:44] have to put people's safety in front of more development.

[1:22:49] Please think about this before you move forward. Thank you.

[1:22:54] Thank you. Welcome. You have three minutes.

[1:22:58] Good evening, Mayor Williams and city council members. My

[1:23:02] name is Donna. Stand. My address is on file as they

[1:23:08] mentioned earlier, this density is significantly higher than

[1:23:11] the surrounding areas. If you look at the red star there,

[1:23:17] that is the location of the site. And you see all the

[1:23:21] surrounding volunteer agriculture districts. And

[1:23:26] there's more on the other side of 85 that are nearby. This the

[1:23:33] blue sites represent the volunteer ag districts. We have

[1:23:38] more present value, present use value sites that are for

[1:23:46] farming and for forests that are nearby. For planning

[1:23:51] Commissioner on sage Brook, density as proposed would be

[1:23:56] two great a burden and detract from the character and

[1:23:59] aesthetics of the rural area, and it is indeed rural. I it's

[1:24:05] proximity is not just the site, but is within a half mile of

[1:24:10] other. Volunteer ag districts.

[1:24:14] Considering per planning commission awoke considering

[1:24:19] the high rate of development in southeast Durham and neighbors

[1:24:22] struggling to cope with increased traffic and no

[1:24:25] increase of necessary infrastructure. This project

[1:24:28] does not seem to meet the needs of the community. Next slide.

[1:24:33] And so what we have here is that there are major concerns

[1:24:41] about the increase in the vehicles per day from the 2600

[1:24:48] vehicles on the existing burden and with an increase of the

[1:24:56] 5180 vehicles per day. And then with year Street, we have an

[1:25:03] increase of 2092 to the existing 5918 vehicles per day,

[1:25:13] per the NCDOT. Average annual daily traffic. As you can see,

[1:25:18] we have farm equipment pictured because in these areas you have

[1:25:25] to share the roads, the farms where there first. But a lot of

[1:25:29] people do not get that and understand that. And in the

[1:25:34] state there are quite a few accidents because of trying to

[1:25:41] mix areas as much as we're trying to these days. And there

[1:25:48] have even been fatalities. So I would I know that they

[1:25:55] mentioned Carpenter Falls is adjacent, but Carpenter Falls

[1:25:58] is also a conservation subdivision. Thank you.

[1:26:04] Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. You have

[1:26:07] three minutes. Hello. My name is Wanda Allen.

[1:26:12] I'd like for you to look at this slide. This project

[1:26:16] directly impacts five streams that flow into Panther Creek

[1:26:21] and ultimately into Raleigh Falls. Lake Raleigh's drinking

[1:26:26] water. And this is not a protected system. It's already

[1:26:32] impaired by settlement and pollution. We're not starting

[1:26:37] here from a clean baseline. You guys. Follows Lake and Panther

[1:26:42] Creek are already struggling, and this proposal on a minimum

[1:26:48] stormwater standard that is not working today, especially on

[1:26:54] steep slopes and on unstable Triassic basin soil, which is

[1:27:00] on the site. Okay, I'm going to put it simple. You can't

[1:27:04] protect drinking water if you continue to add pollution. A

[1:27:09] system that is already failing. We're asking for practical

[1:27:15] safeguards, strong stormwater controls designed for 100

[1:27:21] years, stormwater real environmental monitoring.

[1:27:26] During and after construction, such as treating the excuse me,

[1:27:35] such as testing for turbidity before releasing it into the

[1:27:40] streams and no variances. This is becoming a common problem.

[1:27:45] They come back and ask for variances or shortcuts. These

[1:27:50] are not extreme as they are what the site needs. The photos

[1:27:56] that you're going to see tonight and on this slide shows

[1:28:00] best management practices are not working. Approving this

[1:28:06] project adds to that burden of the taxpayers having to clean

[1:28:10] it up. Please require stronger protections and or vote no.

[1:28:21] Thank you. Welcome. You have three minutes.

[1:28:26] Good afternoon. My name is Pam Williams. My address is on

[1:28:29] file. Panther Creek was is directly south downhill from

[1:28:35] Gear Street for this project. So of course, you know the

[1:28:38] water runs down here. And we also have the perennial strain

[1:28:43] of the major stream on the west side. We are asking since this

[1:28:50] is traffic, soil and the new stormwater policies that was

[1:28:56] put in are requirements that was put in in 2023 are not

[1:29:00] working. We've seen them not work, and we've got pictures

[1:29:03] showing that they're not working. We're asking for

[1:29:06] undisturbed stream buffers where no sediment ponds,

[1:29:10] grading, clear cut and retaining walls, sewer

[1:29:13] easement, drainage ditches except for those absolutely

[1:29:17] necessary, be put in the stream buffers. This is crucial to

[1:29:23] maintaining Panther Creek in this area. Panther Creek, as

[1:29:27] Wanda said, it's on the impair. It's impaired. It's on the 303

[1:29:31] D list. And we need these mature trees and no disturbance

[1:29:38] in the buffers to help with the sedimentation and the

[1:29:42] filtration. It it is very important. And as you can see,

[1:29:47] here's some examples of construction being 30ft from

[1:29:52] 100. In the 100 foot buffer. This is allowed. They could

[1:29:56] take out all the trees on this one. This property line. Right.

[1:30:01] This is on the property line. They're going to provide a 30

[1:30:03] foot buffer, but only after they take 15 20ft down 1 or 2ft

[1:30:09] from the property line. Sewer easement going through this

[1:30:13] one. And also here they got a variance for the wetlands to

[1:30:18] the stream. Also this area is per the City of Durham's

[1:30:25] environmental justice map. It is right smack in the middle of

[1:30:29] the environmental justice. There's a lot of people that

[1:30:32] live out here in the residential homes on on the

[1:30:37] side. Well, next to this property up on Geer Street, my

[1:30:41] grandmother used to live right there at the corner of Gary

[1:30:44] Street and Burt Road. I know this area very well, and these

[1:30:48] people are not wealthy people, and we need to make sure we

[1:30:53] provide for them the infrastructure, what is needed.

[1:30:57] And looking at this heat island map where the store is, as you

[1:31:01] can see, since it's mainly farm and trees and everything, it

[1:31:06] doesn't show the heat island, but where things have been

[1:31:08] built, where development has been built, you can see what

[1:31:12] the effects of are high density or higher density and high

[1:31:18] impervious does to the heat island effect. In these areas.

[1:31:24] We asked you to not approve this, and thank you very much.

[1:31:29] Thank you. Welcome. You have three minutes.

[1:31:34] Okay. I'm just I'm.

[1:31:36] Let me close this down. If I can.

[1:31:39] Okay. We also had two people that had

[1:31:45] signed up to speak. And you didn't call their name out.

[1:31:49] Becky and Tom Freeman. So I don't know if they were on the

[1:31:53] the list or not. But anyway. I'm 21 penny. Back in Tom

[1:32:14] Freeman, I have done for 22, not 21. I'm sorry. Welcome. You

[1:32:21] have three minutes. Okay.

[1:32:23] My name is Vicki King. My address.

[1:32:25] Is on file. I was raised in eastern Durham County and.

[1:32:29] Still live right around the corner.

[1:32:32] From the intersection of Burton and Cheek Road. I come here

[1:32:35] tonight to ask the city Council to put in a temporary

[1:32:39] moratorium of one year to stop all construction. I'm sorry.

[1:32:45] Development in this county until the infrastructure can

[1:32:49] catch up. Gridlock happens every day on I-85 northbound.

[1:32:55] Let a wreck happen in Gear Street, becomes a freeway. I'm

[1:32:59] not talking about a 35 mile an hour freeway, either. Just last

[1:33:03] week, stop traffic was beyond from beyond Redwood Road on

[1:33:09] I-85, all the way into town at Avondale Drive, 98. Highway 98

[1:33:16] is a traffic jam both morning and evening. Burton Road is

[1:33:22] becoming a traffic nightmare. What's Durham's answer? When

[1:33:26] the reservoirs run out of water, what's Durham's answer to all

[1:33:31] the shootings? What's Durham's answer to? No answer at all. At

[1:33:37] 911, communications, these are all infrastructure problems.

[1:33:42] The public wants to know. We have asked the city council to

[1:33:46] consider no deforestation, larger riparian buffers,

[1:33:53] monitoring creeks and waterways that run through these

[1:33:56] construction sites. But somehow those requests seem to get

[1:34:00] overlooked. I asked again, please slow down the approval

[1:34:06] of developments. With over 22,000 units constructed or

[1:34:14] approved for construction, cut down on the density O and

[1:34:19] there's currently 1547 units for sale in Durham County and

[1:34:26] over 4400 units for rent. Thank you for your time.

[1:34:36] Welcome. Your three minutes. Mr. mayor, I'm Talmage Layton.

[1:34:42] I was signed up for this. I'm going to pass most of my time

[1:34:45] here and wait until we get to Patterson Road to express how

[1:34:49] much I'm interested in agriculture. And you promised.

[1:34:52] The last time I was here, you would take into consideration

[1:34:54] the value of agriculture to the community that you're

[1:34:57] developing. I hope you all have continued to do that. And

[1:35:01] you're welcome to add all my time from this one to the next

[1:35:04] one, and I'll talk to you later.

[1:35:05] I can't bank time, but thanks for your comments, Tom. Good

[1:35:09] try. It's 20. Penny maze come up. Hello. Hi Miss Maze. Yes, I

[1:35:24] can loud and clear. Welcome. You have three minutes.

[1:35:27] Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm Kenny

[1:35:30] Mays and my address is on file. And as you've already heard,

[1:35:34] this area, southeast Durham is already taxed beyond capacity

[1:35:38] for emergency services. With increasing traffic problems.

[1:35:42] As, again, you've heard, when Carpenter Falls, sage Brook and

[1:35:48] Panther Creek. Other developments that have been

[1:35:50] approved are come our way. The traffic is going to be

[1:35:55] tremendously increased, and God forbid that any of my family or

[1:36:00] our neighbors have a heart attack or some other emergency.

[1:36:03] Once all of this happens, and with all due respect to this

[1:36:07] council, your decisions tonight very well may determine

[1:36:11] someone's medical fate. And are they going to receive emergency

[1:36:15] services, or were those services be so overtaxed that

[1:36:19] lives are going to be lost in our area? Please make a

[1:36:23] decision tonight that puts water quality, quality at the

[1:36:27] forefront, because our water quality is in danger. Consider

[1:36:32] our wildlife in this rural area and it is a rural area. And

[1:36:37] please consider people's lives. These are very serious issues.

[1:36:42] And before any other development is approved in this

[1:36:45] area, we have to have more emergency services in place and

[1:36:49] infrastructure to support the people who are going to

[1:36:54] purchase housing in good faith that their basic needs are

[1:36:57] going to be met. And as it stands, those basic needs of

[1:37:02] safety and clean water are being put at risk. Thank you.

[1:37:09] Thank you so much. Those are all of the speakers that I have

[1:37:14] with the applicant. Like to respond.

[1:37:23] Hello. Once again this is Neil from the Morningstar Law Group.

[1:37:27] You know, I've been seeing the folks from rural Durham up here

[1:37:32] for years, and generally they they get really good

[1:37:36] information. And this is my only item on the agenda

[1:37:39] tonight. So I don't know if maybe they had the wrong

[1:37:42] presentation up, but if they didn't, that presentation was

[1:37:44] very misleading. This project is not in any future growth

[1:37:48] area. I would be real clear about that. This project, there

[1:37:52] is no noted deficiencies from our utility statement analysis

[1:37:57] that was done for this project. There's no noted deficiencies

[1:38:00] in the comp plan as far as fire service, sewer service,

[1:38:03] anything like that. I recognize that some of those concerns

[1:38:06] exist, but one of the slides they had up there suggested

[1:38:08] that this project is in a future growth area, and it

[1:38:11] absolutely is not. There's also some mention, as we've heard

[1:38:18] many times, about the need for infrastructure to keep up with

[1:38:22] development. And I first of all, I agree with that

[1:38:25] statement just generally. But I think that suggesting this

[1:38:30] project doesn't provide its fair share of infrastructure or

[1:38:32] do something about the infrastructure is incorrect. As

[1:38:35] I mentioned in my initial presentation. The intersection,

[1:38:40] the road improvements that this project is committing to and

[1:38:43] would be required to do are needed for the network,

[1:38:47] regardless of whether this project gets built based off

[1:38:49] background traffic alone. There are there are potential traffic

[1:38:56] issues on on the horizon. Maybe even greater than what has

[1:39:01] already been described. But this project is providing

[1:39:04] upwards of about $2 million worth of. And that's just

[1:39:07] transportation infrastructure. That's to say nothing of the

[1:39:12] public utilities that also are going going to be improved as

[1:39:16] part of this project. I just want to make sure that we're

[1:39:22] real clear on what this project is versus maybe, I don't know

[1:39:26] if there's something else on the agenda, but this is not in

[1:39:29] a future growth area at all. I mean, it's one of the this is

[1:39:32] this project is been carefully planned by my client. Because

[1:39:38] of the information in the comprehensive plan. And that's

[1:39:41] why it received a strong recommendation of approval from

[1:39:44] the Planning Commission. That's why it has a strong staff

[1:39:47] report. This is a very good project in this location, and

[1:39:51] it does a lot for it offers a lot in the way of public

[1:39:55] benefits through infrastructure, affordable

[1:39:57] housing, and now also building a portion of the Panther Creek

[1:40:01] Trail. Thank you.

[1:40:02] Thank you. I made a pretty significant mistake up here as

[1:40:07] well. I as I'm getting used to our new way of organizing this,

[1:40:12] I overlooked speakers under the applicant name. I'm used to

[1:40:17] seeing them all above. So we do have more speakers. So to those

[1:40:20] speakers, my apologies. Astrid Cooke, Mike Rowe, Cocoa Road

[1:40:25] and Talmage Lake. If you all will come up. Okay, that's what

[1:40:32] you were talking about. Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you,

[1:40:37] Madam clerk. Hello. Hi.

[1:40:44] Very rare that I would get to speak after the applicant

[1:40:47] response. My name is Astrid Cooke. My address is on file

[1:40:51] and I'm representing the Durham City County Environmental

[1:40:55] Affairs Board, land use and planning committee. You all

[1:40:58] should have received our letter on this case. And I just want

[1:41:02] to read what I can tonight. The Durham Environmental Affairs

[1:41:06] Board, land use and Planning subcommittee has reviewed the

[1:41:09] Ridge case and offers the following comments solely

[1:41:13] regarding environmental impacts. This site presents a

[1:41:16] highly sensitive environmental context. It lies within the

[1:41:19] falls of the noose. Jordan Lake Protected Area is underlain by

[1:41:24] Triassic basin soils prone to erosion and persistent

[1:41:27] turbidity, and is bordered along multiple edges by Panther

[1:41:30] Creek and its associated floodway. The stream corridor

[1:41:33] and adjacent floodplain are not peripheral peripheral to the

[1:41:37] site, but define its environmental function and

[1:41:39] connectivity to downstream waters. We acknowledge several

[1:41:43] positive elements within the proposal. As the applicant has

[1:41:47] elucidated in their in their presentation. However, we have

[1:41:51] concerns that the proposal as currently structured, does not

[1:41:54] adequately address the primary environmental risks associated

[1:41:58] with the site. Most notably, the proposal does not include

[1:42:01] any defined stormwater control measures at the rezoning stage.

[1:42:05] Stormwater services has confirmed that no SEMs are

[1:42:09] proposed within the development plan, with the expectation that

[1:42:12] stormwater design will be addressed later during site

[1:42:14] plan review. Given the site's location within a protected

[1:42:17] watershed, its proximity to Panther Creek and the known

[1:42:21] behavior of Triassic basin soils, deferring stormwater

[1:42:25] strategy to a later stage represents a substantial gap

[1:42:28] without clear commitments at rezoning. There is insufficient

[1:42:31] assurance that runoff volume, peak flow and sediment

[1:42:34] transport will be appropriately managed. While the development

[1:42:38] plan limits direct building within the floodplain, it

[1:42:41] allows for grading, utility installation and other

[1:42:44] disturbances. These activities, particularly in proximity to

[1:42:47] Panther Creek, can result in indirect impacts to floodplain

[1:42:51] function, including increased sedimentation, altered flow

[1:42:54] patterns, and downstream flooding. Stormwater staff has

[1:42:57] also identified the need to evaluate future 1% flood

[1:43:01] conditions, reinforcing that flood risk on and downstream of

[1:43:04] the site is irrelevant and unresolved. Issue. Taken

[1:43:09] together, these factors raised concerns that the project, as

[1:43:12] currently proposed, may contribute to increased

[1:43:14] sedimentation, degraded water quality and altered hydrology

[1:43:17] in Panther Creek and downstream receiving waters. For these

[1:43:21] reasons, we do not support the proposal in its current form.

[1:43:24] At a minimum, support would require the applicant to

[1:43:26] provide the following textual commitments a defined

[1:43:29] stormwater management strategy at the rezoning stage.

[1:43:33] Expansion of stream buffer buffer widths where steep

[1:43:36] slopes or direct drainage to Panther Creek are present, with

[1:43:39] buffers measured from the top of slope rather than the stream

[1:43:42] bank. To reduce erosion risk and improve long term

[1:43:45] protection of the stream corridor.

[1:43:46] Thank you. Thank you, Miss Cook. Are you

[1:43:51] speaking in your formal capacity on behalf of the EIB?

[1:43:53] Yes. Director young, is it is it not appropriate to have

[1:44:01] their report as part of the packet for consideration?

[1:44:07] Good evening. I think staff has been working with EIB to bring

[1:44:12] them into the review process so that they can act. You will see

[1:44:15] their comments in the future like you do. The back comments,

[1:44:19] but to date they have not been involved to that capacity. So I

[1:44:22] think that will be a new change coming forward.

[1:44:24] Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Welcome. You have three

[1:44:30] minutes. Hi. I'm Michael Rowe, myself

[1:44:32] and Cocoa Road actually signed. Up to speak to agenda item

[1:44:35] number 22. So I'd like to hold my time for that item.

[1:44:41] Mr. Coco Rowe. Right. Yes. And Mike Rowe.

[1:44:43] Yes, sir. Okay.

[1:44:46] Thank you. All right. City sign up for 22.

[1:44:54] I have them for. All right. Do you care to respond? That was

[1:45:04] the. Neil Ghosh, again, on behalf of

[1:45:11] the applicant. Assuming that's all the speakers. I will just

[1:45:16] mention, I hadn't seen the the information from Oeb about

[1:45:20] this, so I don't really have I haven't had the benefit to

[1:45:24] review that ahead of time. Listening to the comments

[1:45:26] though. I just wanted to point out that we do have commitments

[1:45:30] in the development plan that limit any impacts in the

[1:45:33] floodplain. And limit any impacts in the wildlife

[1:45:36] corridor, but they are limited. That doesn't mean there won't

[1:45:40] be any. And specifically, I believe the the Greenway trail,

[1:45:44] which which has been well, we've committed to building the

[1:45:50] portion of the Greenway Trail that's on the property that is

[1:45:54] already planned in the open space trail plan, in part of

[1:45:59] the property that has environmental, you know,

[1:46:02] aspects to it, floodplain and the wildlife corridor are, I

[1:46:07] believe, are exactly where that trail is located in the open

[1:46:11] space trails plan. So there will you know, I'm gonna say

[1:46:14] there's not going to be any impacts in that area. We have

[1:46:17] specifically accepted those impacts with respect to

[1:46:20] stormwater control. I appreciate that bringing being

[1:46:24] brought up. I will say that the information presented, I think

[1:46:27] I feel was accurate, accurate from Oeb, which is to say that

[1:46:31] we didn't have any commitment specifically related in the

[1:46:33] development plan to stormwater controls. And generally

[1:46:37] speaking, that is the type of thing that will get brought up

[1:46:39] and considered. Site plan. That having been said, I think we're

[1:46:43] prepared tonight to add a commitment to handle the 100

[1:46:45] year storm as part of this project. So we will add that

[1:46:49] which I think is responsive to some of the comments we heard

[1:46:51] from EAB just now. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Those are

[1:46:58] all of the speakers that I have signed up for this case. So

[1:47:01] therefore at this time, I have declared a public hearing

[1:47:03] closed and back before the Council. All right. Colleagues.

[1:47:13] Council Member Cook. Go ahead. Thank you. Mr. Gross. Will you

[1:47:21] come back up? I'm going to actually read you the *** from

[1:47:23] the Environmental Affairs Board letter. Since you hadn't heard

[1:47:26] them. And I think you've addressed one of them. But a

[1:47:33] defined stormwater management strategy at the rezoning stage.

[1:47:35] So that one you have just talked about expansion of

[1:47:40] stream buffer widths where steep slopes are directing

[1:47:43] drainage to Panther Creek are present, with buffers measured

[1:47:46] from the top slope rather than the stream bank to reduce

[1:47:48] erosion risk and improve long term protection of the stream

[1:47:51] corridor. I'm sorry, do you want me to

[1:47:55] respond to that? I just want you to note them

[1:47:57] because these are there are only six on here. And the

[1:48:01] Environmental Affairs Board has identified all six of these as

[1:48:04] being needed. Otherwise, they say that the they're concerned

[1:48:08] that the development may result in long term degradation of

[1:48:10] Panther Creek and downstream water sources. So you said you

[1:48:13] hadn't seen it. I'm just reading them to you. So.

[1:48:16] Sure, if you. Just make a comment.

[1:48:17] Yes. For whatever reason, you're

[1:48:19] standing right there. Yes, we're sitting right here. And I

[1:48:21] cannot I don't know, there's something funny about this.

[1:48:24] Because I thought it was just me. I can't really hear it

[1:48:26] either. It's some type. Is it better?

[1:48:33] I think so, yeah. Can you hear me now?

[1:48:38] Yep. Okay, great. Okay. User error.

[1:48:42] Okay. So I'm going to read you these because these are the

[1:48:45] ones that they've identified all as needing. You said you

[1:48:47] hadn't seen them. Is that true? Correct. Okay. So the first one

[1:48:50] we just talked about which is the defined water stormwater

[1:48:53] management strategy at the rezoning stage, then there's an

[1:48:56] expansion of stream buffer widths where steep slopes or

[1:48:59] direct drainage to Panther Creek are present, with buffer

[1:49:02] measured from the top of the slope rather than the stream

[1:49:05] bank. To ensure to reduce erosion risk and improve long

[1:49:09] term protection of the stream corridor. The next one is

[1:49:12] removal of the wildlife corridor area from the building

[1:49:16] and parking envelope, which you've already done. The fourth

[1:49:19] one is no grading or clearing in the floodplain, except where

[1:49:21] strictly necessary for essential infrastructure with

[1:49:24] clear limits on such activities. Five implementation

[1:49:28] of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures

[1:49:31] tailored to the Triassic basin soils, including phased

[1:49:34] grading, rapid stabilization, and redundant controls. And

[1:49:38] finally demonstration that the stormwater discharge will not

[1:49:42] adversely impact downstream floodplain areas, including

[1:49:45] analysis of future 1% flood conditions. And you're welcome

[1:49:50] to respond to any of those. I do have a list of questions,

[1:49:53] but I just wanted to make sure that those were on your radar

[1:49:55] as ones that I don't know why I moved this way, as ones that

[1:49:59] we've been provided by our volunteer. Our volunteer

[1:50:04] Commission on Environmental Affairs. So I am curious about

[1:50:13] the undisturbed stream buffers. Is that something y'all are

[1:50:16] able to proffer? No, I mean, I think on the

[1:50:20] development plan you can see that there is one stream that

[1:50:22] is being crossed. Now there's a stream that goes down the

[1:50:25] entire west side of the property, which we're that

[1:50:28] we're not touching that. Right. But then there's a, there's

[1:50:31] kind of another finger of a stream on the development plan

[1:50:34] that comes up on the I'm going to say southeast side. That

[1:50:39] does have a stream crossing that's kind of roughly south of

[1:50:44] the existing cell tower of that area. So, you know, I would

[1:50:49] just say, no, we couldn't make a commitment to having

[1:50:53] undisturbed stream buffers because I know that there's

[1:50:56] already planned disturbance in some of that area for the

[1:50:58] stream crossing. Okay.

[1:51:02] The open space commitment, I'm assuming, already includes both

[1:51:07] the wildlife corridor and the stream buffer. Is that correct?

[1:51:12] You're talking about the amount. I believe those would

[1:51:15] be calculated in that figure. Yeah, I'm getting some nods.

[1:51:20] Because it's a 20% commitment, but that's going to include

[1:51:23] already those those protected areas that are.

[1:51:26] I believe that is correct. Yes.

[1:51:28] Are y'all able to increase to do 10% in addition to the

[1:51:32] wildlife and stream buffers? I don't I wouldn't actually

[1:51:37] know. I don't I don't really think that we like we're in a

[1:51:41] position to answer that question, okay. Right now

[1:51:43] Now because I don't know how much is in what.

[1:51:46] Okay. The affordability we've been

[1:51:52] seeing upwards of 10%. Are you all able to commit to 10%

[1:51:56] affordability? We I don't think we'd be able

[1:51:58] to commit to 10%, but we did we did talk internally about that.

[1:52:02] And I think we can improve our commitment, which I believe is

[1:52:05] at 5% to to 8% of the overall unit count. For this project.

[1:52:21] Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions for now. Thanks.

[1:52:24] Thank you. Any other colleagues questions? Council Member

[1:52:28] Burris. Hello. Mr. Ghosh.

[1:52:30] Hello. Just a couple of quick

[1:52:32] questions, just to try to provide clarity for myself

[1:52:35] about this. And so I apologize as I'm learning, if the, you

[1:52:38] know, it seems kind of redundant for you, but, you

[1:52:40] know, you're the expert, not me. Particularly around some of

[1:52:44] the policies and looking at some of your increased profits.

[1:52:47] I just had some questions, particularly around policy 39.

[1:52:50] It looks like you committed to an additional 1% of tree

[1:52:52] preservation, an additional 4% of open space. And I think for

[1:52:55] the tree preservation was set at like, what, 20? So you'll be

[1:52:58] doing 21%. And I believe what we're doing

[1:53:01] is preservation. We'll make sure that. Yeah. Which is just

[1:53:04] to be clear, it's also in excess of what the Udo

[1:53:06] requires. So there's tree coverage. It doesn't always

[1:53:09] have to be preservation. But we've committed to

[1:53:11] preservation. Well I just was curious about

[1:53:13] like the 1% like what's the impact of that. Like what's

[1:53:16] going to be the benefit of 1%? Well, I think I think what I'm

[1:53:19] saying is the really the excess is that it's preservation as

[1:53:23] opposed to just simple tree coverage. It is also

[1:53:27] numerically more tree coverage than is required, but it's also

[1:53:29] being provided through tree preservation, which I think is

[1:53:33] more valuable than than tree coverage. That is just, you

[1:53:36] know, where you take the existing plants out and then

[1:53:38] you replant 20%. This is 21% tree preservation.

[1:53:42] So let me just rephrase this. I understand. So you think at

[1:53:45] this increase, this metric, it would have a significant impact

[1:53:48] then like the 1% like environmental.

[1:53:51] Preservation is, is I think, more impactful than the 1%. The

[1:53:55] fact that it's preservation rather than replanting for tree

[1:53:58] coverage. Okay. And then can you just

[1:54:01] I'll just have a question. I do appreciate you all for

[1:54:04] increasing your proffer for affordable housing from 5% to

[1:54:08] 8%, just so we can all have a common understanding of this.

[1:54:14] Tell us what this is. So does that mean that like for 80% of

[1:54:16] am I that those units would be a reduced rate or like how does

[1:54:20] that work out for the affordable housing piece? Like

[1:54:22] are they subsidized or like what does it look like.

[1:54:24] Well it's not subsidized like by any kind of like gap

[1:54:28] financing or government funding or anything likikike that. Thes

[1:54:30] are being provided by the developer, in this case at a

[1:54:33] discounted price over what the unit next door, which would be

[1:54:37] exactly the same unit, would cost. Right? So this is

[1:54:40] essentially them discounting the price and the way that

[1:54:43] works in this zoning case, but also just in the Durham studio

[1:54:48] and and through. Whatever the department is now called that

[1:54:54] that implements those things. They would record a covenant

[1:54:58] against property that would that it's an affordability

[1:55:01] covenant that says that these houses, 8% of them are have an

[1:55:07] affordability covenant on them, and so that they have to be

[1:55:10] sold in over the next 30 years, they can only be sold to

[1:55:13] families qualifying at the 80% Ami level, which, you know,

[1:55:19] over the course of 30 years. That number is obviously going

[1:55:21] to change. But every year it's still going for 30 years. It'll

[1:55:25] be still at the 80% Ami level regardless of who's selling it.

[1:55:28] Right. So like the developer is going to do it the first time,

[1:55:31] but because there would be a recorded covenant against the

[1:55:34] the property, it would it would still carry through to the next

[1:55:38] conveyance of that land. That's that's just how it would work.

[1:55:41] So the I guess I would say the initial I'm going to call it a

[1:55:44] haircut comes at the developer's expense. Right

[1:55:47] after that, though, it's the it's the property owner who

[1:55:49] bought the house at a discounted rate, would also

[1:55:51] have to sell the house at a discounted rate over the next

[1:55:53] 30 years. Okay, that's helpful to

[1:55:55] understand. And then I had another question about the

[1:55:58] policy regards to accessibility. So it looks like

[1:56:02] there that one wasn't consistent. So does that mean

[1:56:05] you won't be in. It doesn't really necessarily give us

[1:56:07] light to the you know, like making sure that we have a

[1:56:10] mixed use of ages. So does that mean that these units will not

[1:56:13] have and they will not have like access at grade, or will

[1:56:16] they offer any first floor bedroom options?

[1:56:19] Yeah. So we we're that's why we hadn't made that commitment

[1:56:24] because we don't know specifically that we will be we

[1:56:26] will be able to do that. And I think part of the issue here is

[1:56:30] some of the topography challenges, which makes it

[1:56:32] difficult to say for certain that there will be at grade

[1:56:35] entrances, you know, when you have a flat piece of property,

[1:56:38] you can kind of build right on top of that and have an at

[1:56:40] grade entrance. But when you have to make up for grade and

[1:56:43] stuff like that, that's when you start to get steps to the

[1:56:45] front door or steps from the garage into the unit, whatever

[1:56:49] the case may be, that's because of the great challenges with

[1:56:53] with any given floor plan. And then with respect to whether

[1:56:57] there will be any certain number of units that will have.

[1:57:02] First floor living. The majority of these units. So I

[1:57:07] believe it's 300 units total. Right. And the minimum of those

[1:57:11] would be a minimum of 200 of those would be townhomes.

[1:57:13] Townhome units are generally I mean they're going to be

[1:57:16] multi-story units. Right. And but the way those generally are

[1:57:20] going to lay out or, or they're probably not going to have all

[1:57:23] of the items necessary for first floor living. There may

[1:57:26] be a bedroom, right? But there probably won't be. Also be

[1:57:29] kitchen and laundry and bathroom, you know, on that

[1:57:31] first floor. That's why we haven't made that commitment.

[1:57:34] But I think so. To answer your question, I think you're right.

[1:57:36] We I don't know that we're in a place where we can make a

[1:57:38] commitment, where we will meet that policy. But I can't say

[1:57:43] for certain that there won't be units with first floor

[1:57:45] bedrooms. It's just that we, you know, we're not comfortable

[1:57:48] enough to make a commitment to describe what that might look

[1:57:51] like on this project today. Okay. Because I just had, like,

[1:57:54] just thinking about consistency. I see that there's

[1:57:56] a commitment to making sure that the sidewalks are Ada

[1:57:58] accessible. And so I'm like, okay, if you're going to make

[1:58:00] sure the sidewalks have those accommodations, it would kind

[1:58:02] of make sense to ensure the units are also accessible as

[1:58:05] well. So but thank you so much for your time.

[1:58:07] Thank you. Any other colleagues out here?

[1:58:16] Council Member Baker. Thank you. Thanks for being

[1:58:20] here, Mr. Ghosh. First of all, our our folks cold. I'm

[1:58:27] literally looking at people shivering. There's a young lady

[1:58:29] on the front row with a blanket. Not cold. Okay. Very

[1:58:34] comfortable. All right. There's a mix of opinions out there.

[1:58:36] I'm not gonna make this controversial. So I don't have

[1:58:48] any questions. Actually, I, on this Earth Day. Borrowing,

[1:58:56] barring any exceptional master plan, communities, I in good

[1:59:00] conscience can't continue to support auto centric sprawl,

[1:59:08] car dependent development on the outskirts of our city in in

[1:59:12] this kind of this kind of scale and the rapid development and

[1:59:16] growth that we're seeing on the outskirts, particularly in, in

[1:59:20] Far East Durham, driven out there many times. I don't know

[1:59:26] how you get out there any other way, and I'm not sure that

[1:59:30] we'll leave an East Durham that will be reachable any other

[1:59:34] way, the way that it is being approved for growth piece by

[1:59:39] piece and little by little, you know, we're watching around the

[1:59:46] world. It's impossible to miss the turmoil, the global

[1:59:50] turmoil, and it feels like our entire society is a smash and

[1:59:54] grab by the rich. And we're we're seeing global turmoil

[1:59:59] around competition over fossil fuels and oil. And in a

[2:00:06] progressive community, we need to do everything that we

[2:00:09] possibly can to push back against that and fight against

[2:00:12] that, not to just kind of openly continue to approve very

[2:00:19] large cases. 80 acres is a very large case. Again, little by

[2:00:23] little with, I think, legitimate questions and

[2:00:26] increasingly legitimate questions around service and

[2:00:30] infrastructure. I don't know if many of you follow a towns a

[2:00:36] Chuck Chuck Marone who started strong towns does does a lot of

[2:00:41] talks, a lot about sprawl and the way that many cities are

[2:00:45] growing. He calls it a Ponzi scheme. He was actually in

[2:00:50] Durham not not too long ago. Speaking, speaking here to the

[2:00:54] community. He's got an article, he says, and I want to quote

[2:00:58] this sprawl is a quote style of development. It works extremely

[2:01:02] well for a specific type of large scale private developer.

[2:01:06] They're masters of the assembly line approach, secure, cheap

[2:01:09] land on the fringe, install infrastructure and build tract

[2:01:12] housing as quickly as possible. At this scale, the profits are

[2:01:15] enormous and the risks are low. He goes on to say. But while

[2:01:19] private sector gets the cash, local governments get the bill.

[2:01:22] Sprawling developments create long term infrastructure

[2:01:25] liabilities. Roads, water lines, sewer systems, schools,

[2:01:28] fire, EMS, et cetera that far exceed the revenue they

[2:01:32] generate. Local governments, which are really just

[2:01:34] collections of us acting together, are left trying to

[2:01:37] maintain and operate systems that are fundamentally

[2:01:40] unaffordable. And I think every time over the past many years

[2:01:44] that these large scale cases have have come before council,

[2:01:48] not only is that approval approving land for this kind of

[2:01:52] development, it's also sending a message that this is okay,

[2:01:55] that we can continue growing this way and that you should,

[2:01:59] as a large scale landowner or a large scale developer, some

[2:02:02] largest home builders in the country who are working in

[2:02:03] Durham should continue doing this and doing what you're

[2:02:06] doing. I've sat down with Mongo Holmes a couple years ago and I

[2:02:11] asked, why don't you do great master plan communities that

[2:02:14] are preserving more open space, maybe a little more dense in

[2:02:18] certain areas, providing mix of uses and civic spaces. And they

[2:02:22] said, because we know how to make money the way that that we

[2:02:25] build now, and because you don't make us and that will

[2:02:28] continue, that will continue as long as as we we allow it to

[2:02:32] continue. So I appreciate the Planning Commission's

[2:02:35] recommendation. I sat on the Planning Commission and was

[2:02:41] very frustrated whenever City Council didn't didn't go along

[2:02:44] with the Planning Commission. Now here I am, but I agree with

[2:02:49] the comments of Commissioner Wolk from the Planning

[2:02:52] Commission. I think that Commissioner Wolk hit the nail

[2:02:55] on the head with some of these comments. You know, we had

[2:02:59] another committee of a board weigh in and also I just I

[2:03:06] think that this is sending a message. I think that it's

[2:03:09] continuing to do something that we know is part of a broken

[2:03:13] system. We shouldn't we shouldn't blame individuals for

[2:03:16] being dependent upon cars for for our auto dependency. It's a

[2:03:21] systemic failure. And and we are part of the system. And so

[2:03:25] I won't be supporting this one. And I'll just say now I won't

[2:03:29] be supporting the other cases this evening.

[2:03:35] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First is

[2:03:39] a question for staff. And this relates to a couple of cases

[2:03:41] that we're seeing this evening in regards to applicant

[2:03:45] commitments around infrastructure, addressing

[2:03:49] traffic, issues of concern. And I guess my question is just

[2:03:53] helping me understand this. So in this particular case, the

[2:03:57] applicant has talked about a $2 million commitment to

[2:03:59] infrastructure to to address traffic issues in this area. So

[2:04:04] how much does this address the current concerns versus just

[2:04:08] the incremental need from the additional units that would go

[2:04:12] in? And if this investment wasn't made through this

[2:04:15] development, when might the city have this in the plan to

[2:04:20] make the sort of investment? Earlene Thomas So the plan and

[2:04:27] the traffic study does address both existing and future

[2:04:32] impacts from this development. So some of the improvements

[2:04:36] that they are making are going to address existing issues that

[2:04:40] that are happening today. If these improvements aren't made

[2:04:43] by this developer, they will likely not be funded anytime in

[2:04:48] the foreseeable future as projects are prioritized and

[2:04:53] funded, you know, through NCDOT prioritization process. And

[2:04:57] there are limited dollars to go around and address all of the

[2:05:02] future needs. All right. Thank you. Next, a

[2:05:07] couple of questions for the applicant. Mr. Ghosh. So I want

[2:05:17] to come back to a couple of the other requests from the

[2:05:23] Environmental Affairs Board, as well as from residents to

[2:05:26] preserve rail, Durham and others. I would like to ask if

[2:05:30] this is a project where you could commit to no variances

[2:05:32] and no disturbances in the buffer, and what that would

[2:05:35] look like for this project. Well, I think I mentioned

[2:05:39] already, I, I know for a fact we can't make a commitment to

[2:05:42] no disturbances in the buffer. We've already got a plan stream

[2:05:45] crossing. So that is. Because of the one disturbance

[2:05:47] you have. Okay. Yeah. And so we're going

[2:05:49] to have to let me look over here. That requires one of

[2:05:53] those permits. No no practical alternative. Yeah. So like I

[2:05:57] know that we have to get one of those. That's not a variance

[2:06:00] per se. I don't really even know if from a zoning

[2:06:05] standpoint, someone can make a commitment to no variance. I

[2:06:09] mean, a variance is something specified in the UDL. And I'm

[2:06:13] looking in that direction because I don't I just don't

[2:06:16] know. But, you know, I guess I would say the specific

[2:06:21] commitment that was asked for I'm I we could not make that

[2:06:24] commitment because I know that we're going to have impacts to

[2:06:27] stream to riparian buffers, and we're going to need one of

[2:06:30] those in PA to do it. So it is possible that an

[2:06:37] applicant can proffer to not seek variances or to not seek

[2:06:43] an MPA for any type of intrusion. You know, that is a

[2:06:47] proffer can be anything going above and beyond a normal

[2:06:50] process. Well, yeah.

[2:06:52] All right. So the the no disturbances is impossible.

[2:06:56] What about the no variances. I mean I don't know I'll have

[2:07:03] to I'll have to get with my client on whether they are

[2:07:07] comfortable doing that. I mean no one seeks the development

[2:07:10] for the purpose of getting a variance. Later a variance

[2:07:14] comes up. I mean, it's a high bar at the Board of Adjustment

[2:07:16] to get a variance. Yeah. And I want to acknowledge

[2:07:20] and thank in this process, the feedback we're getting from the

[2:07:23] EAB and other volunteer boards, planning Commission B Pac, I

[2:07:25] look forward to actually having these requests be part of our

[2:07:28] application packet, which gives us time to further evaluate and

[2:07:32] have these discussions as well. But I do think they're really

[2:07:35] important points to to raise. So I just want to say I

[2:07:41] appreciate, you know, aspects of this proposal that exceed

[2:07:44] the comp plan. You know, around open space, you know, and that

[2:07:48] tree preservation, which is what, you know, I think the

[2:07:52] kind of thing that we we look for when evaluating these sorts

[2:07:54] of cases, as well as additional commitments around affordable

[2:07:58] housing, the the stormwater control measures, the increased

[2:08:02] DPS contribution and the commitment to protect the most

[2:08:04] environmentally sensitive areas and build Panther Creek. I

[2:08:07] think some of these reflected the strong Planning Commission

[2:08:10] recommendation, and also some have addressed the

[2:08:12] Environmental Affairs Board recommendations. At the same

[2:08:15] time, I'm cognizant of the remaining concerns that have

[2:08:18] been raised by fire by residents and advocates and

[2:08:20] volunteer boards. I would like to discuss a JCC, PC, how we

[2:08:26] can better account for EMS along with the county, because

[2:08:29] I feel like that keeps coming up and it's something we

[2:08:32] haven't quite been able to wrap our heads around. I think some

[2:08:35] of the other infrastructure questions are have been easier

[2:08:38] because they fall more within the city's control and and but

[2:08:42] this this EMS one still seems to be a sticking point for for

[2:08:46] us in a really critically important one. You know, I

[2:08:54] think the last thing is that, you know, on the affordable

[2:08:56] housing piece, I do appreciate that that proffers I sort of

[2:08:59] way the opportunities here. I mean, you know, for the city to

[2:09:04] provide all of the housing that we need would be an expensive

[2:09:06] proposition that would fall heavily on our taxpayers. And

[2:09:09] so I think that including the improvements for traffic, which

[2:09:13] otherwise would not happen, you know, are something that I also

[2:09:17] don't take lightly in weighing these cases when considering

[2:09:20] all the trade offs that are in place and ultimately where we

[2:09:24] see any housing go has an impact on the neighbors and

[2:09:28] residents who live nearby, you know, we have to consider, you

[2:09:33] know, the, the ultimately the the pressures, the displacement,

[2:09:37] pressures that it puts in other parts of our city when we

[2:09:40] choose to not welcome those homes near where we live. And

[2:09:45] so there's a push and pull where we're connected across

[2:09:47] the city in these decisions that we make. And everyone has

[2:09:49] a right to, you know, to advocate for what they feel is

[2:09:54] best for what they live. And we have to think about, you know,

[2:09:57] what is going to work for residents across the city and

[2:10:00] particularly, you know, concern for residents who face that

[2:10:02] pressure. In some of our more gentrifying neighborhoods,

[2:10:06] which is something the weigh against concerns about, you

[2:10:08] know, conversion of some of our more rural areas. And those are

[2:10:11] real concerns and trade offs. We have to weigh, you know,

[2:10:14] including a desire for all development to be along transit

[2:10:19] in the future. And, you know, every development to be next to

[2:10:22] a park. And that is the the dream that I would like to see

[2:10:26] us fulfill. I also think about the investment required in

[2:10:29] order to make that a reality. And the opportunity we have in

[2:10:31] these limited cases to look for benefits for the community. So

[2:10:36] thank you. Council Member Rist thank you,

[2:10:41] Mr. Mayor. I do have one question. Yeah, I appreciate

[2:10:43] the comments from my colleagues. Also for the

[2:10:46] testimony from residents. I had one question I am I'm actually,

[2:10:50] I think Council Member Kopac is now the official back member,

[2:10:54] but I'm an alternate still. So I want to ask you about the

[2:10:55] back comments, because there were a couple there that I

[2:10:57] think there wasn't a response to, at least in our packet. So

[2:11:00] there was a request from back about building a sidewalk

[2:11:03] network within the development. And again, I think my notes

[2:11:07] show that there was no response. I wonder if you

[2:11:09] consider that. So. I don't know if I didn't

[2:11:11] respond. My understanding is that the road design

[2:11:15] requirements do require sidewalk anyway, so you can't

[2:11:18] make the commitment because it's already required.

[2:11:20] So it's required that would and.

[2:11:22] That would. That's my understanding that that

[2:11:23] interior residue require sidewalks.

[2:11:27] Or staff. Just if you all could confirm that on the staff side.

[2:11:35] Correct. That would be required by ordinance.

[2:11:37] Okay. Thank you for that. Yeah. Okay. The second comment from

[2:11:40] back was about around the proposed signal locations,

[2:11:43] uplift intersections with curbing and wheelchair ramps to

[2:11:47] accommodate potential future multi the potential future of

[2:11:49] multi-use path. I'm. I'm sorry I'm not. Hold

[2:11:57] on. I have those back comments. Again that's at the proposed

[2:12:03] signal locations. Raise the intersection with curbing and

[2:12:07] wheelchair ramps. Sorry one second I know they're

[2:12:12] in. This.

[2:12:18] Okay. Which one are you referring to?

[2:12:24] I think it's the. Oh, at the intersections to

[2:12:27] better serve wheelchair users and ensure the shortest

[2:12:29] crossing distance by crosswalks.

[2:12:31] And that's kind of the potential future multi-use

[2:12:34] path, right? Yes. So the. Yeah, that's not

[2:12:51] one that I think we'd be comfortable making a commitment

[2:12:54] to. That's a there's a signalized intersection. That

[2:12:58] is I guess it's technically off site. I mean it's at the corner

[2:13:01] of Gearan Burton. So we don't I mean, the right of way. I don't

[2:13:08] know that there's sufficient right of way to accommodate

[2:13:10] this if there is. And I believe that's, generally speaking, how

[2:13:13] the design would be required to go is, is that you would have

[2:13:17] the sidewalk there with the with the curb. Yeah. With the

[2:13:20] ramp. That's how those intersections I believe they're

[2:13:23] designed. But whether it's going to be an MUP, I don't

[2:13:26] know that we can make that type of commitment just because if I

[2:13:30] remember correctly, the corner of the property, I'm sorry that

[2:13:33] that intersection is actually not part like we don't have the

[2:13:37] ability to expand right of way there by dedicating it

[2:13:39] ourselves, because we don't have the frontage.

[2:13:41] Right there. But if you if the right of way is available, if

[2:13:43] you can actually get access, that would something you would

[2:13:45] intend to do. I don't even know that intent

[2:13:47] is part of it, that that is what's required by design is to

[2:13:51] have those wheelchair ramps and the, you know, the little

[2:13:57] yellow, with the dots in them. Okay. Thank you. Then the last

[2:14:00] one was about the inclusion. Oh right. Of the of the multi-use

[2:14:05] path along the proposed length of the roadway. Improvements.

[2:14:08] Want to make sure that's I think there was some confusion

[2:14:12] about that. Whether those again the multi-use path would

[2:14:13] continue along the the roadway improvements and again.

[2:14:17] Well again that that so along our frontage we would do the

[2:14:21] the multi-use path. Right. That includes where the

[2:14:23] improvements are. Well yeah. But beyond that's

[2:14:25] what I'm saying. Like that's where the right of way is

[2:14:26] limited. We can't just we wouldn't be comfortable making

[2:14:31] a commitment to have offsite larger right of way than would

[2:14:35] be required to fit that ten foot wide multi-use path,

[2:14:38] because we just don't have control of that right of way.

[2:14:40] Like we can't dedicate the right of way for it, but where

[2:14:42] we can dedicate right of way. Yeah, we're doing it in the ten

[2:14:46] foot wide multi-use path. That is what we're doing.

[2:14:48] And then where you can't get where you can't commit to the

[2:14:50] right of way. What's the what's the plan there?

[2:14:55] Like where the road improvements are going? Yeah, I

[2:14:57] mean, it's I think it's going to be limited by whatever right

[2:15:02] of way. Is there. And that and what, generally speaking, with

[2:15:07] Ddot is going to allow it within that right of way. Which

[2:15:09] isn't to say they wouldn't allow it, but I don't know that

[2:15:10] we that it fits or it doesn't. We haven't designed.

[2:15:12] You can't. commit to that. But yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah.

[2:15:15] So I you know this is we say that all the time. These cases

[2:15:20] are all complicated right. There's no perfect case here. I

[2:15:23] think for me, given the I think we've we've had a lot of

[2:15:27] discussion here. You've been been generous with the

[2:15:31] aggressive proffer or the additional proffer on

[2:15:33] affordable housing. Additional funds for DPS, the roadway

[2:15:36] improvements, the profit for the hundred year storm building

[2:15:40] the the building, the greenway on site, as well as the

[2:15:46] restricted development in the wildlife corridor. So to me

[2:15:48] this is a you know, this is a a site that's largely mixed use

[2:15:51] residential by the plan we've developed and approved as a

[2:15:54] community. So this is within the urban growth boundary. I

[2:15:58] think you've done a lot to really sort of, sort of flexes

[2:16:02] to the the request of the council, I think by and large,

[2:16:05] and I think with the, with the Planning Commission

[2:16:07] recommendation 8 to 2 to approve this, I think this is a

[2:16:09] pretty good case. So on balance, I think this crosses

[2:16:11] my threshold and I will be supportive of this case. Thank

[2:16:14] you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Cook.

[2:16:19] Oh no. You went first right? Yeah. Mayor. President. All

[2:16:25] right. I. I've been on council for a few years now, and I

[2:16:32] still sort of still sort of get caught up in this, this 30 year

[2:16:36] affordable housing thing, you know, just if you buy it at an

[2:16:40] affordable rate and you have to sell it at an affordable rate,

[2:16:44] and I'm still, after all these years, years, still trying to

[2:16:47] find a balance of not keeping someone in from being able to

[2:16:53] grow their wealth, but also not allowing predatory purchasing

[2:16:57] where someone buys at it and flips it. Because obviously we

[2:17:02] have corporations that are buying housing and outbidding

[2:17:05] individuals. Have you all explored other more creative

[2:17:09] options where we can have for sale affordable options, but

[2:17:17] not, you know, chop them in for 30 years?

[2:17:22] Well. I will just say this from my

[2:17:25] client. They sell it one time, right? And so when they commit

[2:17:30] to affordable housing, they are essentially, like I said

[2:17:33] earlier, taking a haircut on that, on that unit, on that

[2:17:37] affordable unit, there's no governmental subsidy or

[2:17:40] anything like that. They're just discounting the price on

[2:17:43] the unit. What I mean, for them, my client, what it sells

[2:17:49] for by the person they sold it to, has no bearing on, you

[2:17:52] know, their business model. Right? They've already sold it

[2:17:55] one time. The 30 year commitment is what is standard

[2:18:02] and defined in the Udo, which is why we had that commitment

[2:18:05] there. So I can say like we did not explore other options

[2:18:08] because we were kind of taking the term affordable housing to

[2:18:12] mean exactly what it says in the Udo and seeing how much of

[2:18:15] that we could provide in this development. But, I mean, I

[2:18:17] understand what your point is, but, you know, I don't I don't

[2:18:22] know exactly what you have in mind, but if you were saying,

[2:18:25] could the restriction be five years instead of 30 years, I'm

[2:18:28] sure my client would be open to that, because actually it

[2:18:30] doesn't make a difference to them. Right? Because they're

[2:18:33] selling it the one time. Got it, got it. And I'm not

[2:18:36] prepared to make make let that be some determining factor

[2:18:41] tonight. It's just something I always battle with and. I hope

[2:18:47] that we can get creative, more creative. That's not

[2:18:50] necessarily specific to you all in this one case, but just in

[2:18:53] general. And that's more so than my colleagues. I hope that

[2:18:56] we can explore other options for folks to take advantage of.

[2:19:00] And and, you know, find a middle ground there. Also, I, I

[2:19:09] know I've been talking about this a bit lately. You know,

[2:19:11] when it comes to supporting our schools, I think about, you

[2:19:16] know, let's say it's $500, $500 per child and it's ten

[2:19:20] children. If it goes to the schools, it goes to a capital

[2:19:24] project, and it doesn't really have any impact. If it was to

[2:19:27] go to the public school foundation that has a much

[2:19:31] larger impact, and I will be meeting with them to see if

[2:19:34] that's something that the school system and the

[2:19:36] foundation could potentially explore. Just how we can have

[2:19:40] a. For the record, I'm a fan, but,

[2:19:43] you know, I'm just sticking to the.

[2:19:44] To the I'm trying to say how we can have a greater impact for

[2:19:48] our for our, our students. I agree and have more of a

[2:19:51] defined relationship between the city and the schools,

[2:19:54] considering they're not in our jurisdictional or fiscal

[2:19:58] portfolio, but okay. Thank you. Thank you. Comments. Yes.

[2:20:07] Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on a

[2:20:09] couple of those, Eby ones, specifically, the expansion of

[2:20:14] stream buffer widths where steep slopes or direct drainage

[2:20:18] to Panther Creek are present, with buffers measured from the

[2:20:20] top of the slopes rather than the stream bank.

[2:20:23] So the issue we can't even begin to say today what those

[2:20:28] areas are. We wouldn't be able to make the commitment. It

[2:20:32] requires some, some, some further engineering. And we

[2:20:36] don't have that level of engineering to be comfortable

[2:20:37] to make that kind of commitment.

[2:20:39] Okay. And then for the no grading or clearing in the

[2:20:43] floodplain, except for strictly necessary.

[2:20:47] I kind of think that's what our commitment already says. So the

[2:20:51] only thing that's allowed in the wildlife and floodplain

[2:20:54] corridors would be infrastructure. And that

[2:20:56] includes a greenway, specifically, the greenway is

[2:20:59] going to require grading in in those areas. And we've already

[2:21:05] I mean, we've adjusted our commitment to build the

[2:21:08] greenway, but it is infrastructure. I mean, I think

[2:21:11] they're kind of saying the same thing. Yes, they are worded

[2:21:13] differently, but I think they are practically getting at the

[2:21:17] same thing. We are not making impacts in the floodplain that

[2:21:20] are not infrastructure. Okay. Thank you. Those are my

[2:21:24] questions. I just want to make a quick comment, which is that

[2:21:27] I was really I'm really was really undecided on this case.

[2:21:30] I still feel pretty undecided, but I'm actually interesting. I

[2:21:35] think that Council Member Kopac asked a asked a question about

[2:21:40] how our infrastructure would be developed if it's not done by a

[2:21:44] private developer, and we hear a lot on this diamond from the

[2:21:47] applicant tonight about how improvements follow

[2:21:51] development, and we don't see the improvements until we see

[2:21:53] the people moving there, but we really don't see that. And the

[2:21:57] reason that we don't see that is because those improvements

[2:21:59] are really, really expensive. And we have a huge backlog

[2:22:03] citywide, but mostly statewide of infrastructure developments.

[2:22:07] And so if we're going to talk about, oh, this will follow

[2:22:10] when there's people that will follow and then simultaneously

[2:22:13] we're hearing, oh, we're not going to be able to make the

[2:22:16] improvements that are already needed without developer,

[2:22:18] without developer money, we're not going to be able to make

[2:22:21] the ones that are subsequently needed. And like the

[2:22:24] improvements that are coming, they are coming because they

[2:22:27] are beneficial to the project. And that is that is what it is.

[2:22:32] It's not solving all of the traffic issues and in fact is

[2:22:35] going to create more traffic issues. And we already know

[2:22:38] that we don't have capacity in the state budget or the city

[2:22:42] budget in this moment to infill that need. And that has kind of

[2:22:46] taken me over the line on this, because it's we've seen so much

[2:22:52] development in this area. We've seen so much cutting of trees

[2:22:55] and and we saw the heat map earlier. And I think that's

[2:22:58] something that I've talked about quite a lot and think is

[2:23:00] really important. This is a justice issue. It's it is a

[2:23:05] longevity issue. If we want to think about Durham surviving

[2:23:08] long term with increased environmental storms and

[2:23:12] impact, we have to think about what will happen after these

[2:23:15] developments come through. And it might look nice because

[2:23:17] there's something shiny being dangled in front of us right

[2:23:19] now, but if we can't sustain it moving forward, then what are

[2:23:22] we passing down? So it's going to be a no. Come to me tonight,

[2:23:25] but I appreciate the proffers and I think that we're getting

[2:23:28] closer, and I hope to see projects that are more

[2:23:32] sustainable moving forward. Mayor Pro Tem.

[2:23:37] Thank you. I wasn't going to say anything changed my mind.

[2:23:41] So I think that and I and I appreciate what council member

[2:23:44] just shared. I think part of it is actually about the

[2:23:46] infrastructure. What we often talk about is around transit

[2:23:49] and commercial, because we often hear from residents

[2:23:51] around, well, this is too much residential. We want

[2:23:53] commercial. No one's going to put commercial if there's not

[2:23:56] enough doors. That is actually an economic decision. And then

[2:24:00] transit. If you don't have ridership, you don't get

[2:24:03] transit. You're not. No one's going to run a bus down your

[2:24:05] street or anywhere close to you. If there's not enough

[2:24:07] people around you to get on a bus. So I think those are the

[2:24:10] two places on the infrastructure with traffic. I

[2:24:13] think it was a few weeks ago where there was supposed to be

[2:24:15] a traffic circle at latter, and Roxboro, and it was in the

[2:24:17] Stip, and it wasn't in the Stip. And I still have to

[2:24:19] follow up with staff to figure out what happened there,

[2:24:21] because I been on the TPO long enough, where I remember it was

[2:24:24] a funded project and then it wasn't. I will be voting for

[2:24:28] this project. I think that there are some deep and

[2:24:30] important commitments. I think that saving $2 million in

[2:24:33] traffic improvements, that we don't know when we'll get

[2:24:35] improved, especially in the state funding. And let's just

[2:24:38] be clear, the state of North Carolina has a scarcity

[2:24:40] mindset. But it's not because we don't have money. We don't

[2:24:43] have money because we don't tax our corporations at the level

[2:24:46] that we want. And that decision is not made on this dais. So

[2:24:51] for, for for folks who really want to see infrastructure

[2:24:54] being done well in North Carolina, your General Assembly

[2:24:56] is the place that you need to go. So I love that y'all are

[2:24:58] here. I hope you also go put some pressure. None on your

[2:25:01] delegation in Durham because they're trying to do the right

[2:25:03] thing. Pressure across the state. We have a ton of money

[2:25:07] in the state. We are an affluent state. At this point.

[2:25:09] It's just dislocated and underfunded and they're passing

[2:25:13] the buck on to you at the local level. And by default, US and

[2:25:17] county commissioners. So I actually appreciate and I had a

[2:25:23] question for staff in a second, but I think the the commitment

[2:25:27] around building the trail and that commitment, I understand

[2:25:30] what you're saying about infrastructure in that the

[2:25:32] reason you can't make the commitment, I'm clear on that.

[2:25:35] That is also saving us a lot of money as a city. It is. These

[2:25:41] are decisions around no cases, perfect. I appreciate

[2:25:45] colleagues asking for more. Every case does offer a little

[2:25:48] bit more. We got, you know, 5% to 8%. Is it ideal? No. None of

[2:25:53] these cases are often very ideal. You're always going to

[2:25:56] make trade offs. And that's why it's a case by case basis for

[2:26:00] the the master planning and all of that I, I get it. I think

[2:26:05] that we also have to be careful. Paris is master

[2:26:07] planned. There were still thousands of people who got

[2:26:11] their homes and businesses taken away from them, because

[2:26:13] the King decided that they wanted to make a what was a

[2:26:17] medieval city, a beautiful city now. But I bet you those people

[2:26:20] who had lived through that had an opinion when things got

[2:26:22] eminent domain and taken from them, essentially, and I'm sure

[2:26:25] they didn't get compensated in the same way you get

[2:26:27] compensated today when things get taken from you from your

[2:26:30] buyer by the government. But that's not how these cases

[2:26:35] work. We look. Or at least I look at the comp plan, which

[2:26:40] was widely done. Maybe folks in this room didn't participate.

[2:26:46] Maybe you did, but it was a multi year process. And at

[2:26:51] least how I make my decisions is around how close did this

[2:26:54] project get to our goals? Sometimes they hit all of them,

[2:26:57] sometimes they don't. Sometimes it's a mix and you just kind of

[2:27:00] have to make your decision based on that. And each one of

[2:27:02] us make a calculus in a different way, and that doesn't

[2:27:05] make somebody a better or less an environmentalist or not. I

[2:27:08] think every single person on this council has made deep

[2:27:10] commitments to environmental justice, to housing

[2:27:12] affordability, not just here. When we do rezoning, I will be

[2:27:15] supporting the case. I did have a question for staff about the

[2:27:18] steep slopes, because we got a presentation around that. I

[2:27:22] don't remember if it was at a work session or JCC, but we

[2:27:24] were going to do some adjustments to that, to to how

[2:27:27] we were doing that. And I just wanted to know. I thought we

[2:27:33] talked about it in the for the Udo. Maybe I'm totally wrong.

[2:27:37] I'm going to look to Director Yan for that answer.

[2:27:41] I thought it was at JCC where we were talking about how we

[2:27:44] were going to be approaching the steep slopes.

[2:27:46] Director young is going to look at you with a confused look on

[2:27:48] her face. Okay, I'm going to go.

[2:27:50] Yeah, let's follow up. Okay. I thought.

[2:27:53] We. Were talking about how we were

[2:27:54] going to approach it in a in a different way, moving forward.

[2:27:58] It may have been so in the LDC, we did slightly change the

[2:28:03] requirements for steep slopes. That may have been what you.

[2:28:06] Were thinking. Yeah. And it was in a way that was better

[2:28:08] environmentally to what we're doing right now. Yes. Okay. So

[2:28:11] for those folks who do show up, residents who show up because

[2:28:14] this is an issue that that gets brought up in cases, often that

[2:28:19] is coming, that has been addressed with the new LDC. And

[2:28:21] I just want to name that as another place that we're trying

[2:28:24] to to improve our our environmental policies with the

[2:28:27] adoption of the new land use code. Thank you.

[2:28:35] Thank you. We are well, thank you, Councilmember, our mayor

[2:28:42] pro tem, for for stating this chicken egg situation. I

[2:28:47] usually just, you know, I sometimes I state those

[2:28:51] realities and and I stake my vote and sometimes I don't I

[2:28:55] just vote, but for the sake of the really nice messages that

[2:28:59] I've got in my email, I have, I am for voting for development,

[2:29:03] refer to those comments and and please take the energy to the

[2:29:07] state and I will join you because they are putting us in

[2:29:10] an impossible situation. If you think it's bad right now, wait

[2:29:13] until they come for our property tax and we won't have

[2:29:16] anything to do any services. So your city Council members are

[2:29:21] not your enemies. I promise. All right, colleagues, my goal

[2:29:26] is to take a break at nine. That was 29 minutes ago. And we

[2:29:31] have two other cases that are probably going to be about an

[2:29:33] hour and a half to two each. So. I am going to. It's too late to

[2:29:45] call out sick. All right. So those are the comments I have.

[2:29:49] I'll go ahead and call for the question.

[2:29:53] Yeah okay. I did close. Oh no I didn't

[2:29:57] actually I declare the public hearing closed and back before

[2:29:59] the council, I thought I did that though.

[2:30:03] I don't. Think so because. Yeah, I don't

[2:30:06] think it's okay. All right. Well, it's closed

[2:30:08] now. And all of the comments and questions were in the

[2:30:12] public hearing. So I'll entertain a motion to conduct a

[2:30:16] public hearing to receive comments and consider the

[2:30:18] following motions. Motion one to adopt an ordinance annexing

[2:30:22] Bella Ridge into the city of Durham and to authorize the

[2:30:25] city manager to enter, to enter into a utility extension

[2:30:28] agreement with Starlight Homes North Carolina, LLC.

[2:30:32] So moved. Second.

[2:30:34] It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam clerk, please

[2:30:35] open the vote. Please close to vote.

[2:30:45] The motion passes 4 to 3 with council members Baker, Burris

[2:30:50] and Cook voting no. Thank you. I'll also entertain

[2:30:53] a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the Unified

[2:30:55] Development Ordinance by taking property out of residents,

[2:30:58] residential. Rural, commercial, neighborhood, and residential

[2:31:01] suburban falls Jordan District B Watershed Protection overlay

[2:31:04] major transportation corridor I-85 overlay county

[2:31:08] jurisdiction and establishing the same as planned

[2:31:10] development. Residential 3.975 Falls Jordan District B

[2:31:14] watershed Protection Overlay. Major transportation corridor

[2:31:18] I-85 overlay city jurisdiction. So moved.

[2:31:21] Second removed and properly second. Madam clerk, please

[2:31:23] open to vote. Please close to vote.

[2:31:33] The motion passes 4 to 3 with Council Member Baker, Burris

[2:31:37] and Cook voting no. Thank you. And I'll finally

[2:31:40] entertain a motion to adopt a consistency statement as

[2:31:42] required by North Carolina General Statutes section 160

[2:31:45] D-605. So moved.

[2:31:49] Second by moving properly. Seconded. Madam clerk, please

[2:31:51] open the vote. Please close the vote.

[2:31:58] Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much, colleagues.

[2:32:01] We will recess for ten minutes and we'll get back to it.

[2:32:33] It's. I haven't seen it. Sorry. That

[2:32:53] was. Yeah, I will. I. Did so. I was gonna say hi that he's

[2:42:30] he's. Banging the.

[2:42:31] He's banging the. Gavel.

[2:42:40] Alright, let's get started. Colleagues. Excuse me.

[2:43:12] Colleagues, at this time I will be moving item number 24 to net

[2:43:15] to be next on the agenda. And we are ready for the staff

[2:43:25] report. Item number 24. Switching up the order on us.

[2:43:51] I had to figure out which 124 was. Mayor Williams, mayor Pro

[2:44:03] Tem Caballero and honorable council members. I'm Aaron King

[2:44:06] with the Planning and Development Department. Item 24

[2:44:10] is the 25 000 30 a slash BDG 25 000 1994 15 NC 751 highway a

[2:44:21] request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation

[2:44:25] and initial zoning map change has been received from Jared

[2:44:28] Rossi of Thomas and Hutton for one parcel of land totaling

[2:44:32] 3.885 acres and located at 94, 15 and C7 51 highway. This

[2:44:40] annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the

[2:44:43] primary corporate limits to connect to city water and sewer.

[2:44:49] As part of this annexation petition, the applicant. The

[2:44:51] applicant is not seeking a change in the underlying zoning

[2:44:54] district of residential, rural. The properties are currently

[2:44:58] designated mixed use neighborhood on the place type

[2:45:00] map. The proposed residential rural zoning is generally

[2:45:04] consistent with the designated place type. Staff and the

[2:45:07] applicant are available to answer questions.

[2:45:11] Thank you. You've heard the staff report. There are any

[2:45:13] questions. All right. At this time, I'll declare the public

[2:45:18] hearing open. And are we are ready for the applicant. How

[2:45:31] much time do you think you need?

[2:45:34] 45 minutes. I'm sorry.

[2:45:36] No, we'll take we'll take two minutes. Okay. I got two

[2:45:40] minutes. Hopefully I can. Order.

[2:45:48] Jeremy Anderson, Thomas Hutton, mayor Williams, pro Tem

[2:45:51] Caballero and councilman. Thank you this evening for taking the

[2:45:56] time. I'll keep this short to try to save some time. As Aaron

[2:46:00] Cook mentioned, this is a transitional zoning to rural

[2:46:04] residential. Just requesting a annexation into the city to

[2:46:08] access water and sewer for this 2.3 acre parcel at the corner

[2:46:13] of Fayetteville. And 751 if you're familiar with the map in

[2:46:16] the report there, it's really kind of filling in the one last

[2:46:19] piece on the west side of 751 there. There is city zoning,

[2:46:24] city annexation, zoning to the north. And on the opposite side

[2:46:26] of 751. So with that hope, you'll honor the recommendation

[2:46:32] of the Planning Commission, who voted ten zero for this. And

[2:46:35] I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

[2:46:39] Thank you. For.

[2:46:51] All right. I don't have any sign ups for this one.

[2:46:56] Therefore, I declare the public hearing closed and back before

[2:46:59] the council. Colleagues, any questions? Comments? All right.

[2:47:07] So I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing

[2:47:10] 9415 North Carolina, 751 highway. 751 into the city of

[2:47:16] Durham, and to authorize the city manager to enter into a

[2:47:18] utility extension agreement with 751 investments, LLC.

[2:47:22] So moved. Second. Been moved to properly

[2:47:24] seconded. Madam clerk, please open the vote. Please post a

[2:47:33] vote. Motion passes seven zero.

[2:47:37] Thank you. And I'll also entertain a motion to adopt an

[2:47:40] ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance by taking

[2:47:43] property out of residential rural falls. Jordan Watershed

[2:47:46] Overlay District. Be county jurisdiction and establishing

[2:47:48] the same as residential rural falls Jordan Watershed Overlay

[2:47:52] district B overlay city jurisdiction. Second and moving

[2:47:57] properly. Seconded. Madam clerk, please open the vote.

[2:48:02] Please close the vote. Motion passes seven zero.

[2:48:06] And lastly, I'll entertain a motion to adopt a consistency

[2:48:09] statement as required by North Carolina General Statutes

[2:48:12] section 162. Moved.

[2:48:13] Dash second oh five. It's been moved and properly seconded.

[2:48:19] Please open the vote and please close the vote.

[2:48:24] Motion passes seven zero. Awesome. Back up to item number

[2:48:29] 22, which I know will be just as quick. All right, ready for

[2:48:37] the staff report? I will say I will reduce comments to two

[2:48:40] minutes on this one and 23 as well. It's not because I don't

[2:48:45] love you as much, it's just that it's a lot of sign up. All

[2:48:52] right. Mayor. Williams, Mayor Pro Tem

[2:48:55] Caballero, Council members, this case is the 25 00011 BDG,

[2:49:02] 25 00007 Patterson Hall a request for a utility extension

[2:49:08] agreement, voluntary annexation and initial zoning map change

[2:49:12] has been received from Tim Sivers of Community for four

[2:49:16] parcels of land totaling 39.849 acres and so right of way

[2:49:22] located at 309 353, 401, 402 and 505 Patterson Road. This

[2:49:29] annexation petition is not contiguous to the primary

[2:49:32] corporate limits. However, it is contiguous to a satellite

[2:49:35] portion of the city. The current zoning is residential,

[2:49:39] rural and residential suburban ten. The applicant proposes to

[2:49:43] change the designation of one parcel read 166353, and the

[2:49:47] portions of three parcels with reads 166352166250 and 166349.

[2:49:56] Located west of Patterson Road to plan development residential

[2:50:00] 44.703 to allow up to 180. Townhouse attached single

[2:50:05] family and detached single family units with up to 3000ft

[2:50:10] of non-residential uses, excluding gasoline sales and

[2:50:14] drive through facilities. The remaining portions of these

[2:50:18] parcels on the east side of Patterson Road, will be

[2:50:20] translated into the city of Durham as a residential, rural

[2:50:24] and residential suburban ten as direct translations. The

[2:50:28] properties are currently designated misuse. Mixed use

[2:50:31] neighborhood on the place type map. The proposed PDR 4.703

[2:50:36] zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type.

[2:50:39] Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any

[2:50:42] questions. Thank you. Are there any

[2:50:45] questions or comments with staff?

[2:50:48] Mr.. I've got one question. Yep. Mr.. Cain on the this is

[2:50:53] in the zoning map change report under the commitments in excess

[2:50:59] of the Udo in the. This is page three of the very bottom of

[2:51:04] page three. It says I just want to clarify that the the

[2:51:07] document, it says at least 2%. But then in parentheses it's

[2:51:10] got 20% of the required open space shall contain

[2:51:14] environmentally sensitive areas, including all or a

[2:51:16] portion of the stream buffer. So is that is that 2 or 20?

[2:51:18] I believe that's supposed to be a 20. Yes. Yes, that's supposed

[2:51:23] to. Be 20.

[2:51:23] Okay. My apologies to the air. Thank you. That's it.

[2:51:31] All right. We'll let the let the record reflect that. All

[2:51:35] right. Declare the public hearing open. And how much time

[2:51:40] do you think you need? If we could have 12 minutes,

[2:51:43] please. 15 minutes. Please.

[2:51:54] Good evening, Mayor Williams. Mayor Pro Tem Caballero.

[2:51:58] Members of council. My name is Marie Farmer with Parker Poe,

[2:52:01] 301 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh. Here, on behalf of the

[2:52:04] applicant and my homes, I am joined tonight by the project's

[2:52:09] landscape architect, Tim Sivers with community. The projects,

[2:52:12] transportation planner, John Schick with the RMP and

[2:52:15] representatives of MI homes, including Juan Montez, director

[2:52:20] of Land Entitlements. The team is proud to present this

[2:52:24] moderately sized mixed use project tonight, with numerous

[2:52:27] commitments to address the project's impact, including a

[2:52:30] first of its kind voluntary transportation improvement

[2:52:34] that, in addition to the affordable proffer and donation

[2:52:37] to Durham Public Schools, will provide a total community

[2:52:40] investment of $1 million. MI has been developing in this

[2:52:46] area for 25 years, with communities throughout the

[2:52:49] triangle. We wanted to illustrate a few examples of

[2:52:53] homes and amenities that MI has delivered locally to show the

[2:52:57] type of quality to expect from this developer. Am. I also has

[2:53:01] experience building communities here in Durham with several

[2:53:04] subdivisions currently under construction, including one

[2:53:07] that is providing a five acre public park with multiple play

[2:53:11] structures and a pavilion with public restrooms. The project

[2:53:16] we are discussing tonight, and the request is to rezone four

[2:53:20] parcels adjacent to city limits within the urban growth

[2:53:23] boundary along Patterson Road, just north of the Patterson and

[2:53:28] Wake Forest Highway intersection. The total a

[2:53:30] little under 40 acres. The property is surrounded by city

[2:53:35] limits, and the proposal is consistent with policy 165 of

[2:53:39] the Comprehensive Plan because it will expand those limits and

[2:53:44] reduce the existing donut hole. Despite the site being located

[2:53:48] at the bottom of the Patterson Road future growth area, the

[2:53:51] proposal does further the Comprehensive Plan policy

[2:53:55] objective 122 because it will upgrade sewer capacity with a

[2:54:00] public lift station that will connect to the existing gravity

[2:54:04] sewer in Stallings Road, and there will be stubs provided to

[2:54:09] the adjacent parcels. The current zoning on the site is

[2:54:15] residential, rural and residential suburban ten, and

[2:54:18] we are requesting PDR with the development plan to allow for a

[2:54:22] mixed residential development with a neighborhood scale

[2:54:25] commercial use consistent with the play site. The property is

[2:54:30] designated mixed use neighborhood by the Place Type

[2:54:33] map, and our proposal meets this designation because we are

[2:54:37] proposing a mix of uses and housing types at a moderate

[2:54:40] density with integrated open space that will capture the

[2:54:44] environmentally sensitive features on site. Again, this

[2:54:50] request is offering a number of key tax commitments. We have

[2:54:54] committed to a minimum of two housing types. 10% of the units

[2:54:58] featuring a first floor primary bedroom and full bath. We for

[2:55:03] the non-residential use tonight we are adding a minimum size

[2:55:08] for the non-residential building of 1000ft . We have

[2:55:13] committed to income restricted units or donation to the

[2:55:16] dedicated housing fund. And tonight we would also like to

[2:55:19] increase that amount to $285,000. We have committed to

[2:55:24] EV charging stations, a green building program, maximum 50%

[2:55:29] impervious surface, a maximum of two stream crossings, native

[2:55:34] trees, 20% of required open space containing

[2:55:38] environmentally sensitive features, and 22% tree coverage.

[2:55:43] At Planning Commission, we also increased our contribution to

[2:55:46] Durham Public Schools to $15,000, which comes out to

[2:55:51] more than $1,500 per student. That would be generated by this

[2:55:56] new zoning. We have added a commitment for the 100 year

[2:56:00] storm, and we added a commitment for a third row of

[2:56:03] cell fence adjacent to the stream. After Planning

[2:56:06] commission. In response to feedback we received, including

[2:56:10] feedback that we heard from Preserve Rural Durham, we added

[2:56:13] a commitment to address the 100 year storm for the erosion

[2:56:17] control sediment basins, so that we are addressing the 100

[2:56:20] year storm for both pre and post construction. While we

[2:56:26] submitted this application as a textural development plan at

[2:56:30] Planning Commission, we did provide this visual that you

[2:56:33] see her on screen to preview the concept plan. And while

[2:56:37] this does not represent graphic commitments of the zoning, our

[2:56:41] goal was to provide clarity as to where the project's access

[2:56:44] points, boundary stream buffers, and integrated open

[2:56:47] space would be located. So you can see here the two access

[2:56:51] points off of Patterson Road, a minimum 30 foot undisturbed

[2:56:56] project boundary buffer. In dark green, you can see the 100

[2:57:00] foot stream buffer in dark blue. The integrated

[2:57:03] recreational open space and orange, the existing sewer

[2:57:07] easement in light green, and then the plan location for the

[2:57:10] commercial out parcel is highlighted by the white Star

[2:57:15] Sense Planning Commission to provide an extra layer of

[2:57:18] certainty. Am I decided to take the financial risk and submit

[2:57:23] the site plan for this project in advance of tonight's

[2:57:26] hearing, so that there is no doubt as to what the plan is

[2:57:29] for this site. As you can see, the site plan matches the

[2:57:32] concept that was previewed at Planning Commission, providing

[2:57:36] a mix of housing types. Only one stream crossing, integrated

[2:57:39] open space and the commercial out parcel at the second access

[2:57:43] point. And this plan shows 150 homes. To address our

[2:57:50] consistency with policy, 50 of the Comprehensive Plan. Because

[2:57:53] the site is not located within half a mile of a public park,

[2:57:57] we did want to also illustrate that this project is less than

[2:58:00] 700ft from the Oak Grove Associates athletic fields.

[2:58:06] Overall, this request is consistent with 23 out of 26

[2:58:10] applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. By meeting

[2:58:13] Udo standards with 11 policies and exceeding those standards

[2:58:17] of consistency with 12. In addition to the multiple

[2:58:22] changes to the project that we made at and after Planning

[2:58:25] Commission, we also voluntarily study the project's impact to

[2:58:29] the Wake Forest Highway. And Sharon Patterson Road

[2:58:32] intersection. Because traffic has been the biggest concern

[2:58:37] that we have heard from the community for this case. Now,

[2:58:41] despite the anticipated impact of this project being less than

[2:58:45] 5%, our team explored several options to improve traffic flow

[2:58:49] at the intersection. We worked with city staff and Ddot, and

[2:58:54] we are proud to have added a commitment for voluntary

[2:58:57] improvement that city Transportation and D.O.T. agree

[2:59:01] will be the most impactful to traffic flow. Out of the

[2:59:04] options that we evaluated. So, before concluding our

[2:59:08] presentation, I would like to invite Tim Sivers to come up

[2:59:11] and briefly explain what this improvement is, and then Juan

[2:59:16] Montez with MI homes would like to come up and say a few words

[2:59:18] about this request. And the reason am I is grateful to have

[2:59:21] the opportunity to make an investment here in Durham.

[2:59:25] Thank you. Thank you. Tim Sivers with

[2:59:32] community 16 Consultant Place here in Durham. You can see on

[2:59:36] the screen are two options. We did. As mentioned, we did

[2:59:40] spend. time reviewing. The multiple.

[2:59:42] Ideas and narrowed this down to these two options. We met with

[2:59:46] city Transportation and Ddot about both of these. Option one

[2:59:54] what approximately double the length of the eastbound right

[2:59:57] turn lane would allow would allow more vehicles through

[3:00:01] this intersection. It didn't quite have the impact that we

[3:00:04] were looking for. So tonight and in the and working with

[3:00:09] staff, we have already committed to option two. And

[3:00:14] after meeting with Transportation and City of,

[3:00:17] they both agreed that this option provides, which would

[3:00:20] provide second lane through this intersection is more

[3:00:23] effective and impactful solution. So starting on the

[3:00:26] left side of your screen, the eastbound right turn lane,

[3:00:29] which is in front of Walgreens, will become a shared through

[3:00:33] and right turn lane. The three lane will be extended from the

[3:00:36] intersection approximately 100 1100 feet to the east. The

[3:00:41] three lane will also be a right turn lane into the shopping

[3:00:44] center of Raven Stone, as well as Arbor Edge Lane. This

[3:00:49] improvement will increase the flow of traffic through this

[3:00:51] intersection, headed east towards Wake Forest. By

[3:00:54] doubling the number of through lanes at the intersection. So

[3:00:58] we have heard the concerns of the neighbors and understand

[3:01:01] the concerns with this specific intersection, and have provided

[3:01:04] this voluntary improvement here this evening. And I would like

[3:01:06] to hand it off to Juan Montes with MI homes.

[3:01:17] Good evening. Mayor Williams and members of the Durham City

[3:01:20] Council. My name is Juan Montes and I'm with MI homes, the

[3:01:24] developer for both this case and the Morgan Farm case, which

[3:01:26] you will hear momentarily. I want to take a moment and let

[3:01:30] you hear directly from him. I our intentions with the

[3:01:32] Patterson Project as a Durham resident myself that lives off

[3:01:36] of Sharon Road, just a few seconds from the Sharon

[3:01:38] Patterson Wake Forest Highway intersection, I deal with

[3:01:41] congestion here every day and definitely share the public's

[3:01:45] main concern. While it does bring me frustration to sit in

[3:01:49] traffic, it also fuels me with motivation. As a land developer

[3:01:52] and as a homebuilder. Do what I can do to improve the community

[3:01:55] I live in, as well as the communities we in our homes

[3:01:58] invest in. This is why we work closely with Durham and NCDOT

[3:02:01] to voluntarily commit to improve the intersection at its

[3:02:04] most congested point. We were not held to have a tire on this

[3:02:10] project, meaning this this level of study is quite

[3:02:13] unprecedented. Despite Patterson's proposed traffic

[3:02:17] impacts being less than 5% and not required to perform a Tia

[3:02:22] in my homes is willing to contribute a $700,000

[3:02:26] improvement to this intersection. I'm also very

[3:02:29] aware of Durham's urgency to supply affordable housing to

[3:02:32] its fast growing population. I work every day. We work every

[3:02:37] day to find solutions, innovative techniques and

[3:02:39] strategies to help our younger generations purchase their

[3:02:41] first homes and our older generations to purchase their

[3:02:44] retirement homes. We're proposing a commitment of

[3:02:47] $285,000 to the dedicated housing fund, or 5% of the

[3:02:52] units, at 80% Ami, as is Durham Standard, a $285,000

[3:02:58] contribution is approximately $1,900 per unit that can be

[3:03:01] invested into affordable housing projects, down payment

[3:03:03] assistance, and other mechanisms that the city has

[3:03:06] available to face the housing crisis. We believe this

[3:03:09] contribution will strengthen the city's ability to pivot

[3:03:12] whenever market market conditions shift, which they

[3:03:15] inevitably will. In addition to the transportation improvements

[3:03:18] and affordable housing contributions, we are

[3:03:20] contributing $15,000 to the Durham Public Schools, which is

[3:03:23] about three times the standard to get us to a total of $1

[3:03:26] million of voluntary investment to this great community in my

[3:03:29] homes, is no stranger to Durham and will be around for the

[3:03:31] foreseeable future, as we've already broken ground on large

[3:03:34] projects that also invest heavily into the community. As

[3:03:37] you've seen with our past and ongoing projects, the project,

[3:03:40] The Patterson Project, and I hope you will see the Morgan

[3:03:44] Farm Project. We've left no stone unturned in our mission

[3:03:48] to be the best partner and investor of Durham and its

[3:03:50] residents that we can be. I thank you for your time

[3:03:52] tonight, and I hope you support the cases as presented in front

[3:03:56] of you tonight. I just like to say thank you.

[3:04:05] And the applicant team is available to answer any

[3:04:07] questions. Thank you. We have quite a few

[3:04:14] speakers here for this one. We'll start online. First

[3:04:19] speaker I have is Mary Molina. Miss Molina, can you hear me?

[3:04:31] I'm here. Can you hear me?

[3:04:35] Oh, there you go. Welcome. You have two minutes.

[3:04:38] Okay. Thank you. My name is Mary Molina. My

[3:04:41] address is on file. This Paterson Hall proposal

[3:04:46] represents exactly the kind of reckless leapfrog development

[3:04:50] that our comprehensive plan was designed to stop Councilmember

[3:04:54] Monroe, when you ran for your at large seat, you campaigned

[3:04:58] on a platform of widely shared prosperity and a healthier

[3:05:02] environment. This project contradicts those very

[3:05:05] promises. It ignores our urban growth boundary. It

[3:05:10] overburdened our failing fire services, and it threatens the

[3:05:14] Falls Lake watershed. Ground zero of our city's drinking

[3:05:18] water. As we look ahead to the 2027 election cycle, we're

[3:05:23] watching to see if our representatives will prioritize

[3:05:26] the safety of our rural corridors over the profits of

[3:05:30] developers, Council Member Ben Reese we haven't forgotten the

[3:05:34] principles you said you stood for to get here. We need you to

[3:05:38] help. We need you to vote, to hold the line, to protect our

[3:05:42] water and protect our safety. Don't let more sprawl dictate

[3:05:46] Durham's future. Vote no on Paterson Hall. Thank you.

[3:05:53] Next, I have George Geraldine Lawson.

[3:06:08] I'm here. Welcome. You have two two

[3:06:11] minutes. Thank you. And thank you all

[3:06:13] for your thoughtful consideration. We've been

[3:06:16] listening all evening to you as you go over these proposals. We

[3:06:20] are a long time 50 year residents on Paterson Road, and

[3:06:25] we are very concerned about progress. The desires of the

[3:06:29] developers preceding the repairs that have been needed

[3:06:32] for years to the intersection and to the infrastructure in

[3:06:36] this section of Durham. I it sounds like there's a there's

[3:06:40] an idea that we should rely on the developers, perhaps for

[3:06:43] improvements, but we feel like this should be done in

[3:06:46] coordination with city and county governments before we

[3:06:49] allow a lot of explosive development. So much is

[3:06:53] happening in our area. We're so close to highway 98. I

[3:06:56] appreciate the proposal and thought that's gone into the

[3:06:59] road improvements, but there are more intersections than

[3:07:02] just 98 and Sharon Road and Paterson. There's also

[3:07:05] Stallings Road coming right in. I'm not sure all the feeder

[3:07:07] roads are considered in that plan. And it's it's it's very

[3:07:11] worrisome to us for safety. And we're we're 30 year. My husband

[3:07:16] and I are 30 year retired educators in the Durham public

[3:07:20] schools. And we value quality. We value we value change, we

[3:07:25] value improvements. But they need to be aligned. They need

[3:07:28] to be aligned in the right order.

[3:07:33] Thank you. Ray Larson stepping in. We've lived here for like

[3:07:38] 55 years and it's a wonderful community with tremendous

[3:07:43] traditions of rural farming and and and nature and and this,

[3:07:52] this, this intrusion is, is going to ruin a long tradition

[3:07:56] of things that we've had there that mean a lot to us. And I

[3:07:59] hope you consider that before you, you develop unnecessarily

[3:08:04] when we have plenty of growth in other areas.

[3:08:08] Thank you very much, and we appreciate your thoughtful

[3:08:11] consideration of this. This part of Durham, which is not

[3:08:13] only special to us. But.

[3:08:15] So special. Thank you. Next, I have Rebecca

[3:08:19] Freeman. Hello, I'm.

[3:08:31] Rebecca Freeman. Welcome. You have two minutes.

[3:08:34] Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mayor and council

[3:08:38] members, I appreciate being able to speak on this tonight.

[3:08:41] I wanted it just to focus on policy. 116 on 71 and 116. This

[3:08:45] focuses around the 15 minute community and access to

[3:08:48] shopping areas. I think that the upgrades that that the is

[3:08:52] committed now to Parson Road is is really a step forward. But

[3:08:57] however it does nothing to protect pedestrians and to move

[3:09:01] traffic along like needs to be done to get through that

[3:09:04] intersection. There are pedestrian crosswalk upgrade

[3:09:09] with a pedestrian signal at the intersection would be vital to

[3:09:15] making safety safer for pedestrians, as well as

[3:09:18] improving the sidewalk on the opposite side of the on the

[3:09:23] north side. I think towards highway 70. That we would be

[3:09:29] required to have for people to safely navigate that whole

[3:09:32] area. There probably is to cross into 98, and that's a

[3:09:36] busy, busy thoroughfare carrying people from past on

[3:09:41] the other side of Falls Lake and Wake Forest area all the

[3:09:43] way into Durham. There are no other good ways to get on the

[3:09:46] other side of Falls Lake. NC 98 is a major thoroughfare. Lots

[3:09:49] of traffic there all day long and especially in the morning

[3:09:52] in the evening. And it's just a very difficult intersection to

[3:09:57] navigate safely. There are lots of accidents there, and

[3:10:01] pedestrians would be extremely in putting their lives at

[3:10:04] danger and walking through that, trying to access the

[3:10:07] shopping area, the pedestrian area as well. So I appreciate

[3:10:11] that there's a step forward, but it's not enough to make

[3:10:14] sure that the people in this area can have navigate to the

[3:10:18] 15 minute community style that the city wants us to get

[3:10:22] toward, and it has to be more than just the want to do it.

[3:10:26] It's got to make sure that pedestrians and traffic traffic

[3:10:30] is safe. Pedestrians are safe is as well. Thank you very

[3:10:33] much. Thank you so much. Next. Thomas

[3:10:37] Freeman. Pass the phone over. There we go. Yes. Do you have

[3:10:51] two minutes? All right.

[3:10:53] I hope you can hear me. I was signed up to speak with in a

[3:10:58] previous hearing, but was not given the opportunity to speak.

[3:11:03] I wish you got needed. You need to look into that, Mr. Mayor. I

[3:11:06] hold you personally responsible for that.

[3:11:09] Yes, sir. I had to to blasting or I'm

[3:11:15] looking for a request for a commitment to no blasting,

[3:11:19] blasting creeks, lots of problems. And I guarantee you,

[3:11:22] if you ask the the proponent if there will be blasting, they

[3:11:26] will not be able to answer you. I suggest they look around at

[3:11:32] their dozens of projects that have been built. Look at the

[3:11:35] USGS Topo Soils maps and they will know that yes, blasting is

[3:11:41] a requirement to get to the to a mass graded high density site.

[3:11:48] Blasting has caused well damages. We are currently in a

[3:11:51] USGS, D3 Extreme Drought condition. There's 270,000

[3:11:57] people in Durham County that's subject to this drought.

[3:12:02] Because we're on well water, we don't have the luxury to turn

[3:12:07] on the spigot and have the City of Water, City of Durham's

[3:12:11] water, come through our pipes. They're actually I'm tired of

[3:12:14] being held hostage to that. I'd also like to talk about the

[3:12:20] commitment to undisturbed buffers, undisturbed buffers

[3:12:25] are a requirement. Any otherwise. Clark. Other uses

[3:12:33] may be may occur within that buffer. And let it is unless it

[3:12:38] is designated as undisturbed. That's all I have this evening.

[3:12:43] Good night. Good night. Thank you. Next I

[3:12:47] have Chaz Clayton. Welcome. Yeah. You have two minutes.

[3:12:59] Welcome. All right. Thank you sir. Yes,

[3:13:01] again. My name is Chaz Clayton. My address should be on file. I

[3:13:05] am a farmer in this location, and I have a lot of concerns

[3:13:09] regarding this. We have a we have bad traffic issues. As it

[3:13:14] is, the roads are not maintained as enough. You have

[3:13:18] the intersection of 98 and it is always backed up past this

[3:13:22] location where they're talking about the development. Friday

[3:13:25] afternoon. Anybody's more than welcome to go get in that

[3:13:27] traffic with me traveling with equipment every day. I have

[3:13:32] people continuously try to run me off the road, flick me off

[3:13:36] the settlement in this area for farmers is bad enough. It's

[3:13:40] going to cause it to be worse. And we put thousands of dollars

[3:13:45] in it every year just trying to make ends meet. I have kids, I

[3:13:49] have a wife, I have a family. So when you lay your head down

[3:13:52] at night or you pick up your Ford, eat some food, please

[3:13:55] think of the farmer that helps put that on your plate and how

[3:13:57] I'm having to try to make ends meet and survive. Thank you.

[3:14:02] Thank you so much. Kate Ham. I'm. I'm sorry. That's item

[3:14:13] number 23. All right. We're in person. At this point. All

[3:14:20] right, management is what I call up a few names and five at

[3:14:28] a time. If you can queue to my right, your left. Mike Rowe,

[3:14:31] Cocoa row. Andy Lowe. Donna, stand back. And Gary McLean.

[3:15:01] Welcome. You have two minutes. Thank you. I appreciate the

[3:15:04] opportunity to speak here tonight. My name is Mike Rowe.

[3:15:07] I live at 5602 Dude Ranch Road. I'm a. resident close to the

[3:15:12] area of this development. I'm not going to take a lot of

[3:15:14] time. I just want to primarily support, voice my support for

[3:15:18] the comments that have already been made in this matter, and

[3:15:22] also just wanted to emphasize again, that the Planning

[3:15:25] Commission did review this project and did unanimously

[3:15:28] vote not to approve. And I hope that the Council will take that

[3:15:31] into consideration when making your decision tonight. Thank

[3:15:34] you. Thank you. Welcome. You have

[3:15:38] two minutes. Thank you. Hi. My name is Coco

[3:15:42] Rowe and I'm 15 and I live on 5602 Dude Ranch Road, just up

[3:15:46] the road from the project. And I have some concerns I'd like

[3:15:48] to voice. Destroying this force will be detrimental. It will

[3:15:51] take away habitat from the wildlife and pollute falls like

[3:15:54] I've lived here my entire life. I grew up playing in these

[3:15:57] woods. This isn't just land. It's a home. A home for the

[3:16:00] animals, a home to me. I do not want to grow up in a place

[3:16:03] where nature is scarce, where it has become an afterthought.

[3:16:06] Please do not take this away from me and from everyone who

[3:16:09] will come after me. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. You have

[3:16:14] two minutes. Hello. Mayor Williams, mayor

[3:16:19] Pro Tem Caballero, rest of the city council. Good evening. I'm

[3:16:21] here tonight to actually speak in favor of this project. I've

[3:16:25] been following City council for a few months now. And keep a

[3:16:28] close eye on what comes through here. Gets approved, etc..

[3:16:31] Thank you. And this is a pretty significant amount of

[3:16:35] properties. I've actually been stuck at that intersection

[3:16:37] before. I don't live in this part of Durham. I live near

[3:16:38] downtown, but I've driven my way out there to go. There's

[3:16:42] various things out there to go and see, and I've been stuck in

[3:16:44] front of that Walgreens. So if this does get approved, I will

[3:16:47] look forward to that intersection being a little

[3:16:49] better. So I appreciate that from the developer. And

[3:16:51] furthermore, this level of proffers is something that this

[3:16:54] council and commentators, even tonight and other meetings,

[3:16:57] have talked at length about wanting to see. I mean, this is

[3:17:00] a significant infrastructure improvement being done by a

[3:17:03] developer right now before the this is this should be the

[3:17:06] state, right? We can all agree this should be the state doing

[3:17:08] this, but it's not. It's going to be in my homes if we approve

[3:17:11] this here tonight. And approving homes that are

[3:17:15] basically suburban area. This is not that rule of an area

[3:17:17] anymore. This area is grown. Durham is growing, Raleigh is

[3:17:20] growing. They're growing together here at 98 and

[3:17:22] southeast Durham. So I do hope you all approve this here

[3:17:25] tonight. I would love to get past that Walgreens a little

[3:17:28] quicker. As to just about everybody who lives over there

[3:17:30] or drives through really commutes to that area, which is

[3:17:33] a source of a lot of the traffic. So thank you.

[3:17:38] Gary. Good evening. My name. Good

[3:17:42] evening, Mayor Williams. And also city council. My name is

[3:17:46] Gary McLean. My address is on file. I've been here numerous

[3:17:49] times. I want to talk about the blasting and the. We're afraid

[3:17:54] of the water. We know it'll be blasting in this, in this area

[3:17:57] that where they're going to develop. And I have a well and

[3:18:01] I know that it disrupts the underground aquifers and wells

[3:18:05] are going dry, homes are getting destroyed and stuff

[3:18:08] like that. The traffic is another thing. It's just

[3:18:11] deadlocked out there at this intersection. I live about two

[3:18:14] miles from it, and I go down Patterson Road every day.

[3:18:17] Stallings road, people are coming from Creedmoor and

[3:18:21] Oxford and everything over to RTP, and they're coming down

[3:18:24] Patterson Road, and that's a two lane secondary road. But

[3:18:27] it's like I-85. I mean, I don't God be with the farmers that

[3:18:32] sit there on the roads with detritus, and it's just I don't

[3:18:36] know what's what's up with y'all's minds because you just

[3:18:39] keep approving these developments and everything.

[3:18:41] And, I mean, we're in a drought right now and it's mid it's mid

[3:18:45] April, early spring. And we're already I think we have 60 days

[3:18:50] worth of water before we go into restrictions. And what are

[3:18:53] we going to do. How are we going to sell 1547 homes right

[3:18:58] now? That's ready to be rented and ready to be bought and

[3:19:02] everything. How are we going to sell it if we don't have water

[3:19:04] out there? You know, I mean, it's just it doesn't make sense

[3:19:07] to me. We just keep building and building and building and

[3:19:09] we don't have an unlimited amount of water. And y'all need

[3:19:13] to think about it, you know, because that's something we've

[3:19:16] got to have to survive. We can we can get by a few days

[3:19:19] without food. But if you don't have water, you ain't going to

[3:19:21] have it. You ain't gonna need sewage, and you ain't going to

[3:19:23] need a whole lot of anything else. Thank you.

[3:19:29] Thank you. Next, I have Donna stand back. Tammy, soya. Toya.

[3:19:35] Pam Williams, Tina motley, Pearson, Pam Andrews. Wanda

[3:19:53] Allen. I'll be. Right back. Oh.

[3:20:21] Hi. My name is Tina motley Pearson, and my address is on

[3:20:24] file. I would first like to highlight that multiple

[3:20:29] required policies have not been met for the Patterson Hall

[3:20:32] project. Notably, the Planning Commission voted 9 to 0 against

[3:20:36] this development policy. 119 has not been satisfied as it

[3:20:42] requires adequate levels of service for emergency response,

[3:20:46] police and overall community safety. This site is bordered

[3:20:50] by Stallings Road on one side and Patterson Road on the

[3:20:53] other. You can see that in the map there. It has been

[3:20:55] suggested that Patterson Road does not require fire service,

[3:20:59] but this is misleading and cherry picking data. Only a

[3:21:03] small area qualifies due to its location to the critical

[3:21:06] watershed. Most of Patterson Road lies outside the urban

[3:21:10] growth area. The selective use of data raises a fundamental

[3:21:14] concern. How can one side of the development require fire

[3:21:18] service while the other side does not? Both the east and

[3:21:22] west sides clearly require adequate fire protection.

[3:21:26] Additionally, policy 122 identifies future growth areas

[3:21:31] where infrastructure and service upgrades are necessary.

[3:21:34] Development in these areas require corresponding public

[3:21:38] infrastructure, while the highlighted areas show a clear

[3:21:41] need for fire service. There are also documented concerns

[3:21:44] regarding sewer capacity. This is not a gray area. The

[3:21:47] policies have not been met. The infrastructure is not in place.

[3:21:51] The risks are real. Approval of this project would be premature

[3:21:55] and irresponsible. Thank you so much.

[3:22:00] Thank you. Miss Andrews.

[3:22:05] Yeah, yeah. Okay, as I wait, maybe you're

[3:22:07] not. Next.

[3:22:10] Good evening, Pamela Andrews. All right. Gotta go fast with

[3:22:13] this. There are two City of Durham fire stations in

[3:22:15] southeast Durham. Station eight and station 17, along with the

[3:22:18] county funded Redwood Volunteer Fire Station. These units will

[3:22:21] respond to calls to over 68 new developments in our area next

[3:22:27] January 2026. The fire equipment got relocated.

[3:22:30] Station 17 lost its ladder truck along with the three

[3:22:34] firefighters that manned that ladder truck. No replacement

[3:22:37] vehicle was put there. We have an engine truck there, a tanker

[3:22:40] truck there for firefighters instead of seven. We lost

[3:22:44] three. Got it. Station eight had a vehicle swap but kept the

[3:22:48] same number of firefighters three. So the net loss three

[3:22:52] firefighters and a ladder truck. Next. Station eight is

[3:22:56] the primary station for this parcel. It has a quint truck, a

[3:22:59] multifunctional truck now with only three total firefighters,

[3:23:02] two bays, no room for EMS. Next, the national response

[3:23:07] time is six minutes and 30s for fire and EMS. Per the national

[3:23:11] code. At 11:29 p.m., when most of the roads are void of

[3:23:15] traffic, a structure fire took place on January 27th of 2026

[3:23:20] at 629 Patterson Road, adjacent to this property. The chart

[3:23:25] shows the actual response times how many of those were within

[3:23:28] the six minutes, and 30s target time. Two Redwood Volunteer

[3:23:33] Fire Station and Quint eight. All the others were not within

[3:23:37] the federal or the national response Time. Numerous units

[3:23:40] are needed to put out a structure fire, not just eight

[3:23:43] and 17. Nine fire trucks were present to put out this fire.

[3:23:48] Two tanker trucks never made it there. The tanker trucks were

[3:23:51] needed because this is county and we don't have fire hydrants

[3:23:54] in the county. Total time of the fire call two hours and 12

[3:23:58] minutes in the 2022 audit, the Durham response time. It was

[3:24:02] stated in a fire, there is one thing that matters more than

[3:24:05] any other thing. Response times a few minutes could be the

[3:24:09] difference between preserving life and property, and someone

[3:24:13] dying. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[3:24:20] Tammy Sawyer, my address is on file.

[3:24:23] I want to go. And expand.

[3:24:24] On what Pam. Was just talking about. Fire me

[3:24:27] and Ms.. We don't have. infrastructure

[3:24:29] here. Just tonight on social media. a former planning

[3:24:34] commissioner personnel noted that he had a cardiac incident

[3:24:40] in October. He is near Leesville Road and station 17

[3:24:45] responded. Those EMTs that responded are now in station

[3:24:49] eight. If he if EMS or nobody was available to respond, the

[3:24:54] outcome could have been different. And that's one of

[3:24:57] your fellow planning commissioners. EMS, we talked

[3:25:02] about how it's in the county. The county runs it. It has

[3:25:07] never been evaluated. It's still not being evaluated here.

[3:25:10] So some of the recent posts that I want to make you aware

[3:25:13] of, there was a carnival here in Durham. There was a person

[3:25:17] having multiple seizures at a at a carnival at 950. No EMS

[3:25:22] available asking person. Wake County and Grenville County to

[3:25:26] respond. Also at the carnival, a ten year old was having a

[3:25:30] heat stroke. The police was in was with this child. They were

[3:25:35] asking for EMS to help. There was no EMS there. Police, as

[3:25:41] you know, we are short on police and there's a 12 minute

[3:25:45] drive to get there. And coming from that way, there's still no

[3:25:49] infrastructure or transportation plans to widen

[3:25:53] that so that the police could get to Patterson Road sewer

[3:25:59] capacity. We know that the lift station, that little creek is

[3:26:03] close to capacity. PRD has been tracking approval dwellings, so

[3:26:08] there's almost 3500 approved dwellings, not permitted yet.

[3:26:15] And you're going to be adding more. Y back to the development

[3:26:19] of growth. Why do we need it? This is the future growth area.

[3:26:22] We don't need it now. Thank you.

[3:26:31] Good afternoon. My name is Pam Williams and I'm going to go

[3:26:33] through these slides pretty fast because you've already

[3:26:35] heard about all the congestion in the area here on Stallings

[3:26:40] Road, which is this road right here, a 1200. Oops. Right

[3:26:44] there. Right there, 1200 linear feet of cars was backed up on

[3:26:49] this during the week. And it's like that almost every day.

[3:26:52] Think about 1200 cars on the single lane road trying to get

[3:26:55] through this congestion. Here again is 98. And the congestion

[3:27:02] 98, 98. Here's Stallings and Patterson Road and the

[3:27:06] congestion and the big trucks coming through trying to make

[3:27:09] those turns here. I want to bring to everyone's attention

[3:27:14] at the City Council. Those especially who's on the TPI.

[3:27:20] Board. And if you have any influence, this is a project

[3:27:24] that has been proposed since 2018. In the corridor study

[3:27:29] that was done by Campo and Durham MPO, also in 2022, a

[3:27:35] traffic forecast was done on the same project, and I have

[3:27:38] highlighted the project in yellow so you could see what

[3:27:41] they proposed for the realignment. And this is

[3:27:45] needed. It's just not us here in the community saying it's

[3:27:48] needed. NCDOT is saying it's needed. Campo and the MPO or

[3:27:53] the TPO now say here is Patterson Hall. As you can see,

[3:27:57] this comes across on that. So traffic congestion, the this

[3:28:05] project has regional impact and additional peak flow traffic

[3:28:10] has impacts not measured here. So you just we just want the

[3:28:18] city, the county to get in and understand that this is a

[3:28:22] problem in this area. We need help from our city officials

[3:28:26] and our county officials to get a project like this done to

[3:28:30] improve this horrible intersection. Traffic

[3:28:34] congestion and crashes. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:28:41] Mayor Steinbeck. Good evening. I'm Donna

[3:28:44] Steinbeck, addresses on file. The.

[3:28:48] This proposed site is less. Than one mile from several

[3:28:54] volunteer ag districts, and present use value farms and the

[3:29:00] they're highlighted in red. There are many small farms that

[3:29:04] are not shown the the planning staff consistency review did

[3:29:09] not reflect the land use conflicts and the rural

[3:29:13] impacts, or the non-contiguous status. The density is

[3:29:18] significantly higher than surrounding areas all around

[3:29:23] are up and down. Patterson road is single family homes and and

[3:29:30] and farms. There are not any dense developments. The densest

[3:29:35] development that's nearby is 1.53. Units per acre. While

[3:29:45] this is proposed to be 4.7, so per the Planning Commissioner

[3:29:51] Co-Chair. Cameron, this location

[3:29:54] continues to face documented persistent changes, including

[3:29:58] well water disruption to the existing company residents and

[3:30:02] increase in unsafe traffic for agricultural operations.

[3:30:05] General traffic congestion that impedes emergency response

[3:30:09] times and environmental. The degradation. There are no

[3:30:17] townhouses either on on Stalin's road, so this proposal

[3:30:22] would not maintain its rural character. So the Comprehensive

[3:30:27] Plan policy 120 is not met. Policy 47 is not met. Since

[3:30:33] this policy does not satisfy through size and form respect,

[3:30:38] the existing neighborhood character, it does not. Yes, I

[3:30:44] the of course, major concern. This is non-contiguous and.

[3:30:52] Thank you. The policy 165 is not met

[3:30:55] because it's not needed. It's not a benefit to the residents.

[3:31:01] Thank you. Thank. Thank you.

[3:31:06] Before you start, just I want to go ahead and call the last

[3:31:07] because I just have a couple minutes after Miss Allen. I

[3:31:10] have Vicki King, Astrid Cook, Pablo Friedman and Talmage

[3:31:13] Leighton. Those are the folks. And then that that rounds us

[3:31:18] up. Thank you. Miss. No problem. Hi.

[3:31:20] I'm Wanda Allen. And.

[3:31:22] Address is on file. I'd like for you to look at this slide.

[3:31:26] This site includes multiple stream crossings that drain

[3:31:31] directly into Little Creek into falls. Like Raleigh's drinking

[3:31:36] water. Both are already impaired. Water listed for

[3:31:42] settlement and water pollution. Yet this proposal relies on

[3:31:48] minimum stormwater standards that are already failing in the

[3:31:52] areas like this, especially with steep slopes and highly

[3:31:57] unstable Triassic soil. The results are predictable. More

[3:32:02] settlement, more pollution, more stress on already impaired

[3:32:08] water sources. Look at this slide. It's basically saying

[3:32:12] over 60% of this site has steep slopes to build. Here. The land

[3:32:19] must be heavily graded and cleared. Disturbing large areas

[3:32:24] of fragile store. Get it? You guys disturbed Triassic soil.

[3:32:29] You get runoff sediment pollution. Every time we've

[3:32:33] seen it across southeast Durham. Look at this one false

[3:32:38] lake impact. The settlement is already reducing false lake

[3:32:43] water storage. That means weaker flood controls, less

[3:32:48] reliable, less reliable water supply. Simply put, you cannot

[3:32:53] manage water and increasing settlement at the same time. Or

[3:32:58] if the lake is filled with sediment, you can't fill it

[3:33:02] with water. As we have seen in many of these photos. Best

[3:33:06] management practices are not working. You guys are not

[3:33:10] working. Approving this project or proposed will increase

[3:33:14] sediment and pollution into an already stressed water supply.

[3:33:19] Thank you. Thank you.

[3:33:27] Vicki King. Hi, my name is Vicki King. My

[3:33:37] address is on file. I'm here once again to ask do not pass

[3:33:41] this development. You must and I repeat, you must have the

[3:33:46] appropriate number of fire apparatus to make sure that the

[3:33:51] ISO ratings are covered. ISO ratings are very important when

[3:33:57] you're having to pay for your homeowner's insurance. Keep all

[3:34:02] that in mind. The traffic is a nightmare. It's already been

[3:34:06] covered. The developer has made a thoughtful effort into

[3:34:13] improving that intersection, but it's not. I'm not sure it's

[3:34:17] going to do any good. It's my understanding the Oak Grove

[3:34:22] Athletic Association was a private park. It's been a

[3:34:26] private park all my life. It's not open to the general public.

[3:34:32] I think you have to be a member to use that park. But my

[3:34:35] questions and the questions of the citizens of Durham still

[3:34:39] stand. What's Durham going to do when you run out of water?

[3:34:43] What's Durham going to do when 911 doesn't answer? Where are

[3:34:47] you going to put all that crap that you're letting the pumps

[3:34:52] pump back in to the sewer system? Thank you.

[3:35:07] My name is Astrid. Cooke and my address is on

[3:35:10] record. And I'm speaking on behalf of the Durham City

[3:35:14] County Environmental Affairs Board, Land Use and Planning

[3:35:16] subcommittee. I'll lead with our proffers. In short, we do

[3:35:22] not support this proposal as is boat would with the following

[3:35:27] textual commitments. Preservation of tree coverage.

[3:35:30] At a minimum of 35%. Canopy across the site. Commitment to

[3:35:34] all preserve tree coverage to be contiguous to avoid

[3:35:38] fragmentation and maintain ecological function. Stream

[3:35:42] buffers and wetlands on site shall remain fully undisturbed

[3:35:46] with no crossings except where necessary, and no sewer

[3:35:49] crossings. Incorporation of distributed low impact

[3:35:53] development strategies, including infiltration, bio

[3:35:56] retention and dispersion to minimize concentrated discharge

[3:36:00] into Little Lick Creek and its tributaries. These strategies

[3:36:04] shall be supported by construction practices that

[3:36:06] minimize subsurface disturbance and sediment mobilization,

[3:36:10] including a prohibition on blasting across the site.

[3:36:13] Implementation of turbidity monitoring during and after

[3:36:17] construction to assess impacts to little at creek, with

[3:36:20] results made available to the city. Commitment to stormwater

[3:36:24] containment and control during construction, including

[3:36:27] management of runoff from large storm events prior to final

[3:36:30] enforcement. Infrastructure installation. Commitment to

[3:36:33] limiting impervious surface and building envelope to additional

[3:36:37] setback of 100ft from the stream. Buffers and a site

[3:36:42] specific erosion and sedimentation control control

[3:36:44] strategy prepared by a qualified professional that

[3:36:47] explicitly addresses the behavior of Triassic basin

[3:36:50] soils, including phased grading, rapid soil

[3:36:53] stabilization, and redundant control measures. Oh, I have a

[3:36:57] little bit more time. The proposed level of tree

[3:37:00] preservation is an area of concern. While the inclusion of

[3:37:03] tree preservation and replacement is noted and

[3:37:06] appreciated, the overall canopy coverage remains lower than

[3:37:09] Durham's stated goal of 55%. Thank you.

[3:37:14] Thank you. Good evening. All right. Good evening, Mayor.

[3:37:31] Williams Mayor Pro Tem Caballero. Members of the city

[3:37:34] council, city manager, those in the audience and the millions

[3:37:37] of viewers online who care about good governance. I'm here

[3:37:40] tonight to speak against the proposal for. That's before you

[3:37:45] tonight. And I want to go back to two meetings ago. Two

[3:37:48] meetings ago. The expectation. I'm sorry. One moment. Madam

[3:37:51] clerk, can you please. Thank you.

[3:37:53] We're good. All right, all right. Two meetings ago. The

[3:37:58] expectation from developers was a proffer of $500 per net

[3:38:02] student to the school. And that was the expectation. Okay, the

[3:38:06] lawyer representing the applicant at the last meeting

[3:38:09] sort of said, okay, I'm going to bump it up $100 to 600.

[3:38:11] That's good. I believe in public goods and all. I know

[3:38:14] all of you do as well. By the end of that meeting, thanks to

[3:38:16] the comments and advocacy of Council Member Kopac, it went

[3:38:21] up to $1,000, which is great for the public good, right? And

[3:38:25] now at the same meeting, same or sorry, tonight's meeting,

[3:38:29] same lawyer, new app, new proposal. It's now ballooned

[3:38:33] per per net pupil $1,666. According to my mouse, it's a

[3:38:38] bit higher than what she said earlier, which is great for

[3:38:41] public schools. But when talk about the expectation that

[3:38:44] should now be the the floor, okay, the proposal after this

[3:38:49] one, the per and I know they're going to talk about what

[3:38:52] they're going to do. But if you divide the $50,000 proffer by

[3:38:56] the net 14 students, you're looking at a net profit of

[3:39:01] $3,000 per student. So in the span of a couple meetings here

[3:39:05] in this governing body, we've gone from 500 to $3000 to

[3:39:09] applicants. That needs to be the expectation for when we

[3:39:12] talk about new developments, what we're going to approve.

[3:39:15] Right. And I hope that becomes the floor that the applicant

[3:39:18] tonight agrees to, because the one right after it is offering

[3:39:21] $3,000 per net student. And all of you care about public

[3:39:25] schools up on there. And so I would hope you do everything

[3:39:28] that you can for our public schools. Thank you very much.

[3:39:38] Thank you. Good. Finish it out. Okay. Thank you.

[3:39:45] Good evening. But my name is Talmage Layton.

[3:39:48] I farm in this area, and over the years I have had five farms

[3:39:55] on Patterson Road and it is really hard to get equipment up

[3:40:01] the road with the kind of traffic y'all are talking about

[3:40:04] providing for us up there. Also, Sharon Road is across the

[3:40:10] intersection of 98. Patterson had two farms over there that I

[3:40:14] attended up until this year, and we were getting about 200

[3:40:21] round bales a year off of them, off of one of them, and about a

[3:40:25] thousand bales of square bales. Well, two, 200 round bales

[3:40:31] would bring in $50 apiece. So we were getting about $6,000

[3:40:36] out of those that farm. And we got about a thousand square

[3:40:42] bales off of it. It sold for $7 a bale, which is $7,000 for

[3:40:47] that one. But anyway, the what y'all are doing to the rural

[3:40:52] area right here is, is tragic. Also, I have in my possession

[3:41:00] at home two studies that were done, one in Durham and one in

[3:41:05] Wake County, and those studies showed what was taken in by the

[3:41:12] city for three different types of land in the city. One was

[3:41:16] commercial, one was residential, and one was rural

[3:41:21] farmland. The rural farmland. For every dollar in taxes we

[3:41:26] paid, the county made about $0.40 a dollar for each dollar

[3:41:31] we paid on taxes. The development land cost the

[3:41:36] county in services about a dollar $0.40 a dollar for taxes,

[3:41:43] and the commercial property made about $0.30 per dollar.

[3:41:48] And I don't see how we can continue to do this without the

[3:41:52] county going broke with the way we are. We're doing development

[3:41:56] land. If it's costing you a half a dollar for every dollar

[3:42:00] you're taking in. So I appreciate y'all's time. And I

[3:42:04] saved a little bit of time for my passing and I appreciate it.

[3:42:07] Thank you all. Thank you. What you do.

[3:42:14] Mr. mayor, do you want to take back over? Do you want me to

[3:42:16] keep going? All right. Thank you. So those

[3:42:21] are all of the speakers that we have signed up for this, and

[3:42:26] we'll just. The applicant, would you like to respond?

[3:42:31] Yes. I just briefly, we would like to address some of the

[3:42:36] comments made about the future growth area. The transportation

[3:42:40] improvement and then the consistency with the

[3:42:43] surrounding area and the city's plans, the future growth areas.

[3:42:49] It sounds like there is some misunderstanding of what those

[3:42:52] are and how they apply to this site. So to be clear, the

[3:42:55] future growth areas are located within the urban growth

[3:42:58] boundaries. And according to the comprehensive plan, are

[3:43:02] areas that are appropriate for development. Once certain

[3:43:05] identified infrastructure is upgraded to serve new

[3:43:09] development. So the comprehensive plan says that

[3:43:11] this could be provided by city planning funded by a CIP, or by

[3:43:16] private investment. And this is why policy 166 of the

[3:43:20] Comprehensive Plan calls for the future growth areas to be

[3:43:24] evaluated for updates, either to be added or to be removed

[3:43:28] every other year based on public investments, housing

[3:43:32] supply and population growth. And so all of that is to say

[3:43:35] that it is not a static designation. And based on

[3:43:38] private investment, the designation can be removed and

[3:43:42] should be removed according to the comprehensive plan. To be

[3:43:45] clear, sewer, the only identified infrastructure

[3:43:49] needed for growth for this future growth area is sewer,

[3:43:52] not fire, and this project will again build a lift station and

[3:43:57] connect to gravity sewer. Installing road and will

[3:44:01] provide an opportunity for other projects to connect

[3:44:04] consistent with policy. 122 there are five out of eight of

[3:44:08] the future growth areas that were shown on screen earlier

[3:44:12] that identify fire. And again, this is just not one of them.

[3:44:15] So that is incorrect to say that that is an identified one

[3:44:19] for this for this area, staff has also found this request is

[3:44:23] consistent with policy 119 of the Comprehensive Plan, which

[3:44:26] does call for new developments to be within established levels

[3:44:30] of service for emergency services. Now, as it relates to

[3:44:34] the transportation improvement, we would defer to staff, but it

[3:44:38] is our understanding that there are no plan projects to address

[3:44:42] issues at this intersection currently. And so without

[3:44:46] private investment, improvements will not occur.

[3:44:49] The realignment of Stallings Road that was mentioned is no

[3:44:53] longer on the plans, because it is our understanding that it is

[3:44:56] not funded. Again, this project is only anticipated to impact

[3:45:01] the intersection less than 5%, and Ddot has confirmed that

[3:45:06] this would improve the traffic flows at the intersection. We

[3:45:10] recognize that this will not improve everything, but this

[3:45:13] will improve the operation of the intersection as it exists

[3:45:16] currently, and then finally, just to address consistency

[3:45:21] with the surrounding area and the city's plans, this project

[3:45:24] is within close proximity to existing food and retail that

[3:45:29] exists right at that intersection that we are

[3:45:31] discussing. It is again adjacent to city limits. The

[3:45:35] city's place type map calls for the site to be a mixed use

[3:45:38] neighborhood, and it was mentioned that there is no

[3:45:42] density that is comparable. But If you look at attachment A of

[3:45:46] the staff report, you can clearly see that there is PDR

[3:45:51] 10.602 just off of Wake Forest Highway. And that project is

[3:45:56] currently under construction. So it is not true to say that

[3:45:59] this is higher than any of the other density in the

[3:46:02] surrounding area. Finally, I would just note that we are

[3:46:06] again providing that 30 foot buffer around the entire

[3:46:09] project, which will help keep the character of the

[3:46:13] surrounding area. So thank you again for your time and our

[3:46:16] team is available to answer questions.

[3:46:23] Thank you. Those are all the speakers that I have for this

[3:46:26] case. So therefore I will declare the public hearing

[3:46:29] closed and back before the Council. All right. Council

[3:46:33] Member Burris kicking us off. I have a question for the

[3:46:36] applicant. Did I forget my question? Okay, so based on

[3:46:43] what you discussed tonight, you have offered a proffers around

[3:46:46] affordable housing as either 5%. At 80% Ami or the 285,000 for

[3:46:53] the dedicated housing funds. So are you basically asking for

[3:46:56] council to provide guidance on which of those offers? Or like,

[3:46:59] how would we plan to move through that or work through

[3:47:01] that? So the the reason that we put

[3:47:05] the commitment as it is, is essentially to ensure that the

[3:47:10] project is ultimately able to deliver the units that have

[3:47:14] been committed to. So because we have committed to the

[3:47:17] $700,000 transportation improvement, we have committed

[3:47:22] to the increased amount to Durham Public Schools. The

[3:47:24] total investment here is $1 million. When the density of

[3:47:29] this project is only 150 units. And so we have put in that

[3:47:33] flexibility of the donation or the 5% to make sure that this

[3:47:37] project ultimately pencils. Well, I think that wasn't my

[3:47:41] question. I was asking like, are you asking council to

[3:47:44] provide directive on which option, like which way to go.?

[3:47:48] If there is directive that council wants to provide, we

[3:47:50] will certainly take that feedback. Yes.

[3:47:52] Okay. And then do you have like what the price point for the

[3:47:56] townhomes would be. So the price points for the

[3:48:00] homes would be consistent with the surrounding area. I think

[3:48:05] townhomes in this area right now are around high 300 to low

[3:48:09] for hundreds. And then the single family homes are around

[3:48:12] mid 400 to low 500. Okay. Thank you so much. I

[3:48:16] won't be long. I don't have any additional questions for you so

[3:48:19] that's fine for this. And I'll be brief in my remarks. No. At

[3:48:25] this point, our neighbors in this portion of Durham had

[3:48:27] experience in insane amount of growth, and at some point,

[3:48:31] someone's be the adult in the room and acknowledged like

[3:48:34] that. This corridor is terrible, especially when going

[3:48:37] to the distillery off of stall. I'm going to say Stallings is

[3:48:39] pronounce it more. So just thinking about the traffic

[3:48:42] incidents and just I don't know, I'm just kind of curious

[3:48:45] about where we're headed with this abundance. Thinking about

[3:48:49] just yeah, I'm curious about that. I think that we have to

[3:48:52] be good neighbors. And I know that a lot of times in Durham,

[3:48:55] we try to encourage folks to like, you know, shop local or

[3:48:58] go to farmer's market, but then we mistreat the actual farmers

[3:49:01] that are actually delivering the food to our table. So I

[3:49:03] just want to make sure that I know someone talked about

[3:49:06] earlier, you know, I won't get through that light a little

[3:49:08] faster, but it's like also, while that may be a benefit for

[3:49:11] you and you don't live in that neighborhood, we do have a very

[3:49:14] real issue with EMS services, with fire being able to get to

[3:49:18] these places. So it's like, are we setting our new neighbors up

[3:49:20] for failure by not having the infrastructure to move forward?

[3:49:24] And also based on some of the issues I've observed, even when

[3:49:27] I ran in 2023 with the blasting in the wells, and it's kind of

[3:49:32] hard to get accountability for, I know I had someone who had

[3:49:35] their septic tank blown up and they didn't get anything. So I

[3:49:38] feel like if we want to be welcoming, we gotta take care

[3:49:41] of the people who currently live here. And I have not been

[3:49:44] convinced that we and it's not to the developer more so I

[3:49:47] think as a city we could do a lot better with ensuring that

[3:49:50] our residents have access to critical services. I would hate

[3:49:53] for someone to lose their life because the EMS could get down.

[3:49:56] I know this would be true because I was in Cornwallis the

[3:49:58] other week and we called for an EMS. It took 30 minutes for the

[3:50:01] EMS to get there. This person passed out sitting on the

[3:50:04] ground. So these are very real stories and people are not

[3:50:07] coming to council to fabricate stories about their experience.

[3:50:10] And so at some point, we have to acknowledge the experiences

[3:50:13] of others and put our own wants and desires aside to make sure

[3:50:17] that we are being good stewards for all of our residents here

[3:50:19] in Durham. And I have not been convinced that we have done

[3:50:21] this thus far. I get it folks want to build more housing. You

[3:50:24] think that it makes it easier for people to assess the house

[3:50:26] as unsuccessful for housing is not? I mean, it's just the

[3:50:30] world we end. So thank you so much for all tonight. And I'm

[3:50:32] sorry to be brash, but I just don't see how this is going to

[3:50:35] add any benefit to the public good for these neighbors who

[3:50:39] are constantly going through the ebbs and flows of growth

[3:50:43] and who constantly come and uplift these things. And it's

[3:50:45] like they're not making this stuff up. So I want to make

[3:50:48] sure we all hear this and think about it. It may not be your

[3:50:50] neighborhood today, but it could be very soon. So thank

[3:50:53] you. This next.

[3:51:06] Thank you, Mister Mayor. Yeah. Another case in case. In many

[3:51:12] ways, a lot of parallels to the case we just had before us. I

[3:51:16] there's a lot to recommend this. I'm. I'm personally

[3:51:19] unconcerned by the increased density in that area. We want

[3:51:22] density around the city, so more density in that area to me

[3:51:24] is not a bad thing. It's it's zoned for the police type map

[3:51:28] is mixed use neighborhood. I think the roadway improvements

[3:51:30] are significant in that part of 98. I appreciate the affordable

[3:51:34] housing proffer. And I think what you've done on the

[3:51:36] stormwater is actually given us a hundred year storm treatment,

[3:51:39] which is very needed in that area. I mean, you meet 23 of

[3:51:44] the 27 comprehensive plan policies. So that's also strong.

[3:51:48] At the same time, I do hear the concerns of residents about

[3:51:52] this being in a future growth area, and I think we ought to

[3:51:54] make sure that we have all the infrastructure we need for

[3:51:56] those areas. I'm a little bit concerned about this. In this

[3:51:58] case, I do hear the Planning Commission. I took their

[3:52:01] recommendations in the last vote. They voted against us

[3:52:04] nine zero. That also weighs on me as well. I will also say, I

[3:52:08] know the Durham folks in the last case mentioned that, or

[3:52:12] suggested that Panther Creek was on the 303 impaired list.

[3:52:15] It's not. But you're correct that Little Creek is on the 303

[3:52:18] impaired list, and that concerns me as well. So I am

[3:52:21] unconvinced in this case and still thinking about it. Thank

[3:52:23] you. Are you willing to commit to no

[3:52:32] blasting? I think that we're hopeful that

[3:52:35] blasting will not be required, but we cannot guarantee that

[3:52:38] blasting will not be required, especially when we have

[3:52:42] committed to the 100 year storm for the pre and post

[3:52:45] construction, which does require the erosion control

[3:52:48] sediment basins to be much deeper and larger than they

[3:52:52] would ordinarily.. Can. You commit to no blasting

[3:52:55] except for the 100 year storm development?

[3:52:58] No, I do not think that would be possible.

[3:53:03] You heard the asked from the Environmental Affairs Board.

[3:53:06] Did you note those? Well, I would note that those

[3:53:11] requests there were I think six or so. None of those were

[3:53:17] provided to us in advance. We're hearing them tonight. And

[3:53:22] that was the first time we had heard them. So we would also, I

[3:53:28] believe it was mentioned earlier, there was a request to

[3:53:31] have that included in the case packet. We would also ask if

[3:53:35] the applicant could be provided with those as well. So we could

[3:53:38] appropriately evaluate those requests in advance. If the

[3:53:42] goal is for us to be able to accommodate them or consider

[3:53:46] them. From what it sounded like, the main issues were

[3:53:51] about disturbance of the stream buffer, which we have already

[3:53:54] committed to. Limited disturbance. And then it also

[3:53:58] sounded like the main concerns were about the erosion control

[3:54:01] measures as well, which again, we've committed above and

[3:54:04] beyond, including for the 100 year storm, for the erosion and

[3:54:08] sediment control basins. So the first one was the

[3:54:11] preservation of tree coverage at a minimum of 35% canopy

[3:54:15] across the site. And then the second one is contiguous in

[3:54:18] that tree. Coverage. To avoid fragmentation and maintain

[3:54:21] ecological function, we are able to do that.

[3:54:24] So we cannot do 35%. We have committed to an increase of

[3:54:28] 22%, and I know it was asked for the prior case, what that

[3:54:34] would amount to, and for our case, we we did look at it. And

[3:54:38] that additional tree save accounts for about three

[3:54:40] quarters of an acre. And can it be contiguous?

[3:54:45] So looking at our site plan and concept as it stands currently,

[3:54:52] all of the areas in dark green you can see that is where our

[3:54:55] planned tree preservation and open space will be located. So

[3:54:58] in many places it is contiguous. But we can't

[3:55:01] guarantee that it is contiguous in all areas. As you can see,

[3:55:05] there's roads, there's the access points, and then there

[3:55:09] are other features, but a lot of it is contiguous. And this

[3:55:13] is again consistent with the site plan that has been filed.

[3:55:21] Are you willing to do implementation of turbidity

[3:55:26] monitoring? We've seen this in other cases and the results

[3:55:29] have come to the city. I know that there are multiple

[3:55:34] changes that have been made to the code recently to the Udo,

[3:55:40] specifically as it relates to the erosion control plan. I'm

[3:55:43] not sure if what the plans are for turbidity, but we will

[3:55:48] follow what is required by the Udo in terms of the erosion

[3:55:52] control. And so if that is not one of them, then no, that's

[3:55:57] not an additional commitment that we can make.

[3:55:59] Your unwilling to measure the turbidity or allow anyone on to

[3:56:03] measure during development. I'll have Tim with Kennedy

[3:56:07] explain. Tim was with community. So the

[3:56:12] additional additional measures that we're adding are in itself

[3:56:16] measuring because we are holding more of that stormwater

[3:56:20] back during the construction, measuring each drop of rainfall

[3:56:23] that hits the site for a 2 to 3 year period during construction

[3:56:29] is very difficult. But the improvements that we have

[3:56:33] provided for the erosion control measures provide an

[3:56:37] increased amount above and beyond what the storm, what the

[3:56:40] requirements have in the ordinance now, which were

[3:56:43] recently increased 2 to 3 years ago from the original

[3:56:47] requirements. And will those be made

[3:56:49] available to the city? They're already commitments.

[3:56:53] But the whatever readings that y'all do as part of that.

[3:56:56] I'm sorry. Can you move. The whatever, whatever readings

[3:56:58] that you do as part of that? Will the results of that be

[3:57:00] made available to the city. The county does those

[3:57:04] inspections. So they are county held inspections so they are

[3:57:07] available? Yes. Okay.

[3:57:09] The county the city does not control erosion control. The

[3:57:13] county does. So those are all county inspections. They are

[3:57:16] not through us, through the developer.

[3:57:21] Okay. I have a stream crossing

[3:57:24] question. So y'all have a maximum of two stream crossing

[3:57:28] roads. And then for for utilities, is there no way to

[3:57:33] combine those. Why why do we have to have six? Oh Tim coming

[3:57:38] back up. Yeah we can we can minimize

[3:57:44] those. We can cut both of those in half based on our plan now.

[3:57:50] So we could do a maximum of one stream crossing, which you're

[3:57:52] seeing the road to the, if you will. Bottom left of the corner

[3:57:57] is curved. Are you guys seeing what I'm seeing on the screen

[3:58:00] now? We are. Okay. So you can see how we're designing around

[3:58:03] around the edge of the stream buffers and wetlands there. So

[3:58:06] that was during the initial design. That was our second

[3:58:09] stream crossing. But the stream, it starts a little

[3:58:12] further so we can eliminate one stream crossing. So we can

[3:58:15] change that to one stream crossing. And three utilities.

[3:58:20] So we'll cut what was the initial four. So we can go to

[3:58:23] half one and two one stream crossing two utility.

[3:58:27] And they do have to be separate the utilities and the and the

[3:58:30] roadway crossing. Yes. Due to the storm water and

[3:58:33] how it flows to the stream. Yes. Okay.

[3:58:36] Those are my questions for now. Thank you.

[3:58:41] Council Member Baker go back. I'm not sure you'll be very

[3:58:49] surprised by my comments here. I appreciate you for coming in

[3:58:54] and presenting and working through those those commitments

[3:58:58] again, I'm not interested in kind of what I see as

[3:59:04] rearranging the deck chairs on the on the Titanic. I think we

[3:59:07] need a paradigm shift in the way that we plan and develop.

[3:59:11] I'm a professional planner, not because I hate planning and

[3:59:16] development, but because I actually love planning and

[3:59:18] development. I get excited when I think about the design of of

[3:59:24] where we live, in the places that we live and the cities

[3:59:26] that we build and the way that we grow and the streets and the

[3:59:29] sidewalks and the trees and the buildings when they rise out of

[3:59:32] the ground. Those are all things that I think are

[3:59:34] incredibly exciting. I love those things. And I think about

[3:59:40] in places that have lots of natural features. They're not

[3:59:43] encumbrances, they're features. They're assets to to a site.

[3:59:47] And when you design and layout a development, those should be

[3:59:55] lifted up as special places on the site. I just don't think

[4:00:00] that that is a practice that that we lead here in this city.

[4:00:04] And I don't think that because the evidence shows that we we

[4:00:07] don't we don't use those practices when we're laying out

[4:00:11] sites and we're we're thinking about the way that the city is

[4:00:13] growing and those are having real world impacts on people

[4:00:17] who live here today, people who are moving to Durham. And the

[4:00:21] way that we grow. I don't think this hits the mark. I don't

[4:00:25] think that I've seen anything that hits the mark recently or

[4:00:29] very often, and I'm always looking for ways to get to.

[4:00:33] Yes, I know that sounds surprising, but I'm always

[4:00:35] looking for ways to get to yes on on cases. And a reminder

[4:00:42] we're not actually approving development. We're approving,

[4:00:45] you know, annexation and rezoning that can sit there for

[4:00:48] a very long time or can be changed in the future. So I

[4:00:53] would also just remind us that that there are there are tens

[4:00:56] of thousands, if not more, but likely tens of thousands of

[4:01:01] units of capacity within city limits today that we will we

[4:01:07] won't see that. We don't need to see. But there is lots of

[4:01:10] capacity to to grow within city limits. I, I just think that we

[4:01:15] are in an era and a place in a time where it's important that

[4:01:19] we we focus inward, where we, we, you know, I, I would be

[4:01:26] open to an exceptionally planned and designed master

[4:01:32] development, but we just aren't seeing those in front of us. We

[4:01:37] need a paradigm shift. Happy Earth Day, let's support our

[4:01:42] wild animals and the habitat that they live in. Let's

[4:01:45] support our young people who come and speak up. Let's

[4:01:48] support future generations so that they have the ability to

[4:01:51] make choices on land and not just not just us. Let's support

[4:01:57] our environmentalists. Let's support our farmers who come

[4:02:00] and speak to us as well. Let's, let's, let's think about the

[4:02:06] environment. Let's think about planet Earth, and let's think

[4:02:08] about future generations. Thank you.

[4:02:15] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a few questions for staff. I

[4:02:18] think it will probably relate to planning, but may involve

[4:02:22] other other staff teams. So first of all, I want to be

[4:02:26] clear. Are there policies regarding the UB or future

[4:02:29] growth areas that have not been met by this application? There

[4:02:31] was reference to that, and I just want to make sure I fully

[4:02:34] understand that that point. Staff has not determined that

[4:02:38] there are any that have not been met interpretation by

[4:02:42] others, or is certainly valid and and allowed, but staff is

[4:02:47] not determined that no. Second, it's clear that we have

[4:02:52] an impairment issue with Little Creek and other waterways in

[4:02:56] Durham. And so that's part of the the balance that we try and

[4:02:59] strike in meeting our various needs as a community. I'm

[4:03:02] curious what you see as the most significant impacts on our

[4:03:05] water in the rural parts of Durham.

[4:03:12] I don't know that I would say that. I mean, there's lots

[4:03:15] there's lots of issues, right? There are issues with erosion

[4:03:19] control. There are issues with impaired streams in terms of

[4:03:24] sediments. And then of course, you have pollutants from

[4:03:28] non-point sources such as runoff from our roadways and so

[4:03:31] forth. So there are a number of pollutants and sedimentation

[4:03:36] that can get into our streams. I'm not enough of an expert on

[4:03:40] water resources to be able to say, say, rank them or provide

[4:03:44] a prioritization. But those are major issues that we deal with.

[4:03:47] Because like a couple of other issues that I struggle with in

[4:03:50] thinking about managing water resources are discharge from

[4:03:54] septic. And so thinking about the benefits of bringing on,

[4:03:58] you know, more homes into our our water system. I know that's

[4:04:01] a major driver of environmental degradation as well as

[4:04:05] agricultural lands and runoff. And so thinking about how we

[4:04:08] can support our farmers as well, when we look at

[4:04:10] degradation of our waterways like housing and development,

[4:04:12] is one thing. But in our rural areas, septic systems and

[4:04:15] agricultural lands are also big contributors. What are the

[4:04:19] plans for water extension in this area? Are there any and

[4:04:24] why is this not part of the comp plan or future growth

[4:04:26] areas? Just why is just sewer included.?

[4:04:30] So sewer was identified as the main need for this entire area.

[4:04:34] I can't speak to why not water as well, but usually those two

[4:04:39] go hand in hand. We get very few if any requests for sewer

[4:04:45] and not also water. So I think the assumption would be that

[4:04:47] the water would follow as well. We've heard a number of

[4:04:54] requests, you know, great suggestions from the

[4:04:57] Environmental Affairs Board. Do we have a sense of how much of

[4:05:00] that is been incorporated into the LDC and will apply as the

[4:05:03] base code for future developments?

[4:05:05] I have not had a chance to look at the requests or

[4:05:11] recommendations from EAB and compare them to the LDC. We

[4:05:13] just got those this morning. All right.

[4:05:23] So I'm pulling my notes back up. My computer went.

[4:05:25] Out. My next question is do we know

[4:05:39] the price of a current home or a townhome for sale in Durham?

[4:05:43] At 80%? Am I. The price? I do not have that

[4:05:48] at my fingertips. We could get that and get that to you. We

[4:05:51] would work with housing and the housing department. They keep

[4:05:56] those those numbers. I can give you an estimate, but how much

[4:05:59] it's actually selling for? No, I do not know if it's not my

[4:06:02] head. Yeah. I'd be curious because

[4:06:04] I've heard that we're getting to the point where new market

[4:06:06] rate townhome development, you know, is it about 80% Ami. And

[4:06:09] so I'm curious to see how the, the you know, what was said by

[4:06:13] the applicant compares with that.

[4:06:16] So the in the staff report, I just need to scroll to that

[4:06:20] section of the staff report. It does give a an estimated.

[4:06:28] Housing cost for sale and rental. But we that would be

[4:06:35] for Durham as a whole. There's nothing say so down to this

[4:06:40] neighborhood level that we have access to.

[4:06:45] In terms of blasting, if there is damage, is there a

[4:06:49] compensation? And I ask in part, there's blasting

[4:06:52] happening 100ft from my house and there was a survey done,

[4:06:55] and I thought we were told that if there was damage, that there

[4:06:58] would be a support for, for any repairs. So I'm not asking just

[4:07:02] from a personal standpoint, but I do share that, you know, this

[4:07:05] is an issue that is happening across our city.

[4:07:09] So blasting companies are required to be insured and be

[4:07:14] able to handle to address claims against them. That is

[4:07:18] not something that local government is involved in. That

[4:07:21] is a private civil matter between the blasting company

[4:07:23] and any affected property owners.

[4:07:32] I mean, this is a difficult case. There's a lot of

[4:07:36] impressive proffers that we look for in these sorts of

[4:07:39] cases. I think that the bar has to be set even higher for our

[4:07:42] future growth areas. Beyond just, you know, other

[4:07:47] annexations and rezoning. So that's something I'm trying to

[4:07:50] take into consideration in weighing, you know, both the

[4:07:53] benefits and the the drawbacks, the harms from a development

[4:07:56] like this. I definitely hear the concern about fire and

[4:07:59] about EMS, and I think that's something we have to commit

[4:08:02] ourselves as a council to, to better understanding and making

[4:08:06] sure we have plans in place as we try and find the sequencing,

[4:08:09] which is not always going to be as we like. Between providing

[4:08:12] housing and providing services, but we have to do our best to

[4:08:16] to balance those. If we're going to grow in a way that's

[4:08:18] not just about a downtown, but, you know, a city with different

[4:08:21] hubs, and we're going to have housing and commercial and

[4:08:24] different parts of the city and county. So we have to decide

[4:08:27] how we're going to do that. You know, in the housing piece is

[4:08:30] important to me, and I'm going to have a question for the

[4:08:32] applicant. You know, there's a great Pew Research study with a

[4:08:36] meta analysis from cities across the US showing that the

[4:08:40] number one benefit from building homes in high demand

[4:08:42] areas and and other parts of the city is reduced rents in

[4:08:45] low income neighborhoods. And, you know, as a city, we have to

[4:08:48] be able to balance and do both. Fighting for strong tenant

[4:08:50] protections, addressing landlords who charge excessive

[4:08:53] fees, take actions that are not in the benefit of our

[4:08:56] residents, you know, and also, housing is what helps address

[4:09:01] folks from being pushed out. And that's part of the reason

[4:09:03] why we've seen rents stabilize in Durham, where they have not

[4:09:06] in other parts of the country that have not taken the steps.

[4:09:09] Durham has taken around the provision of housing for for

[4:09:13] our residents. And so that's something that I take seriously

[4:09:16] to not wanting to displace our folks. And that means a shared

[4:09:19] responsibility for the housing that we provide. It's something

[4:09:23] that, once again, is happening in my neighborhood, like

[4:09:25] happening in places all around the city. So but in thinking

[4:09:29] about the balance, you know, I also, you know, want to keep in

[4:09:33] mind the impacts of, of places like southeast Durham that have

[4:09:36] seen dramatic impacts from growth and the higher standard

[4:09:39] I want to see from future growth areas to try and help to

[4:09:42] manage that. As we try and help make sure that we are providing

[4:09:46] places for people to live, minimizing the cost of housing

[4:09:48] and addressing critical needs of our water and safety as we

[4:09:54] grow. And so I'll be taking that into consideration as I as

[4:09:57] I weigh this one. I don't have any questions. If

[4:10:14] you want to sit down, I'm going to be brief. I think y'all

[4:10:18] heard my thoughts on this on the last one as well. I want to

[4:10:22] add one thing to this conversation, which is that we

[4:10:24] talk about. We've had several people come up here and talk

[4:10:28] about farmland and what it means and the value that it

[4:10:32] adds, and we we get these metrics in our packets. That's

[4:10:37] like, what is the cost versus the benefit of annexing the

[4:10:41] land? And I hear that we're talking about getting that

[4:10:44] information from EMS. And I do think that that's important.

[4:10:46] But also the metrics that we're using are not accurate. And so

[4:10:50] that's something that we need to be really upfront about.

[4:10:52] They're dated. They're not consistent across departments

[4:10:57] and they're not taking into account all of the impacts. We

[4:11:00] talk about the value of farmland. We're not talking

[4:11:03] about the fact that now we're having to pay so much extra to.

[4:11:07] Get rid of. the wonderful. Waste that we're composting. We

[4:11:11] in Durham are doing a great job of composting the waste, but we

[4:11:15] can't get rid of it now because we used to put it, give it to

[4:11:19] farmers and now we're having to pay extra to cart it out

[4:11:24] further and further because we don't have the farmland to take

[4:11:27] the waste that we're now turning into compost. These are

[4:11:30] costs that we're not talking about, and they're important,

[4:11:33] and they are cascading. We also are talking here about like

[4:11:37] rent stabilization and about affordability. And we're

[4:11:43] destroying the environment and thinking that this is creating

[4:11:48] affordability is just like mind boggling to me. If something is

[4:11:52] not affordable, if you need two cars and an HOA to access it,

[4:11:55] and in 20 years you're not going to be able to get

[4:11:58] insurance, it's not affordable, that's not affordable. And we

[4:12:02] need to stop talking about it like it is. So it's going to be

[4:12:05] a no for me on this case. I do appreciate the extra proffers

[4:12:08] and the interest on on the infrastructure development.

[4:12:13] This is also a 0 to 9 recommendation from the

[4:12:16] Planning Commission. These are volunteers that spend their

[4:12:18] hours that are experts, that we have all appointed to sit on

[4:12:22] this board to advise us. It's not binding, but they are

[4:12:26] advisory council and they voted 0 to 9 on recommendation on

[4:12:30] this. So I will be voting along with the with the commissioners

[4:12:34] on this case. Thank you. Thank you.

[4:12:38] I appreciate all my colleagues comments. I will also be voting

[4:12:41] no on this. I think. I think at this point I've only voted yes

[4:12:45] on anything that was either outside of that urban growth

[4:12:47] boundary or future growth boundary, and it was just a

[4:12:50] small portion of the site. There's a large site, just one

[4:12:53] little piece of it was outside the future growth boundary.

[4:12:56] Sorry, in the future growth boundary. And so I felt like

[4:12:59] weighing the pros and cons that made sense to me, because it

[4:13:02] wasn't the whole site. I will say that I, you know, we all

[4:13:11] I'm the longest serving member on this council. I've been on

[4:13:14] this seat since 2018. That's not a small amount of time. On

[4:13:17] my ninth budget and different council members have approached

[4:13:23] these kinds of decisions and cases along the way in very

[4:13:25] different ways. Everyone has to make their own decision.

[4:13:29] Everyone has to do a calculus. Some people listen to the

[4:13:31] planning commission, others don't. Some people use planning

[4:13:33] commission to bolster their opinion or don't. The previous

[4:13:38] case had had been overwhelmingly approved by

[4:13:41] planning Commission. So I just want to share that. That is

[4:13:44] it's an important piece of the puzzle, but it is one piece of

[4:13:48] the puzzle. And so I just don't want residents to think that

[4:13:51] it's carte blanche that we just listen to our planning

[4:13:55] commissioners. We definitely the better comments they

[4:14:00] provide, the more the more I listen to them. When when folks

[4:14:03] don't actually put in a lot of comments for us. I'm not going

[4:14:06] to go watch the meeting. Their meetings last three hours, our

[4:14:08] own meetings last, however long they last, and we have six to 8

[4:14:12] to 9 committees that we all support. So we're in a lot of

[4:14:16] meetings. So I won't be supporting this case tonight. I

[4:14:21] do appreciate all of the proffers. They they're it's a,

[4:14:24] you know, they're good proffers. But when I think

[4:14:27] about that piece of it, it does give me pause and I do I would

[4:14:33] like the timeline on the EMS question at some point. Not if

[4:14:37] staff could reach out to us when we talk to our county

[4:14:40] colleagues. I would like to understand when we're going to

[4:14:43] start getting that piece of the equation, because we don't have

[4:14:46] any control over that. We can do fire and police response,

[4:14:49] but we can't get that piece, which I think is important as

[4:14:52] we make our decisions up here. That's all.

[4:14:58] Thank you. Thank you colleagues, thank you for your

[4:15:00] comments. We're almost at the point of another break, but I

[4:15:04] think this has been a discussion. First up, I sort of

[4:15:10] look at this objectively, you know, and then I think about

[4:15:13] all of the things that, you know, I take to what the

[4:15:18] Planning Commission say very seriously. I also understand

[4:15:21] that cases evolved after that, sometimes based on the

[4:15:24] interaction with the Planning Commission. And I can

[4:15:26] appreciate that. A few questions for staff and. So.

[4:15:47] The and I'm just going to ask you very basic questions

[4:15:51] because I there were some comments made that I sometimes

[4:15:56] it gets really exhausting trying to clarify some

[4:15:59] misleading comments and I don't I don't want folks to be misled.

[4:16:04] So the comprehensive plan was put together and voted on by

[4:16:10] members of the community. That community members played a part

[4:16:13] in establishing that. Absolutely. We took so much

[4:16:17] input from members of the community in the development of

[4:16:20] the comprehensive Plan. Absolutely.

[4:16:22] Okay. The how did we come about with the water, the erosion and

[4:16:31] tree preservation policy? So that would have been based

[4:16:37] on a significant amount of input that we received. And

[4:16:42] staff has already looked to address some of the erosion

[4:16:45] control issues that were brought up during the

[4:16:47] comprehensive planning process. And we amended the Udo, I

[4:16:51] believe, in 24, 2024 to try to get at some of those things

[4:16:55] that came up in the conference plan.

[4:16:58] Okay. How so? This is an area where I keep hearing that we

[4:17:04] need more infrastructure. And I also hear we need, you know,

[4:17:08] resources. But it seems like those things are being used.

[4:17:11] Those terms are being used interchangeably. How do we and

[4:17:14] how do we define infrastructure.

[4:17:17] Infrastructure is basically whatever is the the physical

[4:17:24] things that you need for development could be roads,

[4:17:28] water, sewer, utilities, water and sewer trails and greenways,

[4:17:33] power lines, a variety of different. Physical. I can't

[4:17:43] think of the right word, but physical things that you need

[4:17:46] for the basic things you need in life, things they basically

[4:17:51] need development. And how would you define

[4:17:54] resources such as? Such as? There's a I mean,

[4:17:59] there's resources. Approaching. So when it comes

[4:18:04] to what we're talking about tonight, building zoning,

[4:18:07] annexations, what resources is it fair to say resources are

[4:18:12] police, fire. Those could be it could also be

[4:18:17] environmental resources. People have spoken quite a bit about

[4:18:20] the need to preserve environmental resources. It

[4:18:23] could be financial resources, the financial resources needed

[4:18:26] to be able to provide the police, fire and other things

[4:18:31] that are needed in a city. How are we paying for those

[4:18:36] resources and infrastructure? Infrastructure.

[4:18:41] So if it's the city, it's either through general

[4:18:45] obligation bonds, whether or it could be simply from the

[4:18:50] current tax revenues. You're now getting into financial

[4:18:53] questions that I am certainly not an expert on. Or it could

[4:18:57] be from the private development community addressing needs for

[4:19:02] the development and for the city's home.

[4:19:04] So it's either going to be through our tax base or through

[4:19:07] the builder. Generally our tax base or

[4:19:11] potentially from, say, state or federal resources as well.

[4:19:14] And any indication you may or may not know, there's any

[4:19:18] indication that the state or federal are going to step in

[4:19:20] anytime soon. Not that I'm aware of.

[4:19:27] So it comes back to either us here or the private developer.

[4:19:33] On the topics that we're discussing this evening. Most

[4:19:36] likely we're talking about city or county resources or from the

[4:19:41] private sector. Any idea of a timeline? If it's

[4:19:44] on us? No, I would need to direct that

[4:19:48] question to the city manager's office or the finance

[4:19:50] department. All right. I and I don't ask

[4:19:52] those questions in the comments anyway. I just want to be very

[4:19:55] clear about how we generate resources, how we generate, how

[4:19:59] we pay for these things, you know, and that and again, it

[4:20:04] goes back to me, a chicken and egg matter, you know, and I'm

[4:20:08] not going to play to anyone's emotions. I'm not going to do

[4:20:10] that. But I do want to be very clear on how government works

[4:20:15] and how our constraints are. This isn't a lecture, but, you

[4:20:19] know, I think it is dangerous to pretend that everyone, every

[4:20:24] case that comes before us is supposed to go get together and

[4:20:29] the perfect world, that would be great. But I'm not going to

[4:20:32] pretend that every applicant is going to get together and just

[4:20:35] do it all for us. I'm not going to pretend that that would be

[4:20:39] nice, but as of right now, in this case, I actually do have

[4:20:44] some concerns with. But as of right now, when I look at these

[4:20:47] cases and then when they come before us, I'm thinking about

[4:20:50] how do we get to what you're asking for? While as

[4:20:54] uncomfortable as it may be, and I know that the voices that I

[4:20:59] hear in the room are representative of many voices

[4:21:01] around the community. You know? But I think about the

[4:21:05] constraints that we have with the state government that's

[4:21:08] just absent. And a federal government who truly doesn't

[4:21:12] care. So it comes back on us here locally. And it's like,

[4:21:16] all right, so we got to get the taxpayers to pay for this. But

[4:21:20] at the same time, we're restricting the tax base from

[4:21:22] paying for it. So if you do have a builder or a developer

[4:21:25] to come in and say, all right, we're going to put this in

[4:21:27] place, you know, I and I, I've seen cases come through where

[4:21:32] they said, look, we're going to put a lift station here. We're

[4:21:34] going to put transportation improvements here, we're going

[4:21:36] to put infrastructure here, we're going to bring we're

[4:21:38] going to build a tax base. We're going to bring more roofs

[4:21:41] here, more units. We're going to expand the tax base so we

[4:21:43] can pay for the resources, but we're going to put the

[4:21:46] infrastructure in. And so I think about it that way. And

[4:21:49] then I look at the comprehensive plan doesn't meet

[4:21:51] it at least most of it does. It follow the Udo that we also, as

[4:21:57] residents of this community, established. And, you know, I

[4:22:02] think it would be disingenuous if I just play to your emotion

[4:22:06] on it and just want another just just told you what you

[4:22:09] wanted to hear. I'd rather just be honest with you and be able

[4:22:12] to sleep at night rather than just say whatever. But at the

[4:22:15] same time, that's just me. I also don't want to portray to

[4:22:18] you all colleagues that you are doing these things, but I know

[4:22:23] what emails I get, and I and I just want to make sure that I

[4:22:28] clearly explain to everyone my way of thinking when it comes

[4:22:31] to these things. So I look forward to us having a vote,

[4:22:37] and I thank you all for your your comments. All right.

[4:22:52] Ready? All right. I'll entertain a motion to adopt an

[4:22:56] ordinance annexing Patterson Hall into the city of Durham

[4:22:59] and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility

[4:23:02] extension agreement with MI homes Incorporated.

[4:23:06] So moved. Second. It's been moved and properly

[4:23:09] seconded. Madam clerk, please open to vote. Please close the

[4:23:18] vote. Motion fails. Unanimously.

[4:23:22] Thank you. I'll also entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance.

[4:23:28] Oh, actually, I don't need to do that side. The consistency

[4:23:31] statement. Right? No, I don't need to do that

[4:23:33] one. Okay, good. All right. We're

[4:23:37] done with that one. Colleagues, let's take a let's take a five

[4:23:42] minute break and then we'll get to the to the next one.

[4:29:43] Okay. All right. All right. Let's get

[4:29:45] started guys. You.

[4:30:14] All right. Welcome back everyone. This is 23 Morgan

[4:30:25] Farm. All right. Ready for the staff report okay.

[4:30:30] Mayor Williams, mayor pro Tem Caballero and honorable council

[4:30:33] members, it's Aaron Kane again with the planning department. A

[4:30:37] request for a utility extension agreement for voluntary

[4:30:40] annexation and initial zoning map change has been received

[4:30:43] from Laura Holloman of McAdams. For one portion of a parcel of

[4:30:47] land totaling 218.517 acres, and it's adjacent right of way.

[4:30:53] Located at 8422 Farrington Mill Road. This annexation petition

[4:30:58] is for a contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits

[4:31:02] to connect to city water and sewer. As part of this

[4:31:06] annexation petition, the applicant is not seeking a

[4:31:09] change in the underlying zoning district of Rural residential.

[4:31:13] The properties are currently designated mixed Use

[4:31:15] neighborhood and recreation and open space on the place type

[4:31:18] map. The proposed rural residential zoning is generally

[4:31:22] consistent with the designated place type. If the proposed

[4:31:25] zoning is approved, there will be no change to the place type

[4:31:28] designation. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available

[4:31:32] for any questions. Thank you very much. You've

[4:31:36] heard the staff report. Colleagues, are there any

[4:31:38] questions or comments for staff? Great. So at this time I'll

[4:31:44] declare the public hearing open. Welcome. How much time do you

[4:31:49] think you need? I think given.

[4:31:52] The interest. In this case, 14 minutes for

[4:31:55] myself as well as our landscape architect total should be

[4:31:58] plenty. All right, 15 minutes.

[4:32:20] Good evening, Mayor Williams and members of council. I'm

[4:32:23] Jamie Schrader with Parker Poe. I'm here on behalf of the

[4:32:26] applicant, m I homes, and I'm joined by our full team of

[4:32:29] representatives from McAdams and Kimberly Horn, who are here

[4:32:31] to answer your questions. A different request on this land

[4:32:35] was denied by the council a year ago. We listened to

[4:32:38] council's concerns and that of the community and what you have

[4:32:41] before you tonight is a different case, one that

[4:32:44] strikes the best talents possible between the city's

[4:32:47] need for housing as the city grows and its desire for land

[4:32:51] preservation. At the same time, the case before you respond to

[4:32:55] the concerns of the Council and the community expressed last,

[4:32:59] last April and provides more certainty now than it has

[4:33:02] before, because MI regrouped, they listened to the community

[4:33:06] and they brought forth a case that hits each of the areas

[4:33:09] that were brought. A major concern given its significant

[4:33:12] investments in Durham and its desire to provide the shortfall

[4:33:15] of housing and fill the gap that the city needs. Am I

[4:33:20] regrouped and filed just an annexation and required

[4:33:24] translational zoning. I'll go through the history of that

[4:33:26] because we did start with a zoning case, and due to the

[4:33:29] concerns of density that were brought by the neighbors, we

[4:33:32] reduced our density to just the by right allowance. We can only

[4:33:36] build what we can can with the translational zoning that we

[4:33:39] could otherwise build in the county. That was a choice in

[4:33:41] response to the neighbors who were concerned that our density

[4:33:45] would exceed what they have, which is exactly the same as

[4:33:47] the Montclair neighborhood, as well as the chapel hood within

[4:33:50] the neighborhood, which is 2.0. So we actually have a density

[4:33:53] that's less than some of the other Downing Creek and other

[4:33:56] neighborhoods that are close by. At the same time, we

[4:33:58] increased our open space to three times what the case was

[4:34:02] originally filed in 2022. We removed the inconsistency that

[4:34:07] the council struggled with last April due to the traffic

[4:34:10] improvements. That only applies to traffic development plans

[4:34:13] and a zoning case that does not apply here. Tonight, we

[4:34:16] committed to traffic improvements, so despite

[4:34:18] lowering our density, we committed to the same traffic

[4:34:21] improvements that we were before you in April. Even

[4:34:24] though we have the same by right trips as we would have in

[4:34:27] the county. And we also took the unusual step of filing the

[4:34:31] conservation subdivision with a commitment for 100 acres of

[4:34:34] open space, in response to concerns that there was a lack

[4:34:36] of certainty. And we've done that. It's pending with the

[4:34:39] with the city planning review staff, and we'll go through

[4:34:42] those normal channels in additional. In addition, we met

[4:34:46] with neighborhood groups and conservation groups and

[4:34:48] incorporated key environmental site strategies that will go

[4:34:51] through tonight, with Shawn Vanderslice explaining in

[4:34:53] detail an unprecedented level of environmental commitments

[4:34:57] and wildlife corridors on this Earth Day that the

[4:35:01] Commissioner, the Council Member Baker, has already

[4:35:03] spoken to. And at the same time, we kept the prior

[4:35:05] commitments of that zoning case. We are filing a UEA,

[4:35:09] which has the sewer extension and completion that will

[4:35:11] complete the needs in this future growth area. We are

[4:35:14] preserving a historic home and have the support of

[4:35:16] Preservation Durham. We're committing to $1 million in

[4:35:19] affordable housing contribution. I'll talk about

[4:35:21] how one precedent that is and why that's important to fill a

[4:35:24] public need in the city, as well as a $50,000 contribution

[4:35:28] to schools and to fire EMS services, based on concerns

[4:35:31] that we've heard in the community. And so what you have

[4:35:34] before you tonight is a simplified review based on what

[4:35:37] we heard from council and the community over the past three

[4:35:41] years. It's an annexation and translational zoning, as well

[4:35:44] as a utility extension agreement. And that is what has

[4:35:47] the binding tools. Even though we don't have the graphic

[4:35:49] development plan, we've picked up on other tools to provide

[4:35:52] that certainty. So I'll go through each of those. The

[4:35:55] annexation is consistent with policy 165 of the Comprehensive

[4:35:58] Plan. It's contiguous with the city limits. It does not create

[4:36:01] a donut hole, and it's not a satellite issue. It's within

[4:36:05] the urban growth boundary and within the future growth area.

[4:36:08] Because sewer is the only infrastructure that's

[4:36:11] identified by policy 122. And if any of you remember Miss

[4:36:14] Quinn, she and her family have been waiting on sewer in this

[4:36:17] area for years. She was before you last April. She was here

[4:36:20] tonight. But because of this late hour and her health

[4:36:23] conditions, she was not able to stay. My understanding is that

[4:36:26] she emailed and sent letters earlier in the week, and she

[4:36:29] regrets not being able to hear tonight. But that sewer is

[4:36:32] something that she recognizes that she participated in, in

[4:36:36] that community review of what was needed here. And with this

[4:36:38] project and the UEA commitments, will be providing

[4:36:41] that infrastructure not only for our site, but for sites

[4:36:44] like Miss Quinn's and those neighbors, neighbors who've

[4:36:46] been waiting on it for so long. Without this annexation, that

[4:36:49] becomes a burden of the city and the taxpayers to fund that

[4:36:52] sewer. And so that's that project that furthers the

[4:36:57] objective of the FTA policy. And the EPA will address that

[4:37:01] sewer infrastructure as far as the translational zoning,

[4:37:04] because we have dropped the zoning down to what we can do

[4:37:06] by right. There is no change in the zoning of what we could do

[4:37:10] today in the county versus what we're asking to do in the city.

[4:37:13] It's no change in the development tier, the place

[4:37:15] type map, the zoning district or the overlay. We could do 317

[4:37:19] single family homes with no open space in the county. We

[4:37:22] can do that in the city. We can do 340. Excuse me, 437 single

[4:37:27] family homes with 50% open space. If we opt to do the

[4:37:31] conservation subdivision, which we have done and shown that

[4:37:34] commitment by filing a very expensive application with the

[4:37:37] city that's pending today. And so that's that's no change in

[4:37:41] terms of what we can do from the county to the city

[4:37:44] jurisdiction. As a result, the staff finds this consistent

[4:37:48] with the Udo and generally consistent with the place type

[4:37:50] map designations, because what we're doing is preserving as

[4:37:53] much of that open space designation as possible. And

[4:37:55] you'll see that in attachment C in your staff report and are

[4:37:59] overlaying that with some mix of of residential neighborhood.

[4:38:03] Now, the mixed use neighborhood would otherwise want more

[4:38:06] density, more development here. But because your constituents

[4:38:09] have asked us not to do that, they've asked us to match the

[4:38:11] density out there. We've provided the right amount. The

[4:38:14] blend of that residential neighborhood with the

[4:38:16] recreation open space, and we've overlaid as much as a

[4:38:20] place type map designation for open space as we could with the

[4:38:23] Natural Heritage Area program that we'll be talking about in

[4:38:27] just a minute. Third, the proffers that I spoke about are

[4:38:31] listed on your screen. The developer is is offering a one

[4:38:34] time contribution of $1 million to the city's dedicated housing

[4:38:38] fund for the Durham Down Payment Assistance Program.

[4:38:41] This is unprecedented in the city. You've not seen a

[4:38:43] commitment like this. And the reason why it's here before you

[4:38:46] is that we were serious about trying to provide relief to

[4:38:49] citizens, citizens who need it in an innovative way. We

[4:38:52] recognize this case is innovative and it requires

[4:38:55] different tools, and this is an important part of them. In

[4:38:58] addition, we're making that $50,000 contribution to Durham

[4:39:01] Public Schools and $50,000 to respond to the concerns. We

[4:39:04] heard about emergency services in the area. In addition to

[4:39:07] those changes, I wanted to highlight what this team has

[4:39:09] done differently from 2022 to respond to council and

[4:39:12] community concerns. This shows how we've reduced the density.

[4:39:15] At the same time, we've increased open space. So your

[4:39:18] first application, which is called Sheffield Farms, filed

[4:39:21] back in November of 2022, had 950 units and 35 acres of open

[4:39:26] space that wound its way to council and reduced down to 702

[4:39:31] units and increased some of the mix of of of product, but was

[4:39:36] ultimately denied. In April of 2025. We then filed a further

[4:39:39] reduced density, and based on those concerns, we heard with

[4:39:43] that zoning application, we withdrew the application and

[4:39:47] dropped straight down to only what we can do by right. That

[4:39:50] maximum of 300 or 437 single family homes and over 100 acres

[4:39:55] of open space with the conservation subdivision

[4:39:58] option. Now we know we've heard from the community members that

[4:40:01] doubt of whether that conservation subdivision would

[4:40:03] be filed, whether we'd pursue that, whether it would be

[4:40:06] protecting the most important hardwoods. And so we've taken

[4:40:09] two really important steps. And I'll go through those in just a

[4:40:12] minute to show how we've committed to those areas. The

[4:40:15] tier is important because as I mentioned, even though we're

[4:40:18] going forward with that by right density. So the same

[4:40:21] amount of homes that we could put on the site today means the

[4:40:24] same amount of cars that we can put on the roads today without

[4:40:26] this annexation. But despite that, we've committed to the

[4:40:30] improvements that you saw in the last case, which basically

[4:40:32] means $1 million of improvements and turn lanes as

[4:40:36] well as single signal timing that will help to alleviate

[4:40:39] some of the concerns. You may here tonight from constituents

[4:40:42] that will come with or without the annexation, because we're

[4:40:45] allowed to put that same amount of cars on the road. What we

[4:40:48] want to do tonight is be able to provide more certainty and

[4:40:51] more public interest benefits by allowing the annexation that

[4:40:55] allows us to carry forward not only these improvements, but

[4:40:58] the improvements I spoke to about earlier. And here's where

[4:41:01] it's really important, I think, to recognize the unusual and

[4:41:04] unprecedented step that MI homes has taken. We've not only

[4:41:09] talked about filing the conservation subdivision, we've

[4:41:11] actually filed it. It's with the planning department. It

[4:41:14] preserves 109 acres of open space, including 31 acres of

[4:41:17] hardwood forest, 22 acres of wildlife corridors, and 14

[4:41:21] acres of vegetated areas. We sent this around earlier last

[4:41:24] week to to note that it had been filed to make sure that

[4:41:27] all council knew it was on file and on record, and it's here on

[4:41:31] your screen tonight. The open space overlaps with 60% of the

[4:41:35] North Carolina Heritage Program areas otherwise eligible for

[4:41:38] timbering. Now, the reason that's important is because the

[4:41:41] director of the North Carolina Heritage Program, Misty

[4:41:44] Copeland, has written you a letter that she sent over last

[4:41:47] week in support of this approach in support of

[4:41:50] conservation subdivision as the only protection that this North

[4:41:53] Carolina Heritage Program has in order to protect these

[4:41:57] trees. And it can sound tempting that this program is

[4:42:00] in place and that it's part of the open space place type map.

[4:42:03] But the reality is there is no protection for those hardwoods

[4:42:06] today. Absent this annexation in this project going forward.

[4:42:10] In fact, they're subject to a forestry plan, which we've

[4:42:13] supplied a lot of information to you last week highlighting

[4:42:16] how this property has been held for years and in conservation,

[4:42:20] and will be subject to timbering, according to the

[4:42:22] state program. Should this not be able to go forward. That's

[4:42:25] just a reality of how this has been able to be preserved for

[4:42:28] almost a century, and it will no longer be able to be

[4:42:31] preserved should the annexation not be adopted. But what's

[4:42:35] important about that is that although the annexation is

[4:42:37] before you, and that's really the decision before you

[4:42:40] tonight, these file documents show exactly how much of that

[4:42:43] area is being preserved, and it overlaps substantially with

[4:42:47] that program. In addition, that in addition to filing the

[4:42:51] conservation subdivision was not just a filing. It's a it's

[4:42:54] a very expensive fee that you have to pay. So it's showing

[4:42:57] that good faith commitment to carry that forward. We heard

[4:43:00] concerns about what if they don't pursue their conservation

[4:43:02] subdivision? What if it's somebody else other than my

[4:43:05] homes? And so we took the unprecedented step of recording

[4:43:08] open space covenants against the property. Today they exist.

[4:43:12] Today they will become effective that the annexation

[4:43:15] is approved. And what it requires is not only the future

[4:43:18] property owners being am I or the current owner. Any future

[4:43:22] property owner has to respect the open space configuration

[4:43:26] shown on the open space plan that was with our filed

[4:43:30] conservation subdivision. Now, of course, your excellent staff

[4:43:32] is going to have to have discretion on going through

[4:43:35] their entire review of the conservation subdivision. But

[4:43:38] what it says is essentially that exhibit that you see on

[4:43:41] your screen with the recorded document on your screen is a

[4:43:43] required element binding and legally binding on the land,

[4:43:47] just like a a zoning condition would be. That requires us to

[4:43:51] preserve at least 100 acres and complies with your Udo

[4:43:55] maintenance requirements in 6.2 and four. So in addition to

[4:43:58] addressing the density, the open space certainty, the

[4:44:00] environmental protection, and the transportation commitments

[4:44:04] here, this by right, zoning means that we are committing to

[4:44:07] the same things that would have otherwise been in a higher

[4:44:09] density case, and we've already worked with the various

[4:44:13] decision makers to say that we're going through the

[4:44:15] process. The Army Corps will review this when it's time.

[4:44:18] They've confirmed that in writing, without the

[4:44:21] infrastructure, without the annexation. I think it's

[4:44:24] important to note that people like Miss Quinn will be relying

[4:44:27] on capital improvement projects from the city. No sewer

[4:44:30] extensions for the Queens or otherwise scheduled in the in

[4:44:33] the difficult budget decisions you're going to have to be

[4:44:35] making in the next two months, Historic preservation is also a

[4:44:39] component preserve Durham. Excuse me? Preservation Durham

[4:44:43] has confirmed in writing that they will take ownership of the

[4:44:46] two acre parcel that it was previously committed, and

[4:44:48] that's also been in your packet. So in addition to the

[4:44:51] prior commitments now in the UEA, the utility extension

[4:44:54] agreement, having those binding elements that the zoning case

[4:44:57] otherwise had, we have the conservation subdivision plan

[4:45:00] filed, we have the recorded open space covenants filed

[4:45:03] protecting this North Carolina Natural Heritage Area in a way

[4:45:07] that it doesn't otherwise have protections today means that

[4:45:10] this is the most certainty possible at this stage to

[4:45:14] provide more environmental protection and certainty than

[4:45:17] the council and the community would otherwise have. By right,

[4:45:20] with the same amount of housing and traffic as the county would

[4:45:23] have by right, it's tempting in the face of opposition, to feel

[4:45:27] that a no is kind of a good thing and serving the

[4:45:30] community, but in this case, a no would actually not protect

[4:45:33] the very trees that the community has really focused

[4:45:36] on. The hardwoods that are part of this North Carolina heritage

[4:45:39] program. It would not provide the sewer extensions or the

[4:45:42] traffic extensions that have been so important to this

[4:45:45] community. And so we ask that you give these trees the

[4:45:48] production that they do not have the day and do the right

[4:45:51] thing. And to vote yes on this annexation, I'd like to reserve

[4:45:54] the rest of my time for Shawn Vanderslice to come up and

[4:45:56] explain the innovative techniques we've used in the

[4:45:58] conservation Subdivision Open Space Plan. Thank you.

[4:46:06] Good evening, mayor and council members. I'll be brief here,

[4:46:09] but from a I'm a landscape architect and land planner with

[4:46:12] McAdams. Sorry. You're a bit taller. Yes.

[4:46:22] So, from a community design and placemaking perspective, a

[4:46:26] conservation subdivision for this development provides the

[4:46:28] best avenue forward for Morgan Farm. So per the Udo, it not

[4:46:33] only encourages but requires the conservation and

[4:46:35] preservation of environmental features. And as we all know,

[4:46:38] there's no shortage of those at this site. Per the Udo, our

[4:46:43] plan preserves over 50% of the 218 acres. 40% of that is

[4:46:48] floodplain, riparian buffers, wetland, wetlands, water

[4:46:51] bodies, steep slopes, wildlife corridors, forest areas greater

[4:46:54] than one acre in size. Our plan also includes secondary areas

[4:46:59] that would include also stormwater control measures

[4:47:02] that are designed as constructed wetlands, as seen

[4:47:06] in this final graphic here, MI has entrusted our team to

[4:47:10] develop an ecologically focused programming elements that will

[4:47:13] further emphasize the significance of the project for

[4:47:15] the Durham community, the elements you're seeing here are

[4:47:19] not code required, but are crucial components to the

[4:47:22] cohesive plan centered on ecosystem services and

[4:47:25] environmental design. So internal trail networks connect

[4:47:28] residents with nature, while untouched wildlife corridors

[4:47:31] remain permanently protected to encourage existing ecologies to

[4:47:33] continue to thrive. Where wildlife needs to cross

[4:47:36] vehicular routes, for instance, added space and signage will be

[4:47:39] provided. How much more time do you need?

[4:47:42] A minute and a half. I have two minutes, please.

[4:47:45] Thank you. Preservation of historical structures and the

[4:47:50] voluntary implementation of Environmental Education program

[4:47:53] will further set this development apart from the rest

[4:47:55] in Durham. I want to end by just making sure to mention how

[4:47:59] much the input of staff, council and the citizens of

[4:48:01] Durham has impacted the way we've approached this project,

[4:48:04] as well as the way that I've designed it for am I, and

[4:48:07] worked with them to improve the project and the submission

[4:48:09] tonight. The efforts that I detailed in terms of open space

[4:48:12] and ecologically focused protections are not what would

[4:48:15] be considered the easy way forward for a nationally

[4:48:18] recognized home builder. But we feel this approach certainly

[4:48:20] constitutes the best path forward. It's our hope that

[4:48:24] Morgan Farm can serve as an example of ecologically

[4:48:27] sensitive and innovative design in the residential market,

[4:48:29] where it is desperately, desperately needed. We have

[4:48:33] before us the ability to flip the narrative where the need

[4:48:36] and desire for conservation of our landscapes works as a

[4:48:38] valuable tool in addressing the unwavering need for places for

[4:48:42] our citizens to to live. This is not unplanned, uncontrolled

[4:48:46] urban sprawl because in this case, conservation is the

[4:48:50] control. The overarching goal here as a designer was not to

[4:48:54] design a neighborhood that simply exists in the woods, but

[4:48:57] rather to build a community that coexists with nature in

[4:49:00] ways that innovative, timeless and precedent. And with that,

[4:49:04] I'll end my time, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[4:49:10] Thank you so much. All right. I'll start with my online

[4:49:14] speakers. Kate Heim, can you hear me?

[4:49:29] What should we see? Oh. All right, Laura McCall,

[4:49:38] you have the presentation. Hi. Can you hear me?

[4:49:47] Yes. Welcome. Laura, just one moment.

[4:49:51] Sure. This is her.

[4:49:54] Presentation. Okay. Is it Vivian? Is it multiple

[4:50:00] slides, or is it just one? I do.

[4:50:04] Not know. Is this one just this one?

[4:50:06] Can you see it? Okay. All right. We can see it now.

[4:50:09] Welcome. You have two minutes. Great. Morgan Farms first

[4:50:13] submitted a new Tia and a PDR 2.5 rezoning that was quite

[4:50:17] similar to what's before you tonight, a proposal for 560

[4:50:21] mixed residential units and included a 5% affordable

[4:50:24] housing commitment. The primary win now is the 50% open space

[4:50:29] requirement, but the ability to provide open space was never

[4:50:32] the real question. It was always what the applicant was

[4:50:36] willing to pencil. In. This version increases open spaces

[4:50:39] but removes affordable housing, lacks housing diversity and

[4:50:43] avoids real, enforceable protections to run with the

[4:50:46] land for historic sites, corridors, habitat, steep

[4:50:49] slopes and stream buffers beyond the minimum. You know,

[4:50:52] in many ways this appears less like a fundamentally new

[4:50:55] proposal and more like a rebranding effort. Tagged as

[4:50:58] conservation instead of a cluster design. And that

[4:51:01] matters because what is lost in that shift is leverage.

[4:51:05] Council's leverage is the ability to evaluate a major

[4:51:08] land use change for a large and sensitive site through

[4:51:11] transparency, scrutiny, and enforceable commitments that

[4:51:14] protect the public interest. Instead, this approach approach

[4:51:18] moves many of those issues into an administrative process where

[4:51:21] the role is no longer to secure broader public benefits, and

[4:51:25] the current ordinances with waivers and NPAs are not robust

[4:51:30] enough for sites like this. Section 624 removed shall to

[4:51:34] shift from clear requirements to suggested features. Much of

[4:51:38] what's being discussed tonight could change later and still

[4:51:41] remain compliant, the applicant told neighbors they would not

[4:51:45] pursue subdivision without annexation, and that reveals

[4:51:48] where a true leverage still sits. If development of this

[4:51:51] site is only reasonable with utilities, then council has

[4:51:55] every reason to use legislative authority granted to it. That

[4:51:59] means asking whether this is the right project in the right

[4:52:02] place, under the right terms. It means durable protections

[4:52:06] beyond promises or good intentions, and it means

[4:52:09] ensuring that public value, not just private feasibility, is

[4:52:13] what drives the decision. Tonight is not simply about

[4:52:15] whether something can be built, but whether Durham will use its

[4:52:19] leverage wisely and not succumb so much from developers. Thank

[4:52:23] you. Thank you. Katie Ross.

[4:52:34] Hello? Can you hear me? Hey there. Yes, welcome. You

[4:52:37] have two minutes. Okay.

[4:52:39] Katie? Ross? Yes? I'm going to follow up, Laura, by talking

[4:52:44] about conservation subdivision. I know quite a bit about this.

[4:52:47] Because I've been. Involved from the beginning and

[4:52:49] the Mason farms case, which was just resolved in favor of the

[4:52:54] neighbors by the Court of Appeals. Oh, some of you were

[4:52:59] taken on tours of some of the worst subdivisions in southeast

[4:53:04] Durham by PRD. Electeds. I recall, were quite shocked at

[4:53:11] what they saw, and they were stunned when they realized and

[4:53:15] were told that the worst of those subdivisions with the

[4:53:19] worst environmental destruction were conservation subdivisions.

[4:53:23] How could that happen? Well, it turned out through the we

[4:53:27] learned through this lawsuit that was Robin Barefoot lawsuit

[4:53:31] that for years the planning department had been approving

[4:53:36] 15. They said conservation subdivisions without any regard

[4:53:41] for the 12 purposes of the statute of the ordinance that

[4:53:47] 12 conservation oriented purposes and the planning

[4:53:51] department was interpreting those as totally optional. They

[4:53:55] were not enforcing them. So we have now learned that that was

[4:53:59] wrong. And the court said that that those 12 purposes were

[4:54:04] mandatory. But the planning department came and brought you

[4:54:07] and you guys passed an amendment to the conservation

[4:54:12] subdivision ordinance that removed the language that made

[4:54:17] those purposes mandatory. So now you have the same statute

[4:54:24] that allowed those horrible subdivisions, and it doesn't

[4:54:27] even have the purposes enforceable at all. So what I'm

[4:54:34] trying to say is do not be fooled by the name that this is

[4:54:39] a conservation subdivision, conservation is only as good as

[4:54:45] the enforcement, and they cannot be enforced.

[4:54:47] Thank you. Thank you. And lastly, I have Elizabeth Miller.

[4:54:55] Elizabeth, can you hear me? Hi.

[4:55:00] Welcome. You have two minutes. Thank you. So the constraints

[4:55:06] on this site are not hypothetical. They were

[4:55:08] established during the prior Sheffield proposal and they

[4:55:10] have not changed the environmental sensitivity

[4:55:13] sensitivities, access limitations and infrastructure

[4:55:15] challenges remain. By definition, this conservation

[4:55:18] subdivision should have 50% open space and 80% of that has

[4:55:22] to come from a primary list defined by the Udo. The staff

[4:55:25] report tonight says there are no wildlife corridors on site.

[4:55:29] The applicant has 22 acres of wildlife corridor as part of

[4:55:32] the 80%. So do we know if these are existing corridors or are

[4:55:37] they self identified theoretical corridors? The Open

[4:55:41] Space report from 2025 notes that we should leave a 300 foot

[4:55:46] buffer undisturbed next to the protected wetlands just north

[4:55:49] of the Jordan Reservoir. Obviously, because that's going

[4:55:53] to be our future water source. It seems a bit foolish to spend

[4:55:55] millions of dollars to get water out of there, but then

[4:55:57] not ensure we have that 300 foot buffer in place to protect

[4:56:01] that source. So this conservation subdivision

[4:56:04] doesn't eliminate these constraints. It postpones the

[4:56:07] moment when the binding decisions are made. Truly, the

[4:56:10] real problem is there are no mechanisms in place that make

[4:56:14] sure that this is actually enforceable like they have an

[4:56:17] application in. But when you annex today that's

[4:56:20] irreversible. That application could be denied. So this isn't

[4:56:24] a question of trust. It's a question of good governance.

[4:56:28] And good governance requires that permanent actions be

[4:56:31] matched with permanent protections that secure the

[4:56:33] public benefits. So for those reasons, I respectfully urge

[4:56:36] you to deny the annexation. Thank you.

[4:56:41] Thank you so much. All right. I'm going to call five names at

[4:56:47] a time. We can queue to my right. You're left. Julie

[4:56:52] McClintock, Betsy Buchanan, Judy Tilson, Haley Sanders and

[4:57:00] Barry Sanders. Thank you. Thank you.

[4:57:09] Yes. No, I don't.

[4:57:13] Good evening, Mayor Williams and.

[4:57:14] City councilors. Thank you for your patience. My

[4:57:17] name is Julie McClintock. My address is on record.

[4:57:20] I am here to oppose the minimization request and

[4:57:23] explain the drawbacks of using translational rezoning for the

[4:57:28] Morgan Farm project. Despite the glowing report you heard

[4:57:32] earlier, translational rezoning was created as an

[4:57:35] administrative tool to maintain zoning continuity when small

[4:57:39] properties move from county to city, it was never intended to

[4:57:43] serve as a back door entitlement for large projects,

[4:57:46] which should undergo meaningful review. While the zoning label

[4:57:51] may remain residential rural, we know that approving

[4:57:54] annexation would allow MI homes to connect to city water and

[4:57:57] sewer, and to achieve urban densities for a very large

[4:58:02] parcel. This would result in hundreds of units being exempt

[4:58:06] from a full review. Here are two strong reasons not to annex

[4:58:11] this property. First, approving annexation would allow

[4:58:15] translational rezoning to bypass the normal safeguards

[4:58:19] the council relies on, including comprehensive impact

[4:58:22] analysis and mitigation measures that is reasonable for

[4:58:25] single home, but not for a multi hundred unit project with

[4:58:30] regional impacts. Second, if annexation were approved,

[4:58:34] proffers could disappear. The city would lose the ability to

[4:58:38] negotiate bonding, conservation and phasing conditions such as

[4:58:42] affordable housing, sidewalks, additional open space. We will

[4:58:48] lose the ability to see what we are getting, like buying a pig

[4:58:52] in a poke. This is not about opposing development. It is

[4:58:56] about ensuring that this development is reviewed by

[4:58:59] staff, residents and you through a transparent public

[4:59:03] process where we know what we are getting. It is about

[4:59:06] insisting on a thoughtful review of an application that

[4:59:09] will cause environmental harm and severe traffic congestion

[4:59:13] over a wide area. Please follow the lead of your Planning

[4:59:17] Commission and reject this request. Thank you.

[4:59:21] Thank you. Welcome. You have two minutes.

[4:59:40] I'm all right. Okay. Let's.

[4:59:46] It's. Good evening, Mayor Williams.

[4:59:50] City council members. My name is Betsy Buchanan and my name

[4:59:54] is on. Address is on file. Morgan Farm, formerly

[4:59:58] Sheffield, was withdrawn. Has withdrawn their proposed plan.

[5:00:02] An original rezoning request, and tonight only seek

[5:00:05] annexation. Last year, when the City Council denied Sheffield

[5:00:10] one labor member in favor stated by the loudly this land

[5:00:14] will be developed. And my question tonight to you is why?

[5:00:19] Why does every inch of Durham County have to be developed?

[5:00:23] And why would a developer seek annexation unless they plan to

[5:00:27] develop in my homes, made modifications to their site

[5:00:30] proposal prior to changing their rezoning request?

[5:00:34] However, none of these changes address the very real problems.

[5:00:39] If taken into the city, then their plan comes to light. But

[5:00:43] no plan can ever overcome the difficulties and obstacles that

[5:00:46] face building on that property. Again, I say this is not about

[5:00:51] locals resisting development. This is about recognizing the

[5:00:55] facts of trying to develop in this area. Morgan Farm would

[5:00:59] add about 1000 cars daily through their three exits

[5:01:02] directly onto Farrington Mill. Already stressed land along

[5:01:07] Farrington Mill is part of the watershed for Jordan Lake, a

[5:01:10] source of drinking water for Durham. The property has

[5:01:13] historical evidence that has raised unanswered questions

[5:01:17] and, if annexed, may never be answered. Morgan Farm may not

[5:01:21] be a wildlife corridor, but the animals don't know that this

[5:01:25] area provides wildlife a safe haven not disturbed by cars or

[5:01:29] guns, providing sewer is a huge issue, especially since there

[5:01:33] is also a timing issue with the repair of the bridge near

[5:01:37] Stagecoach Road. Tonight, you decide if Morgan Farm will be

[5:01:42] annexed into the city of Durham. Current proposed plans

[5:01:47] and proffers are not binding and your decision is

[5:01:50] irreversible. Please do the right thing and vote no for

[5:01:55] this request. Thank you.

[5:02:18] That's fine. That's fine. I think I should

[5:02:20] say good. Morning. Thank you.

[5:02:23] All for saying. So much. Good morning.

[5:02:26] My name is Judy Tilson and I live just south of the proposed

[5:02:30] development site. My address is on record. I'm here to share

[5:02:34] concerns about the proposed annexation for Morgan Farm. The

[5:02:37] character of this area is fundamentally rural. Despite

[5:02:40] its designation as a mixed use neighborhood place type in two

[5:02:44] areas on either side or designated as recreation and

[5:02:48] open space. The intent of a mixed use neighborhood is to

[5:02:52] support communities where residents can meet most daily

[5:02:55] needs within a 15 minute walk or bike ride, including

[5:02:58] groceries, schools, parks, pharmacies, restaurants,

[5:03:01] libraries, and health care. Rural areas are highly car

[5:03:05] dependent. The nearest public transit is approximately an

[5:03:08] hour's walk away, and essentially daily needs such as

[5:03:11] groceries and fuel are roughly 2 to 3 miles from the site, and

[5:03:15] you have in front of you the list of the how far it is to

[5:03:18] Food Lion and Harris, Teeter and Rowntree, and they're all 2

[5:03:21] to 3 miles away, and there are no sidewalks. Now, as a woman

[5:03:26] who's trying to get more exercise, I know exactly how

[5:03:29] far away that is. And that's a long distance for anybody to

[5:03:32] go. So annexation implies that the city will provide these

[5:03:38] services, and it simply cannot. And obviously we've heard

[5:03:41] tonight it doesn't. There's also no bus transportation

[5:03:44] that's convenient. Please oppose this request. And thank

[5:03:47] you for staying up so late. Thank you.

[5:04:31] Trick in the millennial. I'm Haley Sanders. I now live

[5:04:34] in Chapel. Hill, but my.

[5:04:35] Childhood home, my parents home is in the downs neighborhood. I

[5:04:39] spent much of my life less. Than a half mile.

[5:04:41] Downstream from the bottom of this image. I asked that the

[5:04:44] council vote. No.

[5:04:45] On the annexation of Morgan Farm property. My remarks

[5:04:48] concerned the threats that this commercial request presents to

[5:04:51] our waterways. The first and most immediate threat comes

[5:04:54] from the new sewer main that annexation would require the

[5:04:58] route of the sewer main. According to Sheffield, would

[5:05:00] follow on the southeastern side of Farrington Road, the sewer

[5:05:04] main would cross Little Creek, southeast of the Little Creek

[5:05:06] Bridge. This Google Earth image shows how the bridge and the

[5:05:09] Army Corps levee already artificially constrain a

[5:05:11] braided, marshy stream to a single channel. It's important

[5:05:17] to put in the context of the planned replacement of Little

[5:05:20] Creek Bridge, which you'll hear more about later to accommodate

[5:05:23] the southeastern shift of the new bridge relative to the old

[5:05:26] bridge, this new sewer main would have to cross Little

[5:05:28] Creek and intrude on the protected falls. Jordan Lake

[5:05:31] watershed. If this sewer line were buried, it would bring

[5:05:34] huge disturbances in downstream. Silting of the

[5:05:37] braided stream bed of Little Creek within the critical

[5:05:39] protection zone of the lake. A district, a lake. If the sewer

[5:05:43] line has to be moved around a bridge replacement that

[5:05:46] multiplies the havoc. If the sewer line crossed the creek

[5:05:51] above stream grade, it would be vulnerable to other kinds of

[5:05:54] damage and leakage. You'll hear more on this later. Sewer lines

[5:05:58] do not guarantee the protection of sensitive waterways, most

[5:06:01] certainly not in their construction phases, and not

[5:06:03] from corporate interests. If you all sign off on the

[5:06:08] annexation, I won't get to publicly comment again. So on a

[5:06:11] personal note, I've been swimming, canoeing, swamping

[5:06:14] around in Little Creek, new Hope Creek, and Jordan Lake,

[5:06:17] and in the stream bed behind my house. My whole life, my

[5:06:20] family's current phablet activity is watching our dogs

[5:06:23] get the zoomies in the same stream bed my sister and I

[5:06:25] played in with rubber duckies children. The most important

[5:06:28] times in my life are water based activities very near the

[5:06:30] sewer proposal. I'm not done making memories on this

[5:06:33] protected watershed. Thank you. As Mr. Berry is

[5:06:41] coming up, I can ask Kate Haim. There she is. Elizabeth Bibi.

[5:06:51] More bets. Field bets. Field. Jon Cohen and Tom Galloway to

[5:06:58] come up. Welcome. Mayor.

[5:07:03] Council members. I'm Barry Saunders. I live at 8110

[5:07:06] Kennebec Drive, Durham County. On watershed protection.

[5:07:11] The Morgan. Farm parcel.

[5:07:12] Is a mostly forested plateau overlooking.

[5:07:15] The. Morgan Creek floodplain, a mile

[5:07:17] and a half from the creek's connection to Jordan Lake. The

[5:07:20] critical watershed boundary runs close. That creek.

[5:07:24] Floodplain has been awash in Jordan backwaters several times

[5:07:28] these last decades. Much of the Morgan Farm west boundary has

[5:07:32] been flood waters, shoreline. In prior comments to this

[5:07:39] council, I showed deeply eroded basins of intermittent streams

[5:07:43] draining the west edge of the property. That's with mature

[5:07:46] forest around them. I showed cutting of slopes from

[5:07:49] significant subsurface water movement. I described major

[5:07:54] slope along that west property edge. I also suggested the site

[5:07:58] surveyor may have undercounted areas of officially steep slope

[5:08:02] 25% or more. Today you weigh a sparse annexation proposal

[5:08:08] without many enforceable details about development that

[5:08:11] will follow. Late timing is strategic, but indulge just one

[5:08:16] look at their pinky promise conservation subdivision site

[5:08:20] plan, which we won't have a chance to address if you

[5:08:23] approve annexation, there's plenty of paving and building

[5:08:26] planned through sloped and eroded topography along

[5:08:30] ephemeral and intermittent streams, and where subsurface

[5:08:33] water movement occurs as well. Turning so much existing forest

[5:08:38] into so much impervious surface would still bring a huge shift

[5:08:41] in how stormwater is delivered to Morgan Creek. Despite

[5:08:45] engineered containment, retention ponds would not

[5:08:47] prevent significant increase in new toxins and new nutrients

[5:08:51] draining to a wetland and stream that are already

[5:08:54] nutrient sensitive. Development here would still increase.

[5:08:59] Durham's already significant contribution to the impairment

[5:09:02] and eutrophication of northern Jordan Lake, a drinking water

[5:09:06] supply. For many, the future expense of mitigating this

[5:09:10] impairment of a vital environmental resource is not

[5:09:13] shown on any cost benefit analysis. I've seen. Thank you

[5:09:17] for your time. Thank you. Welcome.

[5:09:37] All right. Good evening. City council members. Mayor.

[5:09:39] Mayor pro tem, my name is Kate. Haim and I.

[5:09:42] Live on Kennebec Drive in the downs neighborhood.

[5:09:45] Most importantly. On the environmental side, I

[5:09:47] think is the translational rezoning does not provide any

[5:09:50] security or transparency for whatever development happens on

[5:09:53] this site as a sensitive area identified by the Durham Open

[5:09:56] Space Program and the North Carolina Natural Heritage

[5:09:58] Program, development here deserves intentional and

[5:10:01] transparent planning for review and approval of the City

[5:10:03] Council. The need for this oversight is reinforced by the

[5:10:06] most recently proposed plan, distributed last week by Morgan

[5:10:10] Farms for conservation subdivision, which does not

[5:10:12] adequately address the concerns. This would not be

[5:10:15] reimbursable even if it was adequate, but it's not.

[5:10:18] Submission of an application is not a commitment. The this plan

[5:10:23] violates the Durham Comprehensive Plan policies 79

[5:10:27] to protect Durham's most ecologically sensitive areas

[5:10:30] from the impacts of development policy 81. Protect the most

[5:10:33] environmental sensitive portions of the site and policy

[5:10:36] 83. Existing habitat and wildlife movement corridors

[5:10:38] should be left largely undisturbed, including that and

[5:10:41] identified in the North Carolina Natural Heritage

[5:10:43] Program. All of these policies are considered to have the

[5:10:46] greatest impact on development cases, and should be weighed as

[5:10:49] such. And these maps you can see the identified areas of

[5:10:54] priority with the Wildlife Habitat Connectivity map

[5:10:56] showing the most of the parcel, with a minimum of high priority

[5:11:00] areas of higher and highest priority. The red circles show

[5:11:03] the largest area of highest priority, with the green double

[5:11:05] arrow added by me as a suggested wildlife corridor or,

[5:11:08] most appropriate. The pink boxes are the Morgan Farms

[5:11:11] proposed wildlife corridors. This is the most recently

[5:11:14] proposed map received last week by the neighbors. You can see

[5:11:20] there is not a wildlife corridor in the highest

[5:11:22] priority area. Animals would have to cross two roads, one

[5:11:25] alley, three rows of houses likely with fenced yards,

[5:11:28] preventing access and or endangering lives of animals

[5:11:30] attempting to go through here. The final graphic that was

[5:11:34] shown by the the individual here tonight was not shared. So

[5:11:38] this does not reflect this. There are more responsible ways

[5:11:41] to do this. Thank you.

[5:11:44] Thank you, thank. You.

[5:11:59] But I want. Full screen. Is the.

[5:12:09] Control panel. Oh.

[5:12:15] My name is. Elizabeth Moore. and my.

[5:12:18] Address is on record. Few words tonight. Permanent conservation

[5:12:23] is possible. For.

[5:12:24] This property. The land is being looked at by local

[5:12:28] national conservation organizations for purchase, for

[5:12:31] permanent permanent conservation protection. And

[5:12:35] look, Durham and City Council would then have a public park

[5:12:40] or a nature preserve. What a good solution to this. Okay,

[5:12:45] now I have to go here. I want to be clear that my concern is

[5:12:49] not with annexation or development. Again, it's is

[5:12:52] this appropriate for this location? Why are you not

[5:12:57] advancing a comprehensive plan emphasizes context sensitive

[5:13:02] development. Appropriate transitions and density, and

[5:13:06] directing higher density housing to areas with adequate

[5:13:10] infrastructure. Here you see orange, Durham, Chatham and

[5:13:14] Wake County, and there's a confluence of seven linked

[5:13:17] natural corridors. Do you see that dark green up in the upper

[5:13:21] left hand corner? It's like a Y shape. And then it goes down

[5:13:26] south, to the east, to the head of, you guessed it, Jordan

[5:13:32] Lake. And the red arrow shows you where this property is

[5:13:36] located. Now two deers. Oh hi, dear one, how do you get to the

[5:13:43] Wildlife Conservation Trail? I don't know, deer, but I think

[5:13:48] you go 30 steps to the left and 30 steps to the right. And then

[5:13:52] two miles down the road, if you run, you'll be safe. Well, this

[5:13:58] has to be a corridor following water and tree coverage. I'm

[5:14:05] going backwards. So I said my part. Thank you.

[5:14:15] Thank you, Mr. Miller. Good evening.

[5:14:39] Mayor Williams. And Durham City Council. I'm

[5:14:43] Beth's field addresses on file. As noted in the rezoning report

[5:14:49] and shown here in the plat, the site hosts two historic

[5:14:55] buildings. The antebellum Hutchens Farm and a double log

[5:15:00] pen slave quarters. The Hutchinson family and their

[5:15:05] slaves farmed cotton, tobacco, and other crops. In 2020 for

[5:15:10] preservation, Durham toured the site with the developer and

[5:15:15] found both buildings suitable for preservation. Additionally,

[5:15:19] there is credible evidence for a burial ground for the

[5:15:24] enslaved. The NC Natural Heritage Program Property

[5:15:29] assessment for Sheffield Farms. References. A possible Old

[5:15:35] Burial ground and non-native plants historically used in

[5:15:40] landscaping, such as periwinkle graves of the enslaved, were

[5:15:45] often simply marked with stones or nothing, but periwinkle was

[5:15:50] the most common wildflower brought to gravesites by

[5:15:55] enslaved Americans. This perennial has guided

[5:15:59] researchers to many abandoned burial sites that would have

[5:16:04] otherwise gone undetected. When planning commissioners

[5:16:10] questioned the developer about gravesites, their response was

[5:16:14] basically, if anything turns up its site plan or build will

[5:16:19] abide by the laws in place for disturbed burial sites. Because

[5:16:25] the application has taken a certain approach by requesting

[5:16:31] annexation, they were not required to address or

[5:16:35] acknowledge any of this. Approving annexation without

[5:16:40] fully addressing the documented history of this property risk.

[5:16:45] Thank you. Irreversible harm. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[5:16:52] Hello again. I have my AV specialist.

[5:17:03] She's everyone's AV specialist tonight.

[5:17:07] Okay. Are we ready to go?

[5:17:10] You tell. Me.

[5:17:12] You speak to the microphone. Hi.

[5:17:15] I'm John Cowan, the owner of. The 112 acre farm directly

[5:17:21] across Farrington Mill from the proposed project. My address is

[5:17:25] include 8301 and 8303 Farrington Mill. And these are

[5:17:29] directly across from the proposed outlets for hundreds

[5:17:31] of cars per day. Now, these guys admit that 40% of the

[5:17:36] property is is critical wetlands on my side of the

[5:17:40] road, we have hooded merganser, buffalo heads, kingfishers,

[5:17:44] osprey and we are searching for bald eagle nests. The current

[5:17:48] plans for the Western Water Project pipeline, which I

[5:17:51] support, are to use the right of way along Farrington Mill,

[5:17:54] right where they say they're going to do all this

[5:17:56] construction and put in turn lanes, building hundreds of

[5:18:00] units directly north of the new water treatment plant is

[5:18:02] contradictory. Federal law limits timbering to renewable

[5:18:07] sectional timbering, not clear cutting. I'm committed myself

[5:18:13] to run my horse, sheep, hay and honey farm and ensure our vital

[5:18:16] and growing rural community continues forward forever. This

[5:18:19] is not an unused area. We are an active and vital established

[5:18:23] community. That this proposal would change forever. The area

[5:18:27] must be restricted to rural farming and single family

[5:18:30] homes. It's not a simple filling of an urban area. This

[5:18:32] proposal is going from 0 to 1000, destroying our natural

[5:18:36] resources forever. This land is an ungainly finger of intrusion

[5:18:40] impacting all areas around it. Between large tracts of land

[5:18:43] committed to long term preservation, triangle land

[5:18:46] conservancy and other conservancy organizations are

[5:18:49] actively attempting to purchase competitively. This property.

[5:18:52] Already, I've committed my land to the Voluntary Agriculture

[5:18:56] District for ten years, joining at least two other properties

[5:18:59] nearby. I have 17 people who work for the farm and several

[5:19:03] live their low cost housing. We raise honeybees and hay and

[5:19:06] produce sheep, a source of meat to underserved ethnic

[5:19:09] communities in North Carolina. We have a large equestrian

[5:19:12] resource center employing North Carolina State AG program grads

[5:19:16] and students, supporting and teaching the people who will

[5:19:18] grow your food tomorrow. And as my. You, Tom Galloway.

[5:19:40] Yep. All right. So after Tom will be

[5:19:44] host Farley, Joe Segura, Eddie Williamson, Dana Young and

[5:19:50] Larry Cheatham. Good evening. My name is Tom

[5:19:57] Galloway. My address is on file. Here are two maps. This

[5:20:01] map shows a three mile radius around Morgan Farm. Notice the

[5:20:05] major transportation corridors around the perimeter. 501 to

[5:20:08] the west, 54 and I-40 to the north, and 751 to the east. Our

[5:20:14] local roads are in the center, including Farrington Mill Road,

[5:20:17] the yellow Dot marks Morgan Farm, and the Red line shows

[5:20:20] the proposed sewer route. Let's take a closer look. The green

[5:20:25] space in the center is primarily Army Corps protected

[5:20:28] land. Every local road passes through Army Corps land and is

[5:20:33] subject to strict constraints and regulations. These roads

[5:20:36] have a finite capacity and they are already near it. This map

[5:20:40] also shows 17 housing developments. The red dots

[5:20:44] totaling nearly 7400 units that have been advanced since

[5:20:48] November of 2022. Notice they're located near the major

[5:20:52] highway corridors. There are no developments on our local roads

[5:20:56] except proposed Morgan Farm. Recall Bryn Ward the black ex

[5:21:01] was denied by this city Council on January 20th of this year.

[5:21:06] Our primary highways are already congested and traffic

[5:21:09] is diverting onto our local roads. Farrington mill is the

[5:21:13] main commuter bypass between Durham, Chatham and Orange

[5:21:16] County's. Traffic there increased 12.9% from August of

[5:21:21] 24 to August of 25, and will reach level of service F by

[5:21:26] 2028 due to ambient growth alone. The proposed sewer

[5:21:31] route, the Red line, would cut our local road network in half.

[5:21:35] Farrington and Farrington Mill would be reduced to single

[5:21:38] lanes with flagman for at least nine months. The sewer also

[5:21:42] crosses the Lower Little Creek Bridge. The Red arrow, which is

[5:21:45] being replaced from 2029 to 2032. This is Army Corps land.

[5:21:51] These projects, as well as other infrastructure projects

[5:21:54] in this immediate area, will cause severe traffic

[5:21:57] disruption. I urge you to deny large housing developments on

[5:22:00] our local roads. Our infrastructure cannot absorb

[5:22:03] it. Please vote no. Thank you.

[5:22:34] Hello mayor. Williams Mayor Pro Tem

[5:22:36] Caballero and. council members. My name is Holt Farley and I

[5:22:40] live on Copley Road. I'm here to discuss the traffic impact

[5:22:44] of Morgan Farm. I have previously sent each of you a

[5:22:47] detailed written analysis, traffic analysis, and I'll

[5:22:50] briefly summarize my findings. Durham Planning. uses a Florida

[5:22:55] dot level of service handbook for road capacity. The handbook

[5:22:59] for the entry for the Farrington Mill Road type is

[5:23:02] highlighted here in yellow level of service, D is

[5:23:05] typically used for maximum capacity. However, there is a

[5:23:10] footnote stating that once level of D service is reached,

[5:23:14] the service degrades to failing grade F at intersections.

[5:23:18] Bottom line, 14,200 vehicles per day represents gridlock on

[5:23:23] Farrington Mill Road, Durham uses the IT trip generation

[5:23:28] manual to estimate traffic for housing projects for a single

[5:23:31] family unit. The manual estimates ten vehicles per day.

[5:23:35] Morgan Farm will add up to 437 units, which will result in

[5:23:39] more than 4000 additional vehicles per day on Farrington

[5:23:43] Mill Road, using 2025 NCDOT data. Farrington Mill Road

[5:23:50] traffic is growing at about 7% per year, projecting forward

[5:23:54] ambient growth alone pushes the road into gridlock. By 2028,

[5:24:00] when Morgan Farm traffic is added. Phase through the

[5:24:03] buildout, total volumes reach about 165% of the gridlock

[5:24:07] capacity before the project is complete. This would push an

[5:24:12] already failing road network into severe and sustained

[5:24:15] congestion. The developers described the new Tia, but that

[5:24:20] To has significant omissions and unrealistic assumptions.

[5:24:25] But most importantly, it has not been reviewed or validated.

[5:24:29] So please use that carefully. I urge you to vote no. Good

[5:24:40] morning, Mayor Williams. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and council

[5:24:45] members. My name is Joe Regula. I live on Kepler Road as well.

[5:24:49] I want to follow up from what Mr. Farley has stated to you

[5:24:53] and and explain to you how Farrington Mill Road lost it.

[5:25:03] No. Where is.

[5:25:15] It? It's not showing. There it goes. Okay. Okay. Sorry. I want

[5:25:31] to follow up and explain how Farrington Mill Road fits into

[5:25:34] the broader network and why traffic congestion in this area

[5:25:38] cannot realistically be mitigated. Morgan Farms is

[5:25:42] indicated here in the middle of this map. As you can see,

[5:25:46] Farrington Mill Road along with US 15 501 and route 751 have

[5:25:51] become major conduit into Durham from the southwest. But

[5:25:56] as you can see here, all Farrington Mill Road traffic is

[5:26:00] forced into just three roads Barbee, Chapel Road, Farrington

[5:26:04] Road and Stagecoach Road. There are no alternative roads. These

[5:26:09] three roads are already heavily commuter roads, which, if

[5:26:14] you've traveled any of them, you would probably know that

[5:26:17] and continued nearby residential development keeps

[5:26:20] adding traffic to this already constrained system. Now look at

[5:26:25] the blue areas on the map. You'll see this is the Army

[5:26:29] Corps of Engineers critical flood control lands. As you can

[5:26:34] see, these three key intersections fed directly from

[5:26:37] Farrington Mill Road, are constrained by the Army Corps

[5:26:40] flood control lands, congestion is already severe, with backups

[5:26:45] often over a half a mile on these roads. And for more than

[5:26:49] 30 years, the Corps has not released land for any expansion

[5:26:54] and multiple regional studies with NCDOT have concluded

[5:26:58] approvals are not feasible. This means there is no

[5:27:02] realistic way to increase capacity at any of these

[5:27:06] locations, so adding Morgan Farms traffic would make an

[5:27:10] already overburdened system significantly worse. Thank you

[5:27:15] for your attention. Good morning.

[5:27:31] Well, she's. doing that. Thank you. Thank you for.

[5:27:34] Your patience. To.

[5:27:37] Thank you. I've changed everything.

[5:27:45] I. Wanted to say tonight. I. My

[5:27:47] GPS brought me from Montclair. My name is Eddie Williamson. I

[5:27:52] brought. Me from Montclair.

[5:27:54] A Po Valley road, 47 years ago. My wife and I bought a house.

[5:27:59] Our first house on Hope Valley Road. I brought my son.

[5:28:03] Home. Who is now the father of my two

[5:28:06] grandkids that are at Jordan High School as a pass by.

[5:28:11] Obviously, there was some really good moments of memory I

[5:28:17] got here and I felt like I needed to say that my wife and

[5:28:23] I have moved around a lot as I was a football coach. We moved

[5:28:30] back. We started our life here in Durham. We chose to come

[5:28:35] back here and end our life in Durham, chasing our grandkids.

[5:28:42] Now, if you will, just look at the pictures on the wall. I

[5:28:48] came home from Chapel Hill, Fort Fordham Boulevard one

[5:28:53] afternoon later than I normally like to leave the gym. It took

[5:28:58] me 14.5 minutes when I made the turn off of 54 onto Barbee

[5:29:06] Chapel to go one and a half miles to my home in Montclair.

[5:29:14] I thought, well, there must be a wreck. There was no rec. Then

[5:29:19] I thought maybe road construction for some of the

[5:29:22] development that is opening up at the west end of Barbee

[5:29:26] Chapel. That wasn't the problem. Easily. What? What

[5:29:33] caused it? And then I realized it's just a crowded, crowded

[5:29:39] area. There are more cars feeding into that place than

[5:29:43] anyplace else. And the real problem that I would have is if

[5:29:48] I wanted to bring a carton of ice cream home from Harris

[5:29:51] Teeter. It would melt before I got home.

[5:29:57] Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[5:30:23] Make it full screen and then just the arrow second.

[5:30:32] Good morning, Council members. My name is Danny Young and my

[5:30:35] address is on file. But I live. Off of Farrington Mill Road.

[5:30:38] This is a picture of Farrington Mill Road. To the right is

[5:30:41] where the proposed Morgan. Farm development site begins.

[5:30:43] And on the left is where the whip pipeline is going to be

[5:30:46] coming up. From, from Chatham County, up

[5:30:48] Farrington. Mill Road. Farrington Mill Road

[5:30:51] is, as you can see, a. very narrow rural road in poor

[5:30:53] condition. It has no shoulders, a 55 mile an hour speed limit,

[5:30:57] and is already operating at a level of service. D and this is

[5:31:01] also the as you heard, the primary commuting route between

[5:31:04] Chatham, Orange and Durham counties. These are fully

[5:31:09] funded high priority infrastructure projects that

[5:31:11] are scheduled from 2027 through 2032 that all impact Farrington

[5:31:15] Mill Road, Farrington Road and Stagecoach Road and the highway

[5:31:19] 54 widening may not be in the direct network, but it's also

[5:31:22] going to be widened and impact this local network. All of

[5:31:26] these projects overlap. The Western Intake Partnership will

[5:31:29] run up Farrington Mill Road to a new water treatment facility

[5:31:32] being built. A sewer main is being relocated out of a

[5:31:35] floodplain up Farrington Road to a sewer treatment plant and

[5:31:39] the Lower Little Creek Bridge, already severely degraded, will

[5:31:42] be replaced, requiring long term lane closures. Even

[5:31:46] without these projects, traffic is projected to drop to the

[5:31:49] level of service within the next two years, and that

[5:31:53] estimate does not include Morgan Farm, which proposes a

[5:31:56] three mile sewer line and a lift station along Farrington

[5:31:59] Mill, and Large, a large multi-unit development with

[5:32:02] three points of access, all on Farrington Mill Road as well,

[5:32:05] which is already strained. This map shows how all these

[5:32:10] projects converge on the same small network of two lane

[5:32:13] roads. It looks crowded because it is, and it will be. So the

[5:32:17] question is simple why approve a major development, one that

[5:32:21] hasn't gone through standard rezoning and bedding right in

[5:32:24] the middle of overlapping critical infrastructure work?

[5:32:27] Durham's priority should be clear safe roads and bridges,

[5:32:31] reliable drinking water, environmental protection and

[5:32:34] the quality of life of existing residents. Adding Morgan Farm

[5:32:37] into this mix increases risk, compounds congestion and

[5:32:41] threatens to delay or disrupt essential projects.

[5:32:43] Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm Larry Tatum. Are you?

[5:32:52] Lynn Collier. All right. So after Larry. I have Linda

[5:33:01] Castiglione and that rice. Judy Jones, Naomi Echols and Whitney

[5:33:08] Harris. Welcome. Good morning, Mayor Williams,

[5:33:16] council mayor pro tem and city council members. Thank you for

[5:33:19] staying. Awake this long.

[5:33:22] I my name is Larry Tatum and my address is on file. I'm here to

[5:33:26] oppose annexation. I would like to talk to you about a very

[5:33:30] important 107ft, about a mile and a half from the site. You

[5:33:34] are deliberating on tonight and located along their proposed

[5:33:38] sewer force. Main traffic studies have been done in the

[5:33:41] past. However, these numbers that have been generated do not

[5:33:45] account for the increased increase in construction or

[5:33:48] heavy equipment that now passes over the. The bridge and

[5:33:53] through this area. On these two lane country roads. The Little

[5:33:57] Creek Bridge was constructed in 1979. It was bus just

[5:34:03] buttressed in 2006 with riprap, and it was last inspection

[5:34:08] found on public records was June of 2023, and at that time

[5:34:14] it was structurally deficient, meaning meeting minimum

[5:34:18] tolerable limits. NC Odot will be replacing this bridge in

[5:34:24] 2029 to 2032. In the meantime, we have been assured that they

[5:34:31] will continue to limp it along until a replacement is

[5:34:35] complete. Weight limits are a likely step to make sure it

[5:34:39] remains safe. Heavy construction traffic will speed

[5:34:43] up the deterioration of this bridge. The images that you see

[5:34:48] here are the current images of the structure, and remember

[5:34:55] that these images are talking about the destruction that's

[5:34:58] going on, along with erosion. They've placed sandbags to help

[5:35:03] stop erosion, which isn't working. And I urge you to deny

[5:35:09] this request. Thank you very much.

[5:35:13] Thank you. Next. Up or down?

[5:35:32] Greetings, mayor Williams. Mayor Pro Tem Caballero and

[5:35:36] city council members. My name. Is Linda.

[5:35:39] Castiglione and my address is on file. Morgan Farm.

[5:35:44] Is in the. Same location as the rejected

[5:35:46] Sheffield Farms project. And while it is true the project

[5:35:50] has been scaled down, the sewer issue is still on the table.

[5:35:55] The developer must provide a sewer lift station and three

[5:36:00] mile plus sewer main force at a projected cost of $10 million.

[5:36:05] All on his dime. That is the only requirement. Sounds

[5:36:09] awesome, doesn't it? It's a win win. Or is it? This slide shows

[5:36:16] the Morgan Farm home construction timeline. That

[5:36:19] big, beautiful sewer lift station in three mile plus

[5:36:23] sewer main force force main has to be installed before any home

[5:36:27] construction can begin. Fiscal year 20 2855 homes to be

[5:36:33] completed are. But what about the Little Creek Bridge? At

[5:36:40] this point in our timeline 2028, the developer has

[5:36:44] provided the sewer lift station and all it entails. Utility

[5:36:48] relocation begins April 2029, with new bridge construction

[5:36:53] beginning in August 2030. Guess who has to pay for the utility

[5:36:58] relocation costs? The City of Durham. The City of Durham will

[5:37:03] also be responsible for repairs, ruptures, maintenance

[5:37:07] for perpetuity. Perpetuity. I'm tired. Estimated cost $5

[5:37:13] million. The City of Durham will have to pay for the

[5:37:16] relocation of that sewer lift station and three mile plus

[5:37:21] sewer force main in order to replace the Little Creek Bridge

[5:37:26] and active sewer line will have to be moved. So I ask you, will

[5:37:31] this $10 million sewer lift station in three mile plus

[5:37:34] sewer force main be the gift to Durham? It is made out to be.

[5:37:38] Thank you. Thank you. Do you need help

[5:37:55] with the Ave? Could you come down.

[5:37:58] Here and give me a hand? Good morning folks.

[5:38:05] Good morning. My name is Annette Rice.

[5:38:06] My address is on file and my fingers getting sore. As you

[5:38:10] can see on this. Image here.

[5:38:12] During the deliberations of the IRB for the new comprehensive

[5:38:16] plan, which is 2023, the Durham Planning Department initially

[5:38:20] suggested the removal of this particular area from within the

[5:38:24] urban growth area, simply because of the difficulty in

[5:38:26] supplying sewer to the site. If you look at this map, the red

[5:38:30] arrow there and the red pen there basically show you where

[5:38:33] the United States Army Corps of Engineers Jordan Lake project

[5:38:36] lands are with the red marking where the Morgan Farm site is.

[5:38:41] Here's a picture of the utility extension agreement image

[5:38:44] there, showing you how it has to go up to the the

[5:38:47] Southwestern Durham Water Treatment facility. And this is

[5:38:50] that same line running through the Army Corps of Engineers

[5:38:54] properties. In 2013, the the the Corps of Engineers modified

[5:38:58] policies regarding non recreational land use out

[5:39:01] grants. Those include leases and utility easements. Any

[5:39:05] modifications made to the passed out grants pre 2013 are

[5:39:11] now considered new applications subject to the full Army Corps

[5:39:15] review process. A non recreational policy specifics

[5:39:20] per chapter 17 er 1132 550 change six states that for the

[5:39:26] evaluation of a new grant, there must be no viable

[5:39:29] alternative or a direct benefit to the federal government. Of

[5:39:33] course, there are some exceptions. However, the Army

[5:39:36] Corps of Engineers refuses to consider cost as a factor

[5:39:41] whenever they decide whether or not there is a viable

[5:39:43] alternative in existence. So do you think that the Army Corps

[5:39:47] of Engineers is going to permit the running of a sewer main

[5:39:51] through the their property and through property that's also

[5:39:55] controlled by the NDDC? Furthermore, who asked the

[5:40:00] developer about coming down to the regular density and on the

[5:40:06] strip, there is a limitation because of Army Corps of

[5:40:12] Engineers property. Why put sewer through there?

[5:40:18] Thank you. I'm not. sure how to get this

[5:40:21] slide. Up yet.

[5:40:23] I need my tech advisor. We have two duties.

[5:40:38] I know. There are a lot of us at

[5:40:40] Carolina meadows. Okay, perfect.

[5:40:44] Thank you. Hello. Good morning, I'm Judy Jones, and I live at

[5:40:49] Carolina meadows. My address is on file. I'm adjacent to this

[5:40:53] property. I am a retired high school biology teacher. And for

[5:41:00] my whole career, I was helping students understand the

[5:41:03] interconnectedness of nature and how disturbing one part

[5:41:10] disturbed the whole. And I feel like this is just a perfect

[5:41:13] example of what disasters could happen. Jordan Lake is a

[5:41:19] reliable drinking water source for Durham and several other

[5:41:23] counties and municipalities, serving more than 700,000

[5:41:28] customers, and Durham recently committed to move forward with

[5:41:32] the western intake Partnership, taking on all the

[5:41:36] infrastructure expenses to pump raw water from Jordan Lake, up

[5:41:40] Farrington Mill Road and to a new treatment plant. As you

[5:41:44] know, the Corps of Engineers has been said before owns the

[5:41:48] land around Jordan Lake and the reservoir and will not issue

[5:41:51] permits for road improvements or sewer incursions. If it

[5:41:56] determines there's potential harm to water quality. That

[5:41:59] limits Durham's growth and makes it impractical to provide

[5:42:03] city services in an area protected by state water supply

[5:42:07] rules. These state rules and classifications are designed to

[5:42:11] protect water quality and guide future development. Mr. Shelton

[5:42:16] Sullivan, a Department of Environmental Quality staff

[5:42:18] member, verified during her call last year the following

[5:42:21] statement the subject address, 8422 Farrington Mill Road, is

[5:42:26] located within a protected area of the water supply. Watershed.

[5:42:30] The receiving water is classified as nutrient

[5:42:33] sensitive and the area is subject to the Jordan watershed

[5:42:37] riparian buffer, and you can see from the map that the

[5:42:41] proposed development is already within a protected area, and

[5:42:46] impinging upon a critical area. Please vote no.

[5:42:51] Thank you. Thank goodness she's here. I'm

[5:43:07] a Neanderthal. Good morning. Ladies and gentlemen.

[5:43:12] Mayor Williams. Mayor Pro.

[5:43:14] Tem, council members. My name. is Naomi. Echoes, I.

[5:43:18] Think, and. I live just off Farrington

[5:43:20] Road. My address. is on file. I haven't.

[5:43:24] Been up this late since I met my husband, and we talked till

[5:43:27] 4:00 in the morning. I'm asking you to please oppose.

[5:43:33] The request. To annex this property into the

[5:43:36] city of Durham. The consequences of such an

[5:43:39] annexation were posing enormous consequences of such an

[5:43:42] annexation to the city. Water supply. If there were a water

[5:43:48] main sewer break which would disturb, which would discharge

[5:43:51] raw sewage into our drinking water supply, while a sewer

[5:43:56] break. Is always.

[5:43:57] Harmful, in this case, it is especially so because of the

[5:44:00] proximity to our watershed. The risk to the health of thousands

[5:44:05] of people outweighs any benefit. Could a sewer break

[5:44:09] really happen? Absolutely. The image before you is the

[5:44:13] catastrophic catastrophe that happened in 2013, in Durham,

[5:44:18] when a tree fell and broke the sewer main south of Duke

[5:44:21] University, nearly half a million gallons of sewage was

[5:44:25] discharged into Sandy Creek, which feeds Jordan Lake, the

[5:44:30] main source of our drinking water. More recently, in 2025,

[5:44:36] Tropical Storm Chantelle floodwaters caused a sewer

[5:44:39] break. An 819,000 gallons of untreated water wastewater

[5:44:45] flowed into Morgan Creek and onto Jordan Lake. Additional

[5:44:50] flooding occurred, caused a total of over 3 million gallons

[5:44:56] of wastewater filled with sewage to flow into our

[5:45:00] regional drinking water supply. That's the equivalent of five

[5:45:05] Olympic sized swimming pools. We asked the City of Durham to

[5:45:10] keep additional sewer lines out of this water critical area

[5:45:14] near Jordan Lake, which currently supplies over three

[5:45:18] quarters of a million people with clean drinking water. And

[5:45:22] to protect the future water supply for Durham, allowing

[5:45:27] annexation is simply not worth the risk. Please deny this. We

[5:45:31] crest just as the Planning Commission has. Thank you for

[5:45:35] your time. Thank you.

[5:45:41] Well, I don't know about. Y'all, but I'm.

[5:45:43] Excited because we live in a country where we get.

[5:45:46] To speak with. Our elected officials. So for.

[5:45:49] No matter. What happens tonight, that's

[5:45:50] worth celebrating. In my opinion. Good evening. Good

[5:45:53] morning. Depends on how you're feeling, right. My name is

[5:45:56] Whitney Harris. My address is on record and I live in South

[5:46:00] Durham. Is a proud Durham resident. I'm here today to

[5:46:03] personally ask you to respond no to this proposal to annex

[5:46:07] this property. Not because I oppose growth, but because

[5:46:11] we've already seen what happens when we approve projects based

[5:46:14] on promises that are not guaranteed. My ten year old

[5:46:17] daughter, who also believes in democracy, made this nice

[5:46:20] little graphic for you to see what happens when a project

[5:46:23] like 751 South is approved, and then all of those promises are

[5:46:27] not upheld. And I want to acknowledge up front that,

[5:46:30] again, I understand this project or something like it is

[5:46:32] likely going to be approved at some point, and that's okay.

[5:46:35] Durham is growing and it's this wonderful place to live that we

[5:46:38] want to share with other people without growth. People like my

[5:46:41] family don't get to experience this wonderful community. But

[5:46:44] growth alone is not the goal. The right growth should be the

[5:46:47] goal, and the right growth is not this project. We don't have

[5:46:51] to speculate because we've seen what's happened with 751 South.

[5:46:55] It was presented as a thoughtfully planned, mixed use

[5:46:57] community, a place where people could live, work and gather

[5:46:59] together. Its promises seem balance, infrastructure and

[5:47:02] benefits to the broader community. With

[5:47:04] Annexation. These were.

[5:47:05] All promises. and EMS, fire station.

[5:47:08] , school all within that. Planned community.

[5:47:10] Guess what? All of that since 2023 has

[5:47:13] been. taken off the table. In exchange for a payment.

[5:47:16] To the housing fund in. exchange for Durham doesn't

[5:47:19] have the money to build the land. So let's just give DPS

[5:47:22] some funds. That's not okay. Not what we were promised. And

[5:47:25] who absorbs that impact? The increased traffic, the schools

[5:47:29] becoming strained, the environmental concerns and the

[5:47:31] trust in the process. It's weakened. We do. Durham

[5:47:34] citizens do. My family, my ten year old daughter, Elizabeth.

[5:47:38] This is the lesson of 751 South. What is promised in

[5:47:41] annexation or what's granted doesn't always guarantee that

[5:47:44] that's what's going to be delivered. And this is what we

[5:47:46] are concerned and what we fear with the Morgan Farm developers

[5:47:49] in the end. So tonight it's not just about should we grow? We

[5:47:53] will, but let's grow the right way. Ask for more.

[5:47:57] Thank you. Thank you for that human espresso. I needed it,

[5:48:03] alright, tell me your name. Kathy Rexford.

[5:48:10] Say it one more time, Kathy. Rex road.

[5:48:13] Okay. All right, so if I can have Chris Peckham won. Montez.

[5:48:18] No, not not won. William. Few. Nope. Chuck. Darcy, Andy Lowe

[5:48:35] and Katie Jackson. Jennifer. Mayor. Ma.

[5:48:45] I wish I had her energy. I don't right now, but. Good

[5:48:48] morning. My name is Kathy Rexford and I live also in the

[5:48:51] downs. Neighborhood.

[5:48:53] And thank you for listening to us tonight in the middle of the

[5:48:57] night, I'd like to speak briefly on how this annexation

[5:49:00] application relates to the County Durham County

[5:49:02] Comprehensive Plan, specifically policy 165. Part

[5:49:07] of it reads, annexation into the city limits should only be

[5:49:10] considered when a substantial benefit to the community can be

[5:49:13] demonstrated. We've heard about proffers, and just like the

[5:49:16] last speaker said, we've got money being offered, but no

[5:49:20] actual affordable or accessible units in this location. We've

[5:49:24] got issues with the Jordan Lake watershed. We've got increased

[5:49:28] traffic in areas where roads cannot be widened. We've got

[5:49:31] increased utilization of overcrowded schools with again,

[5:49:35] money thrown at it. But does that really fix it? Future

[5:49:38] water and sewer line maintenance issues and many

[5:49:43] concerns that you've heard. Policy 165 also states that

[5:49:47] annexation should not cause service delivery or operational

[5:49:50] issues for the city or county. You've heard and seen on the

[5:49:53] map how the proposed sewer line would be laid perpendicular to

[5:49:58] water flowing into a floodplain in the storms, that water flow

[5:50:03] is very forceful. And if and when this sewer line fails and

[5:50:07] sewage either flows into Jordan Lake watershed or backs up into

[5:50:11] the proposed 437 conservation homes, Durham will have serious

[5:50:15] service delivery and operational issues, and people

[5:50:18] will be asking who thought this was a good idea? The planning

[5:50:23] department wanted to remove this parcel from the urban

[5:50:25] growth boundary. When the light rail project was canceled for

[5:50:28] the specific reason. Council. As you're well aware,

[5:50:34] annexation is permanent and it obligates the city to provide

[5:50:37] city water, sewer and other services. If this is not a good

[5:50:41] plan for sewer and it's annexed, then you are on the

[5:50:45] hook forever. We are on the hook forever. The guidelines

[5:50:49] for the City of Durham that the City and County of Durham have

[5:50:52] created for annexation have not been met. Please vote no.

[5:50:55] Thank you. Good evening councilors. My

[5:51:05] name is Chris Peckham and I am the president of the Montclair

[5:51:07] Homeowners Association. My address is on file. I want to

[5:51:10] thank you for your service and for taking the time to listen

[5:51:13] to us well into the morning here this morning. I would like

[5:51:16] to speak to you about growing pains. Yes. Growing pains. This

[5:51:20] is what I once heard of. Member of the city Council referred to

[5:51:24] about potential disruption associated with developing

[5:51:27] along Farrington Mill Road. Now, when I think of growing

[5:51:30] pains, I think of the challenges of being a teenager

[5:51:32] and growing up to be an adult. In other words, I think the

[5:51:35] pains that go away. But what we are talking about here today

[5:51:39] won't go away. It will create permanent generational pain.

[5:51:43] While we are just talking about annexation, we're really

[5:51:46] talking about a development because without the annexation,

[5:51:49] there will be no development. But with annexation, there will

[5:51:52] be a development without further oversight. So this

[5:51:56] evening you will have heard from folks that have talked

[5:51:57] about the pain that development will cause. This will be

[5:52:00] similar to what you have heard before. With the Britt Moore

[5:52:03] proposal, and it will be 3 to 4 times the size. You will have

[5:52:07] heard about a significant disruption to traffic during

[5:52:10] annexation and significant increase in traffic from the

[5:52:12] development itself on roads that are not allowed to be

[5:52:15] expanded, and there's no land on which to expand them. If you

[5:52:18] could, permanent pain, you will have heard about impact to

[5:52:22] ecology and wildlife that cannot be restored because no

[5:52:25] one ever tears down a development to build a forest.

[5:52:29] Permanent impact. New students will be underserved at schools

[5:52:33] that are at or over capacity, with no plans to expand them.

[5:52:37] That's generational impact. Economically and physically.

[5:52:40] Disadvantaged persons might be expected to live here, though

[5:52:43] they will have no access to public transportation.

[5:52:46] Pervasive systemic challenges. And then there's the potential

[5:52:49] impact to our drinking water that comes from this sensitive

[5:52:52] area. A remediation here would cause financial pain for

[5:52:55] generations. Our comprehensive plan did not take all of these

[5:52:59] factors into account, so I urge you to please vote no to

[5:53:03] annexation. Thank you. Hello. Thank you. everyone for

[5:53:14] being here. And.

[5:53:18] Thank you for. your patience, everybody.

[5:53:21] My name is Katie Jackson. My address is on record.

[5:53:23] I'm here tonight. To.

[5:53:24] Speak more about the consequences of growth that

[5:53:28] outpaces our infrastructure, particularly as it pertains to

[5:53:32] our schools. We're already seeing this impact in Durham

[5:53:36] Public School. In a recent message to families, the

[5:53:39] superintendent acknowledged that Lyons Farm Elementary is

[5:53:43] experiencing significant overcrowding. In fact, the

[5:53:46] current enrollment already reflects what is projected for

[5:53:50] next year's high enrollment scenario. Meaning we're not

[5:53:55] just growing, but we're ahead of the most aggressive

[5:53:58] projections. So what happens when a school becomes

[5:54:02] overcrowded? We don't just add students, we lose opportunities

[5:54:06] because of the state class size requirements. The district is

[5:54:10] now being forced to consider repurposing classroom space as

[5:54:14] currently used for core instruction, to accommodate

[5:54:19] additional students. So this would mean spaces that are used

[5:54:22] for enrichment, innovation, Stem education for students

[5:54:28] with special needs. These are at risk of being a eliminated

[5:54:33] or reduced reduced. So let me say that again overcrowding is

[5:54:38] not just a numbers problem. This is an education quality

[5:54:41] problem. So this is where accountability matters. And we

[5:54:44] should not be approving more homes for families without the

[5:54:50] ability, without the promise of being able to educate those

[5:54:53] students. So as an example, when we have this current

[5:54:57] development on Fayetteville Road, when this was being

[5:54:59] proposed, the residents of my community and the surrounding

[5:55:02] community, we were told overcrowding was not a problem.

[5:55:06] At that time, Creekside Elementary was already at 125%

[5:55:12] capacity. So clearly we do have an overcrowding issue. Adding

[5:55:16] more homes is not going to solve that. Thank you.

[5:55:19] Thank you. Good morning, city Council.

[5:55:25] Mayor, mayor Pro tem, I'm back here before you. Normally when

[5:55:29] I come before you, I'm urging you all to approve more

[5:55:32] housing, more density. And as you weigh the trade offs of of

[5:55:35] that density, there's usually kind of a give and take. And

[5:55:37] many of you have acknowledged that tonight with some of the

[5:55:39] other cases in this case is unique for me and that there is

[5:55:42] no additional density right now, the very close to the

[5:55:45] amount of homes that are being asked to be built are already

[5:55:47] allowed to be built just with septic tanks and no utility

[5:55:51] hookup, but still there. It's still the same traffic. What

[5:55:56] the developer is asking you to let them do is hook up to city

[5:55:58] water and sewer, not puts up the tanks in the ground and put

[5:56:02] a covenant on massive amounts of open space. Now, I normally

[5:56:05] don't have my environmentalist hat on here, but I guess

[5:56:08] tonight I do, because that seems like a very good deal

[5:56:11] compared to clearcutting a good part of the land, timbering it,

[5:56:14] selling it, building a large estate, homes and building the

[5:56:17] set to dig into septic tanks and wells for them. So from an

[5:56:21] environmental perspective, I definitely would take that deal

[5:56:24] over leaving it in the county. So thank you. I urge you to

[5:56:29] support the annexation tonight and hope you all sleep well.

[5:56:37] Are you Jennifer? Good morning. My name is

[5:56:40] Jennifer Maher. My address is on record. Thank you for your

[5:56:44] patience and I admire your stamina. I am speaking on

[5:56:49] behalf of the new Hope Bird Alliance, for which I am the

[5:56:53] conservation co-chair. I want to bring two issues to you that

[5:56:57] I don't think have been addressed. Really. One is the

[5:56:59] effect of fragmentation. So we have done studies that show

[5:57:03] that the new Hope bottomlands, which was a very productive

[5:57:06] bird breeding, rare bird breeding area of Durham, has

[5:57:10] suffered a serious decline of bird population because all

[5:57:15] around the edges the land has been developed and that means

[5:57:19] access into the land and much less attractive breeding

[5:57:24] association. So if you looked at the maps that you were

[5:57:27] seeing of the conservation area, you saw a chunkier,

[5:57:30] chunkier, chunk here. What you didn't see was how this land

[5:57:34] now connects down to the Jordan Lake forested area and creates

[5:57:38] a very intact and environmentally important area

[5:57:43] for birds. The second thing I want to bring up is, is the

[5:57:47] effect of groundwater in filling our reservoirs and

[5:57:51] giving us clean drinking water. The more that we have

[5:57:56] impervious surfaces replacing mature forests, which this land

[5:58:00] has, the more the less drinking water is actually retained and

[5:58:05] flowing into Jordan Lake. At the same time, if we develop,

[5:58:09] we're adding more people trying to consume this drinking water.

[5:58:12] So I have a feeling that that we are in trading off for

[5:58:18] little bits of affordable housing or small parcels that

[5:58:22] are some percentage of natural heritage being preserved. It's

[5:58:26] almost like the biblical story of Esau. Yes we are. We're

[5:58:29] getting a porridge now. We're getting a few affordable

[5:58:31] housing, but we're giving up our natural resources that we

[5:58:35] will depend on for the future, foreseeable future. And for

[5:58:40] this reason that I hope that you will not annex this land.

[5:58:45] Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Steve

[5:58:49] Cohen, Astrid Cook. Pablo Friedman.

[5:59:03] I'm Chuck Dorsey. I've lived.

[5:59:04] Out in that area for almost 50. Years.

[5:59:08] You don't want any. Part of.

[5:59:12] The city being out there. It's going to cost you more money.

[5:59:15] And that's something that you guys are very aware of when you

[5:59:20] when you consider projects like this, this is going to cost you

[5:59:25] money over the long run. You don't want any part of it. And

[5:59:32] and I urge you to to vote no. Jeff, do you also go by Chuck?

[5:59:40] It's a different person. I.

[5:59:44] We just spoke. You did say Chuck. I thought

[5:59:47] you said Jeff. Darcy. I'm sorry. You're good. Yeah. Steve

[5:59:54] Cohen. , 1406 Pennsylvania.

[5:59:56] Avenue. Chair of the. Open Space.

[5:59:58] Committee of the Durham Open. Space and. Trails Commission.

[6:00:02] Because because. much of this property.

[6:00:04] Is in a. State designated natural

[6:00:06] heritage area and because it contains other sensitive

[6:00:10] natural areas, including buffers to the area owned by

[6:00:13] the Army Corps for protection of Jordan Lake, approximately

[6:00:18] 63% of this property is marked Ross Recreation and Open Space

[6:00:24] on Durham's place type map, the comprehensive Plan is explicit

[6:00:28] about the purpose and treatment of these areas. It says.

[6:00:32] Recreation and open spaces are areas that will remain free

[6:00:36] from development. Natural features and environmentally

[6:00:39] sensitive areas should be preserved in all recreation and

[6:00:43] open space. Place types on the site plan, the developers are

[6:00:48] showing well over 50% of the properties designated Ross Land

[6:00:53] will be built on top of in their plan for a nominally

[6:00:58] conservation subdivision. In keeping with the priorities for

[6:01:03] which space to keep open the substantial pond and the area

[6:01:08] with historical buildings must take up much of this project's

[6:01:12] open space, leaving not much room for including the land

[6:01:16] actually designated as Ross. In the part of the development

[6:01:20] that would remain undisturbed. The majority of the Ross place

[6:01:25] type will not remain free from development and will not be

[6:01:30] preserved in the way our comp plan, the comp plan you are

[6:01:33] meant to follow, demands. There would be some benefit in

[6:01:38] bringing water and sewer to the southwest corner of the county

[6:01:41] and adding more single family homes to Durham's housing

[6:01:44] stock, but it is essential to net that out against the

[6:01:47] irreversible loss from enabling a developer to build over land.

[6:01:51] The state has designated as vital to North Carolina's

[6:01:54] biodiversity, and the city has identified in its comp plan as

[6:01:59] critical open space that should be fully protected.

[6:02:02] Thank you. Hello.

[6:02:13] My name is Astrid Cooke. My address is on file and I'm

[6:02:16] speaking once again on behalf of the Durham City County

[6:02:20] Environmental Affairs Board, Land Use and Planning

[6:02:23] Subcommittee. We have reviewed this annexation, and I am

[6:02:28] opposed to the request as presented. This opposition is

[6:02:31] based first and foremost on the absence of any enforceable

[6:02:34] mechanism to ensure that environmental protections

[6:02:37] discussed during the review process would be carried

[6:02:39] forward and upheld over the life of the project. The

[6:02:42] application proposes annexation into the city without a

[6:02:45] concurrent zoning map change or binding development plan. As a

[6:02:49] result, there is no clear, enforceable framework by which

[6:02:53] commitments related to stream protection, tree preservation,

[6:02:56] stormwater management, or construction practices could be

[6:02:59] guaranteed. In the absence of such a framework. EIB Land Use

[6:03:03] and Planning Subcommittee cannot evaluate the

[6:03:06] environmental impacts of the project with sufficient

[6:03:08] confidence to support annexation. While the proposal

[6:03:12] is described as a conservation subdivision, preserving

[6:03:14] approximately 50% open space. We note that this figure

[6:03:18] includes areas that are already constrained from development,

[6:03:21] such as stream buffers and floodplains. The application

[6:03:24] does not demonstrate that preserved areas will be

[6:03:26] contiguous, functionally protected, or managed in a way

[6:03:29] that maintains the ecological integrity. Without a binding

[6:03:33] plan, these areas risk becoming fragmented. Residual spaces

[6:03:36] rather than meaningful conservation features. EA is

[6:03:40] further concerned about the scale and duration of

[6:03:42] construction activity associated with the project.

[6:03:45] The proposed development includes up to 437 residential

[6:03:49] units and approximately 22,000 linear feet of new roadway

[6:03:52] infrastructure, with a multiyear buildout extending

[6:03:55] from 2028 through 2032. Prolonged land disturbance at

[6:03:58] this scale, particularly within a watershed protected area,

[6:04:01] presents a significant risk of sediment transport and long

[6:04:04] term degradation of downstream water quality. Thank you for

[6:04:08] your time. Please vote no. Thank you. Our last speaker.

[6:04:22] All right. Good morning.

[6:04:24] One in the morning. This might be a new record.

[6:04:26] Council. Congratulations on that record.

[6:04:29] All right. Close. So let's talk.

[6:04:33] A little bit about this one on the previous case before you, I

[6:04:36] talked about how the standard for net per pupil had increased

[6:04:40] dramatically from where we started at the baseline a

[6:04:42] couple of weeks ago of 500. And I think the developer didn't,

[6:04:46] or the sorry, the applicant didn't talk about this, but I

[6:04:48] do want to commend them. I mean, the net per pupil

[6:04:53] commitment is over is somewhere between 30. It's between 3300

[6:04:57] or 3500 depending on my math, which I haven't seen those

[6:05:00] numbers come up before. And I think that's I want that now to

[6:05:03] be the floor. We have a developer, an applicant coming

[6:05:06] here and setting that expectation going forward. I

[6:05:08] think the council should be weighing future requests on

[6:05:11] that expectation. Going back to the question that you asked at

[6:05:14] the last meeting, Council Member Kopac, about what the

[6:05:16] expectation needs to be changed around per pupil funding by the

[6:05:21] applicants. But I also want to talk about this being a

[6:05:24] continuous improvement process. Earlier we talked about how

[6:05:27] comments from the environmental affairs folks being

[6:05:33] incorporated into the documents that you received. I think

[6:05:35] that's really good. I also want to continue that conversation

[6:05:39] around the EMS. There were four individual elected officials

[6:05:42] that spoke from the dais tonight. Council Member Kopac

[6:05:45] Council Member Burris Council Member Cook and Mayor Pro Tem

[6:05:48] Caballero saying, you want to see that data, right? And I

[6:05:51] agree with you. I don't know this person, but some of his

[6:05:54] posts have come to my attention, which is Jerry Ray.

[6:05:56] And you saw that earlier on one of the slideshow presentations

[6:05:58] that were before you. There are moments right now that those of

[6:06:01] us who are premium taxpayers of Durham, where the emergency

[6:06:05] responders go into what's called Stab mode. I had never

[6:06:08] heard of that, which is that there's no ambulance available

[6:06:11] to pick up the call. And that's already right now, without any

[6:06:13] new approvals. So how many times have has Istat happened

[6:06:17] and how are these new applications going to

[6:06:20] ameliorate that or provide more capacity when as is, we can't

[6:06:23] even service the calls that are being received? Thank you.

[6:06:25] Thank you very much. All right. Those are our

[6:06:36] speakers for this evening. Did I did I miss someone? Oh. I'm

[6:06:59] sorry, you're right. Yeah. At the bottom of this page over

[6:07:02] here. Yeah, good time. William. Phew. Now is a good time. Yes.

[6:07:09] All right. And Randy. Few as well. Yes. Okay. Sorry about

[6:07:14] that. That's all right. We didn't want to be excluded.. As

[6:07:19] you know. My name is Bill few. I'm the

[6:07:22] president. of Kendrick Estates Investment Corporation.

[6:07:26] Kendrick Estates is a family corporation, and it is the

[6:07:29] owner of Morgan Farms. We have as a family held this property

[6:07:38] for five generations. Now, as an investment to recover the

[6:07:45] growing timber value and as a potential and for its potential

[6:07:51] development. The growing timber on the property has been

[6:07:56] managed in compliance with the professional Management Plan

[6:08:01] for forestry for decades now, and the timber is mature and

[6:08:07] ready to be cut. So we must, in order to maintain our

[6:08:14] compliance with the plan, either timber, the property or

[6:08:19] do something else. If we don't maintain compliance with the

[6:08:26] timber management plan will likely lose our present use

[6:08:31] valuation for property taxes for the property. It will be

[6:08:35] reappraised at its highest and best use, and it will be simply

[6:08:40] unaffordable for the family to maintain and hold on to the

[6:08:44] property any longer. Timbering. The timbering. The property is

[6:08:53] not our preference, however, so we have an opportunity as an

[6:08:58] alternative to tempering the property. The property to

[6:09:01] develop the property. With MI homes as a conservation

[6:09:05] subdivision, preserve the hardwood forest and pine timber

[6:09:11] forest on the property, and extend a sewer line to

[6:09:17] Farrington Mill Road at the developer's expense, which is

[6:09:21] needed. So, in conclusion, I'd simply like to say that I think

[6:09:28] the best of all alternatives is for us to develop the property

[6:09:33] with MI homes as a conservation subdivision, and in order to do

[6:09:38] that, to preserve the pine and hardwood forests on the

[6:09:42] property and the environment. Annexation.

[6:09:46] Thank you. Is necessary by the City

[6:09:51] Council. Thank you. Thank you.

[6:09:58] Good evening. I'm Randy, one of the owners of the Morgan Farm

[6:10:02] property in development. Discussions.

[6:10:05] There's often the perception that projects are driven solely

[6:10:08] by outside interests, with little regard for the land or

[6:10:11] community. That is not always the case behind many greenfield

[6:10:16] proposals. As a family, trying to make thoughtful, long term

[6:10:19] decisions. And that is our story. Morgan Farm is part of

[6:10:23] the original 680 acre Sheffield farm, which has been in my

[6:10:29] family for more than 90 years. In the 1970s, more than 400

[6:10:33] acres, nearly 60% of the land were conveyed or rendered

[6:10:37] inaccessible as part of the Jordan Lake project. The loss

[6:10:42] of pasture land, crop and hay fields to the Army Corps of

[6:10:46] Engineers fundamentally changed the agricultural potential of

[6:10:49] the property. Since the 1970s, we have believed this land

[6:10:54] would one day be appropriate for development. We have made

[6:10:57] deliberate decisions to retain the land rather than pursue

[6:10:59] piecemeal or premature development. We waited, often

[6:11:03] at the encouragement of planning staff and elected

[6:11:07] officials, until public utilities were accessible so

[6:11:10] the property could be planned comprehensively and developed

[6:11:13] in a more environmentally responsible way, without

[6:11:17] reliance on septic systems or other on site wastewater

[6:11:21] solutions. This belief was reinforced by the construction

[6:11:25] of the nearby wastewater treatment facility and the

[6:11:27] water line along Farrington Mill Road. The city modified

[6:11:31] the urban growth boundary some 25 years ago to include our

[6:11:36] land. This is not a short term or speculative endeavor, but

[6:11:40] reflects a consistent commitment to align the future

[6:11:43] of this property and its transition with Durham's long

[6:11:46] standing growth plan. After more than 90 years of

[6:11:49] stewardship, we believe this proposal represents a

[6:11:52] responsible transition, preserving 50% of the land is

[6:11:56] open space, providing needed housing within the urban growth

[6:12:00] boundary, and aligns with the policies and planning that have

[6:12:04] guided this area for decades. Thank you. In addition, it adds

[6:12:08] $1 million to Durham's dedicated housing.

[6:12:11] Thank you. Can I respond to one other

[6:12:14] thing regarding regarding the question of conservation? Oh

[6:12:21] yeah. Entities interested in purchasing the the property,

[6:12:27] these conservation entities should talk to the owners and

[6:12:30] not the neighbors. I think I speak for my cousin. We have as

[6:12:35] well. We've had no discussions with our contact from County.

[6:12:44] To be clear, the these are the property owners with the

[6:12:48] applicant. So they actually do get to respond.

[6:12:52] Yeah. And and and Mr. Cowan is right. In fact, he sent me the

[6:12:57] email saying that there was this some unknown group who was

[6:13:02] interested in the in doing this. And was it okay for him

[6:13:07] to send my contact information to them? I said, yes, fine.

[6:13:11] Never heard anything. And this was February. Thank you sir.

[6:13:18] Thank you again and my apologies about that mix up.

[6:13:23] There are there is equal time to both sides, proponent and

[6:13:27] opponent. So it's been about an hour and a half or two for the

[6:13:31] opponents. Technically it could be the same for the others.

[6:13:35] Hopefully you guys won't take that, but that's usually how it

[6:13:39] works. All right. I don't have any other speakers. Applicant

[6:13:44] would you care to respond? So a lot has been said tonight

[6:13:59] and I know it's late or early. I appreciate your attention.

[6:14:03] And what is a straightforward planning request. But obviously

[6:14:07] a complicated emotional request when you take into account the

[6:14:11] folks that live closest to this property in the Montclair and

[6:14:15] Chapel Wood neighborhoods. And we understand their sentiments.

[6:14:19] But they were just like, just like us. Ten, 20 years ago when

[6:14:25] this property was held by the few family. For the last almost

[6:14:28] a century, they've been here. Stewardship of the land.

[6:14:31] Following the directives of the Planning department of City

[6:14:35] councils before you and maintaining this land for

[6:14:38] conservation, they've been doing exactly what these groups

[6:14:41] are now turning and asking them to do. Except those

[6:14:43] subdivisions were approved by council in 2012 with the same

[6:14:47] density that we're asking to come before you today. They're

[6:14:50] up here complaining about what we understand are valid

[6:14:53] concerns about traffic and patterns that they experience

[6:14:57] in their daily lives because their neighborhoods were

[6:14:59] approved by this council at the same density that we're asking

[6:15:03] to be approved here today. And so we understand those are

[6:15:06] existing problems that exist because their neighborhoods

[6:15:09] were allowed to go ahead, just like the 437 families that

[6:15:13] we're trying to house to house. Durham's shortfall, where these

[6:15:17] people are moving to Durham at an accelerated rate, and they

[6:15:20] need to live somewhere. The folks that are here, before you

[6:15:23] were given that chance, and we're asking you to give the

[6:15:26] 437 families that we'd be able to house here the same chance.

[6:15:31] Now that density is able to come here one way or another,

[6:15:34] but the only way that the Durham gets meaningful public

[6:15:37] interest benefits, the $1 million towards the Down

[6:15:40] Payment Assistance Fund, the money towards the schools, the

[6:15:44] money towards the EMS. And I misspoke earlier. It's actually

[6:15:47] $3.5 million of transportation improvements that the developer

[6:15:51] would be bearing. You heard one of the neighbors mentioned the

[6:15:53] $10 million of sewer infrastructure that would be

[6:15:57] extended to this area. All of that is possible if these same

[6:16:01] 437 families get the same opportunities that everyone

[6:16:05] before you here tonight received.

[6:16:10] We will not do that. I'd like to briefly hit just

[6:16:16] several of the points that were made. Lots of points were made

[6:16:19] here tonight. I've just liked to follow up on the several

[6:16:22] that I think are most salient. There was discussion of the

[6:16:25] cost benefit analysis and how we weigh our environmental

[6:16:29] areas depending on what the the annexation provides in the cost

[6:16:34] benefit analysis. I'd like to turn your your attention to

[6:16:38] attachments with G and H, which shows that the financial

[6:16:42] analysis that your staff did shows the project will be

[6:16:46] revenue positive for the city over a ten year period. So the

[6:16:49] financials that we discussed about those improvements of all

[6:16:52] the extensions that we provided by the developer, would also

[6:16:56] end up having a positive net flow for for revenue for the

[6:17:00] city based on property tax and other improvements and fees

[6:17:03] that the development would produce going forward. At the

[6:17:06] same time, no operational analysis and operational

[6:17:10] analysis does not show any deficiencies in service. So

[6:17:12] you're getting positive cash flow without detracting from

[6:17:16] deficiencies. And we heard about some concerns there.

[6:17:19] Second, there were policy cited as to the comprehensive plans.

[6:17:24] Policy 7981 and 83 about not disturbing the North Carolina

[6:17:29] Heritage Program. The heritage Program is a voluntary program,

[6:17:33] and we understand the comprehensive plan adopted the

[6:17:35] open space designation and alliance to a great extent with

[6:17:39] the hardwoods that are protected under that voluntary

[6:17:41] state program. But the reality is that the Comprehensive Plan

[6:17:45] of the City of Durham cannot be used to penalize an existing

[6:17:49] owner who has maintained the hardwoods on these years under

[6:17:52] a voluntary program, and take that same that same

[6:17:57] justification and say that this should be denied because it's

[6:18:00] inconsistent. What we've done here is preserve the majority

[6:18:04] of the hardwoods that we're able to be preserved. 60% of

[6:18:07] that North Carolina Heritage Program Natural area is able to

[6:18:10] be preserved in the filed conservation plan that is with

[6:18:14] the city and will be binding once approved. Again, the

[6:18:17] restrictive covenants for open space require any owner of the

[6:18:21] land to follow that that open space, and so protecting the

[6:18:24] North Carolina Heritage Program, which is voluntary and

[6:18:28] not regulatory, is the only way that those hardwoods have

[6:18:32] protection. The annexation is denied tonight, and that's the

[6:18:35] will of the council. There is no protection for those

[6:18:37] hardwoods. So we can talk about how much we want to preserve

[6:18:40] them and how much we want to follow. The comprehensive plan.

[6:18:42] But the reality is there are landowner rights that these

[6:18:46] folks have had and held this hardwood forest intact,

[6:18:50] providing 100% candidate fee for everything that you see on

[6:18:53] site today. For the last hundred years they've done that

[6:18:57] time, they've done that service for the public, and it's time

[6:19:00] for them to be able to move forward and to move on and take

[6:19:02] care of their own families. With respect to the two

[6:19:05] historic buildings, there was concern that Preservation

[6:19:07] Durham had not been consulted. I believe that we made that

[6:19:10] clear and provided that letter with the support of

[6:19:12] Preservation Durham. They are ready to take the maintenance

[6:19:16] of those two structures and work with us. Those are shown

[6:19:19] on the conservation subdivision plan that we filed with the

[6:19:22] city. There was concern over a potential burial ground and not

[6:19:25] enough investigation done on that. We sent materials over to

[6:19:29] you in an email last week that showed that there was an

[6:19:33] initial indication that there could be potential burial

[6:19:35] grounds based on that periwinkle and headstones. We

[6:19:38] had a consultant named Spangler go out there in 2023 and

[6:19:42] investigate the very area that was suspected for potential

[6:19:45] burial grounds, and found no evidence of cemeteries or

[6:19:49] burial grounds in the area that was initially initially

[6:19:52] inspected. So there was a suspicion of it. It was

[6:19:55] inspected and no evidence was found with respect to the

[6:19:59] comments, about 40% wetlands on our site. That is not true. If

[6:20:04] you look at the conservation subdivision, there is no

[6:20:06] indication that there's 40% of the sites being taken up by

[6:20:08] wetlands. There's a tremendous amount of hardwoods on the

[6:20:11] site, and again, those are being protected by our ability

[6:20:14] to move forward with the annexation. And this

[6:20:16] conservation subdivision. With respect to just speaking

[6:20:20] briefly on the offer to to purchase, this case has been

[6:20:25] before you for three years at any time, a legitimate offer

[6:20:27] could have been made by a conservation group stepping

[6:20:30] forward and expressing all of the passion that you've heard

[6:20:33] tonight, that we want to save these hardwoods. We want to

[6:20:35] protect this. The best thing we can do is protect this forest.

[6:20:37] And the reality is there has not been any offer made to

[6:20:40] these folks. And so they've done the best they can after

[6:20:43] taking care of this land for nearly 90 years. And they're

[6:20:47] moving forward with the best group that they could find that

[6:20:49] would make a commitment to file a conservation plan. And that's

[6:20:52] exactly what MI homes did. They filed the conservation plan,

[6:20:55] saving as much of this hardwoods as possible and

[6:20:58] making good on the promise to try to do the best they could

[6:21:00] in a new form of stewardship of the land. With respect to the

[6:21:04] Tia, I mentioned that the improvements that we would be

[6:21:06] committing to would be 3.5 million. It's important that

[6:21:10] that's not just to serve the development, of course, that

[6:21:13] relates to our traffic. But as you've heard tonight from the

[6:21:16] very folks that want you to turn down this annexation, the

[6:21:18] problems they're experiencing exists today. There's a

[6:21:21] citation of the level of service going to the level of

[6:21:24] service F without Morgan Farm. What does that mean? You've got

[6:21:27] an existing traffic problem, and either we pay for it or the

[6:21:30] city pays for it. And the way the city pays for it is with

[6:21:33] taxpayer dollars. And so what we're trying to do here is to

[6:21:36] balance that growth and to balance the revenue shortfalls

[6:21:40] that already exist here. Those capital improvements are not

[6:21:42] funded for either the for those roads to be improved. And we're

[6:21:46] trying to take that burden upon ourselves. Finally, there was a

[6:21:52] discussion about the sewer. I think there was some concern

[6:21:55] about an aerial sewer crossing that is not part of the plan.

[6:21:57] The UEA does require sewer improvements to the tune of $10

[6:22:02] million, as was stated earlier. And that's important because

[6:22:05] the only reason this area is in the future growth area is

[6:22:08] because the city contemplated that a sewer has to be extended

[6:22:12] here, and it has to be extended either by a capital

[6:22:14] improvements project or by private investment. We're here

[6:22:18] before you to try to extend that sewer for the private

[6:22:20] investment, to help people like Mrs. Quinn, who unfortunately

[6:22:23] couldn't stay because of her health issues but has been

[6:22:26] waiting on things that these people already get to exist.

[6:22:30] They already have an ability to have that sewer connection that

[6:22:34] Miss Quinn and her neighbors do not. And so we're asking you

[6:22:37] tonight to look at the the positive outcome that could be

[6:22:41] with the approval of this annexation tonight, not only

[6:22:44] from a revenue perspective that's set forth in your in

[6:22:47] your manager's report, but also from a conservation

[6:22:50] perspective, and that we've done everything we can to

[6:22:52] provide the binding commitments that that existed before you,

[6:22:56] but taking them to the next level by tripling the amount of

[6:22:58] open space, by providing the same amount of stock of housing

[6:23:02] and doing it in the best way possible to protect the trees

[6:23:05] that do not have a protection today and will leave the

[6:23:08] landowners with no other choice but to follow the forestry plan

[6:23:12] and to timber these these trees that have been growing for

[6:23:16] quite some time. That's not a a threat of what could happen.

[6:23:19] That's just the reality of what's been binding on the

[6:23:21] site. That's the reality of the existing regulations. You have

[6:23:25] the power tonight to choose. Yes, to protect that forest by

[6:23:29] choosing no and denying the annexation. You will leave the

[6:23:34] owners with very little decision but to leave the the

[6:23:37] trees with the protection they have today, which is nothing.

[6:23:40] And we don't think that's what the neighbors want. We don't

[6:23:42] think that's what you want. We're happy to answer further

[6:23:45] questions. I know it's been a long night and an early

[6:23:47] morning, but we appreciate you giving this a lot of thought.

[6:23:51] We certainly have. We know the neighbors have and we

[6:23:53] appreciate your support. Thank you so much. I don't have

[6:24:00] any further speakers. So therefore I will declare the

[6:24:04] public hearing closed and back and forth. The Council.

[6:24:20] Oh my. God.

[6:24:21] Yeah I feel yeah. Council member. But I am really

[6:24:27] appreciative of everyone been here tonight. Not casting any

[6:24:29] shade. Y'all are welcome. Well, he be here as long as you need

[6:24:34] us to be. So really appreciate the engagement this evening and

[6:24:37] the thoughtful back and forth we've seen with the residents

[6:24:40] and the and the applicant. So some questions for staff,

[6:24:46] because I still feel like I'm seeking some clarity on

[6:24:48] understanding what the potential paths forward are.

[6:24:52] There's, you know, concerns around trust of like what is

[6:24:56] actually committed to or not. So some of the initial

[6:24:59] questions are, first of all, like is the conservation

[6:25:02] subdivision guaranteed under the Utility Extension agreement

[6:25:06] and the CS filing. It is not. They have the

[6:25:11] applicant has submitted a conservation subdivision

[6:25:14] application. So that application is in process. But

[6:25:18] any applicant has the ability to withdraw an application at

[6:25:23] any time. And is there a way forward

[6:25:27] where that is agreed to and guaranteed? Is there any way to

[6:25:32] get to that point of confidence?

[6:25:34] So I mean, in theory, the applicant could put a, a pro a

[6:25:42] commitment within the UEA that the UEA could only be extended

[6:25:49] to a conservation subdivision. And if there was going to be

[6:25:53] something other than a conservation subdivision on the

[6:25:56] site, the UEA would need to come back before the council to

[6:25:59] get approved. So that's not currently what is

[6:26:01] in the. That is not currently in the

[6:26:03] UEA. Okay. How is the conservation

[6:26:08] subdivision filed without a piece of metal meeting? How

[6:26:10] does that work in there? Would there would have been a

[6:26:13] pre submittal meeting with the major with the land development

[6:26:16] review staff in our department. Okay. So there was that

[6:26:19] meeting. That should that should. Well

[6:26:22] actually yeah I'm trying to think they do things a little

[6:26:25] bit differently in land development review. I believe

[6:26:28] they have the neighborhood meeting first and then the pre

[6:26:31] submittal. Is that right. Yeah I think they do the the

[6:26:34] neighborhood meeting first and then have the pre submittal. So

[6:26:37] that pre submittal may not have taken place yet. It has taken

[6:26:41] place. Okay. And then in terms of concerns

[6:26:44] around the management of the land for environmental purposes

[6:26:47] through a transitional zoning and the absence of enforcement

[6:26:50] mechanisms. Is that the case that we're facing?

[6:26:54] I'm sorry, rephrase that please.

[6:26:56] So is there any way oversight and enforcement, you know, by

[6:27:00] the city and development or in planning over the practices of

[6:27:06] the build out of the conservation subdivision

[6:27:08] through this translational zoning?

[6:27:10] Well, there would need to be a there would be a requirement

[6:27:12] for a site plan to be submitted, and that site plan

[6:27:16] would need to be followed. And that would follow.

[6:27:18] That would. be that would be the standard same way we would

[6:27:21] do it with any other site plan. Okay. Next, just trying to

[6:27:27] understand the potential paths forward. So is there a way for

[6:27:38] this land to be developed as been described by right,

[6:27:42] without the annexation? Yes.

[6:27:45] And is that what single family homes with septic.

[6:27:48] Single family homes without access to water and sewer so

[6:27:51] well in septic. Okay. And so we have the

[6:27:53] annexation or we have single family homes with, you know,

[6:28:00] with septic or there's potential.

[6:28:04] There could also they could do a community waste wastewater

[6:28:07] system. They could do a community well system. There

[6:28:10] are those are difficult and expensive. But those are

[6:28:12] possible okay. And then there's the

[6:28:14] possibility of the the trees just being clear cut.

[6:28:20] Forestry management. Planning what we've.

[6:28:22] Heard right in a conventional subdivision, there's no

[6:28:25] requirement for. Is there an identified wildlife

[6:28:31] corridor. So we do not there is not an

[6:28:36] open space, an adopted open space plan in this part of the

[6:28:40] county. So there's not a locally adopted and identified

[6:28:45] wildlife corridor. Was not a been identified.

[6:28:50] There may be something identified through other

[6:28:54] mechanisms, but we as staff do not see an adopted wildlife

[6:28:58] corridor in any of our local plans because we don't have one

[6:29:00] for this area. I may have some additional

[6:29:03] questions and thoughts. I'll pause there. I just want to

[6:29:06] make sure we're understanding all the potential paths

[6:29:08] forward. So we're being thoughtful. Understand this is

[6:29:11] an area of high ecological sensitivity. There's concerns

[6:29:14] around the traffic. You know those things matter. I also

[6:29:20] want to make sure we're not what's the expression? You

[6:29:23] know, cutting off our nose to spite our face based on what

[6:29:27] the outcome could be, if that is ultimately a worse outcome

[6:29:32] from an environmental standpoint and from a neighbor

[6:29:35] preference standpoint. And I'm not fully confident that I

[6:29:40] understand and convinced that that I, you know, I kind of

[6:29:45] know what the outcome will be of a yes or a no, which

[6:29:47] sometimes is easier to discern. So I'm going to pause there.

[6:29:58] That's next. Yeah. Go ahead. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'll jump

[6:30:01] in. Yeah. Thanks, Council Member Kopac for the for the

[6:30:03] comments and questions. I mean. Yeah, there are so many

[6:30:09] questions here that I think folks have raised here. Also

[6:30:12] the late breaking. I appreciate the late breaking to the

[6:30:15] investment in roads as well as the conservation subdivision.

[6:30:18] I've got questions for staff. Actually, I have one question

[6:30:20] on that. I have a million, but let me ask this one. So I know

[6:30:23] that I know there was a court case about like Mason farm

[6:30:26] related to conservation subdivision. That was the case

[6:30:28] against the county, not against the city. There were those

[6:30:31] requirements for conservation subdivision. Have we have we

[6:30:34] changed things based on the case, like what is how does

[6:30:37] that case relate to what what we're here considering for the

[6:30:40] city of Durham. So the.

[6:30:42] Ordinance was. Changed subsequent to.

[6:30:44] That case. Now the. The issue that was in question.

[6:30:48] As to whether or not the purposes were requirements as

[6:30:51] opposed to purposes, that has been clarified. The purposes

[6:30:55] are just intent statements. They are not regulatory. And so

[6:31:01] what what applies are the primary and secondary

[6:31:03] conservation areas, the requirements for those that are

[6:31:06] further down in that section. So that has been clarified.

[6:31:08] That is not an issue. I'm sorry, I don't quite

[6:31:12] understand. So so they so we've changed the language. So it's

[6:31:15] no longer is it something that shall or may or something like

[6:31:18] that. Correct. It just clarifies that

[6:31:20] the purposes are not regulatory.

[6:31:22] Or not. So that so there's these 14 like purposes that all

[6:31:27] 14th May be met or just one. Right.

[6:31:29] Correct. Okay. Yeah. Following the lines

[6:31:36] that Council Member Kopac was going down, I think there's

[6:31:38] different options here. Right. We could if we don't. And then

[6:31:40] I think the attorneys have been clear about this. If we don't

[6:31:42] annex this property, there could be logging, there could

[6:31:45] be development by right, the same amount of units that that

[6:31:47] were have been proposed by the development team. So I think

[6:31:51] we've got I think we're between a rock and a hard place here. I

[6:31:54] think there's a lot of questions around what the Tia

[6:31:58] would actually do that's have not been validated to me.

[6:32:01] There's it's like 130 in the morning. We outlasted the

[6:32:04] hurricanes game. They want to double overtime. We've been

[6:32:06] here longer than the hurricanes. I know Mr. Kane is

[6:32:09] a big fan of the canes. Sorry you missed the game. I like I'm

[6:32:13] not a no on this, but it's hard to say yes given all his

[6:32:16] questions. I feel like we need more time. It's like 130 in the

[6:32:19] morning. There's so much here. I think this council has done

[6:32:22] good work to really wrestle down some of these cases. I

[6:32:25] feel like we can't do that right now. So for me, I think

[6:32:29] we need some more time. I would send this back to the to

[6:32:33] planning to answer some of these questions, because I

[6:32:34] think there's I think there's potential here. I think there's

[6:32:36] also like risks if we don't do anything that we've not fully

[6:32:39] evaluated. So I would like more time on this. Thank you, Mr.

[6:32:47] Mayor. Any other comments? Yeah. Go

[6:32:52] ahead. Well, I'd like to I mean, if you can make a motion,

[6:32:57] that's fine. But I do want to hear everyone's comments.

[6:33:00] I mean, I can I can make that motion now or I can.

[6:33:02] I was still open for discussion. Okay.

[6:33:09] I. I'm not sure.

[6:33:10] We're going to get any more clarity if we.

[6:33:12] If we spend longer on this. I think that at some point in

[6:33:15] time, we're going to have to realize that we have to grapple

[6:33:17] with. some unknowns, and we're going to have to make a

[6:33:19] decision. I want to say thank you. I heard many of you talk

[6:33:24] about our patients, and I know that I'm very wiggly up here

[6:33:26] because I have horrible sciatica pain, but all we are

[6:33:29] doing is sitting up here. Y'all are the ones that have come

[6:33:32] out, you've researched and you've stayed up. It is 130 in

[6:33:35] the morning. I want to just appreciate public comment and

[6:33:38] the ability for residents to come speak to us. It is

[6:33:40] amazing. As someone said earlier, it is an incredible

[6:33:43] opportunity. I think we heard earlier that there was a

[6:33:49] statement made that the development wouldn't move

[6:33:51] forward without the annexation. That to me feels like it is the

[6:33:55] likely thing to happen. We heard that this is emotional

[6:34:01] and I get that it is emotional, but I also don't want to

[6:34:04] discredit the like dozens of speakers who came out with

[6:34:08] intensive research, photos of infrastructure, timelines for

[6:34:14] plans. I mean, we have so many questions about whether any of

[6:34:20] these things could happen. The Army Corps of Engineers land,

[6:34:23] and whether they're going to allow the sewer, whether we're

[6:34:27] going to have to end up getting those costs passed down to us

[6:34:29] because of the bridge renovation. Those are the two

[6:34:32] things that are kind of standing out to me in terms of

[6:34:35] economic impact. And then we've heard all about this

[6:34:37] environmental impact as well. I just reread the letter, the TCC

[6:34:42] letter, and see that the conversations have been

[6:34:46] ongoing. This one is is easy to me. I think we've heard y'all

[6:34:50] have been out here for hours and hours. There's been lots of

[6:34:53] work put into it. I, I don't need any more information. I'm

[6:34:57] ready. I'm prepared to make a decision tonight. I'm

[6:35:00] understanding that there's risks to that decision, but I'm

[6:35:02] willing to stand in and make that decision tonight.

[6:35:09] I have. A question.

[6:35:10] For the applicant. for either of the fuse, for the

[6:35:14] landowners. I'm sorry, Mr. Wheeler.

[6:35:27] Have you? You said you have not had any

[6:35:30] conversations with any land conservation folks, that you

[6:35:34] have not had any direct contact.

[6:35:36] Not about this property? No. Okay.

[6:35:38] What was the question? No contact with any

[6:35:41] conservation group? Absolutely not. I can tell you

[6:35:44] that. I have been looking after Kendrick Estates for 30 years.

[6:35:48] My name is on the Secretary of State's office. As a registered

[6:35:52] agent. I'm on the tax rolls and I've had no contact with

[6:35:56] anybody who's shown any interest in buying this

[6:35:59] property. Is parkland or anything similar. So to say

[6:36:04] that that's a I think that was a disingenuous.

[6:36:08] Comment. And.

[6:36:14] Apparently. Sir, we don't we don't do that

[6:36:17] here. We don't shout at us from the audience. I'm sorry.

[6:36:20] And I'd be happy to share in private with you all the market

[6:36:23] value of this site. It's a it's a very expensive piece of

[6:36:27] property. We have 21 shareholders. Some of them are

[6:36:32] minors. They're in five different states, and we don't

[6:36:36] have the authority to give away any part or parcel of this

[6:36:40] property. That's simply not in the cards. It's not available

[6:36:45] to us. So can you say the last part

[6:36:48] again? I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[6:36:51] After the 21 shareholders, can you say what you said again,

[6:36:53] please? Randy, did you pick up on that?

[6:36:57] I think yeah. Santos. It's it's, you know, family

[6:37:02] businesses are hard, particularly multigenerational

[6:37:05] ones. And yet to get all 21

[6:37:07] shareholders to agree to a thing I got you.

[6:37:09] Yeah. It's. Thank you. That's all. Thank

[6:37:11] you I appreciate it. Yeah. All right. Good morning.

[6:37:20] Afternoon. Evening night. So thank you all for, you know,

[6:37:24] being with us or just expressing your concerns

[6:37:28] regarding development. I know some folks say that, you know,

[6:37:31] we'll be here as long as it takes, but some of us do have

[6:37:32] different responsibilities. And there's a single income. You

[6:37:35] have to go to work in the morning. So look forward to

[6:37:37] that. Exhaustion. I'm not in favor of continuing this for

[6:37:42] the fact that we've heard from residents concerns. And so I

[6:37:46] think that I have sufficient information to make my decision

[6:37:49] and be confident in that decision making at this point.

[6:37:51] And I'm solidly at a no. As I have arrived at no. For other

[6:37:56] developments along the same area of town in Durham. I

[6:37:59] remember some of your faces from last time, so I won't

[6:38:01] belabor the situation. I think that while I do appreciate some

[6:38:05] of the efforts, I have not been convinced by what's been

[6:38:08] proposed this evening to to change my vote to the

[6:38:12] affirmative. Thank you all for for making it

[6:38:25] this long. Thank you to staff and to folks who have come and

[6:38:28] spoken and and to the applicant team as well. I do believe in

[6:38:33] the, the the motivation of the the landowner. Randy, I

[6:38:38] remember meeting with you back when I was on the Planning

[6:38:40] Commission many years ago about this, this very property. So I

[6:38:44] know it's been it's been in, you know, something that you've

[6:38:48] been taking a look at for a long time. You know, there's a

[6:38:52] lot of persuasive comments that I've heard on both sides. But

[6:38:56] ultimately we are here to review this against the

[6:39:00] comprehensive plan and do our very best to make the best

[6:39:04] possible decision for what is a very large and consequential

[6:39:10] site here at 1:39 a.m. and so you all have heard my position

[6:39:21] earlier. This or yesterday. Earlier this evening, I am not

[6:39:27] I'm not leaning towards supporting any any further

[6:39:33] large scale. Lose my my train of thought here this evening.

[6:39:40] Growth, outward growth at this kind of scale. It's something

[6:39:46] that I've been deeply concerned about for a very long time. You

[6:39:50] know, short of a very, very impressive master plan. I do to

[6:40:01] the to the landscape architect. I do think the, the layout here

[6:40:04] is, is, is is not bad. I also want to say I do want to point

[6:40:10] out the the commitments here are spoken by the by the

[6:40:17] applicant. Unprecedented. And I do I do think that they are

[6:40:21] they are impressive. But ultimately we do need to weigh

[6:40:25] the positives and the negatives and make the very best decision

[6:40:28] here and mine currently is is a no Council Member Rist. I don't

[6:40:34] know what kind of questions you would be seeking clarity on. I

[6:40:39] currently lean toward just simply voting no, but of

[6:40:45] course, you know, if if you know majority for council

[6:40:48] members wanted needed more time to to ask questions or

[6:40:53] whatever. You know, obviously you have you have the right to

[6:40:57] do that. So that's that's where I'm at at this point. I think

[6:41:02] that is the there are a lot of unknowns. And so at this point,

[6:41:07] I am leaning toward a solid, no, thank you.

[6:41:15] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The applicant has made a lot of

[6:41:23] ambitious commitments on this. I feel like this case has

[6:41:31] changed substantially since Planning Commission, and

[6:41:38] sometimes that allows me to be able to make a decision. But I

[6:41:41] feel like there are still unanswered questions that more

[6:41:45] time would benefit from. It would give us time to evaluate

[6:41:49] how we can integrate some of the Oeb recommendations, think

[6:41:53] about other adjustments to the utility extension agreement to

[6:41:57] make sure that we would get the outcome that is being proposed,

[6:42:00] and have it as a promise, and see what else can be baked into

[6:42:03] that. UEA. May it be time to see if there's actually a legit

[6:42:13] buyer. I spoke with the TCC about this. I think that

[6:42:15] there's a desire to see that, but as I've heard, there's been

[6:42:19] no real conversation. Perhaps this is then that time, right?

[6:42:25] Rubber to the road to see if there is that opportunity. I

[6:42:28] think the TCC, they communicated to me that they

[6:42:30] are concerned about the potential for this site just

[6:42:32] being logged. But from a value standpoint, it's hard for

[6:42:35] anyone to advocate for something that feels like not

[6:42:38] fully aligned with what you believe in and want to see in

[6:42:40] your neighborhood, but with it being Earth Day and Earth

[6:42:44] Month, I don't want to end up with a much worse environmental

[6:42:47] outcome because there's enough consternation about the option

[6:42:52] in front of us. And so if there is more time to explore that

[6:42:55] and these other options, I think that that is worth it for

[6:42:59] a really consequential case. And so with that, you know, I

[6:43:08] would be interested in having the support of, you know, our,

[6:43:12] our, you know, our volunteer advisors and planning

[6:43:14] commission to see this completely different case. I've

[6:43:19] spoken with half the planning commissioners. I think that,

[6:43:23] you know, from what was holding many of them up, I think some

[6:43:26] of that has been addressed. But I think that there is a lot

[6:43:29] that else that is outstanding, that makes me unable to vote

[6:43:33] for this, but makes me concerned enough about the

[6:43:37] consequences of voting now. And so sometimes it's worth doing

[6:43:41] continuances to try and get it right instead of rushing ahead.

[6:43:46] And so I would be supportive of that motion to explore some of

[6:43:51] these open questions. Colleagues, you know, I'm not

[6:43:58] I, I'm I'm not doing my best thinking. And I think none of

[6:44:01] us are. It's 144 in the morning. My suggestion is that

[6:44:04] we figure out a continuance if the applicant is available. I

[6:44:09] actually want to I do want to say this because I remember

[6:44:11] when Mr. Few came to us, I was on the council when we made the

[6:44:15] decision to not do urban growth boundary versus future growth

[6:44:18] boundary. And part of it was because there's a pretty large

[6:44:21] black family that had been on their land, quite frankly,

[6:44:25] longer than anyone in this room. And they have been denied

[6:44:30] sewer and water. And so they were part of the team, the

[6:44:33] neighbors who said, please, please, please don't put us in

[6:44:35] the urban. It wasn't just a fuse. There were other folks

[6:44:38] who were like, please don't put us in the urban, you know,

[6:44:41] outside the urban growth boundary. We are never going to

[6:44:44] get sewer if you do that. And I know that that family is not

[6:44:47] here this evening. I know they had to leave, and I'm part of

[6:44:51] the reason I don't want to say anything. I don't want to. It

[6:44:53] is very upsetting to me when I see older, affluent white

[6:44:56] people deny housing to other folks. I will never forget

[6:44:59] Mayor Shull and the amount of respect that I have for that

[6:45:02] man, because early in my tenure on council, he was a huge

[6:45:07] proponent of housing and he was a huge environmentalist. And no

[6:45:11] one can ever challenge his credibility on either. And a

[6:45:15] good friend of his, a man he'd been friends with for 40 years,

[6:45:19] came in and was an opponent on a case. And I remember Mayor

[6:45:25] Shull very matter of factly, in a kind way, just said, I don't

[6:45:28] believe in pulling up the ladder behind me. And then he

[6:45:31] said, and I hope I see you for lunch on Friday like we're

[6:45:33] supposed to have lunch. And that was the end of that

[6:45:34] conversation. And I remember, I think I'd been on council maybe

[6:45:38] six months to a year, and I remember what an impact it made

[6:45:41] on me. And that is how I've guided many of my decisions, is

[6:45:46] thinking through who I have. I own a house. I think most of

[6:45:52] the folks in this room own a house. I think most of the

[6:45:54] people on this council own a house. I know a few folks are

[6:45:56] still renters and and that is what I think about it is

[6:46:01] environmental, but it is about housing. And so I don't want to

[6:46:04] continue down this path. I think maybe buying us some more

[6:46:08] time, getting some questions answered. There have been other

[6:46:10] cases where you've done a continuance and it has resolved

[6:46:13] itself in a more positive way. So that's where I'm at.

[6:46:15] Colleagues. I thank you, colleagues. Is

[6:46:22] there any other. Yeah. Go ahead. Council Member Cook.

[6:46:25] Well, one of the main things that Council Member Kopac said

[6:46:28] that he was interested in was getting the planning

[6:46:29] commission's take on this new case. So if I think if we are

[6:46:32] going to truly do the continuance, that adds to the

[6:46:36] value to what folks have said, then we need to send it back to

[6:46:39] planning Commission. A little hard.

[6:46:42] To hear you. I don't. These mics are wild. I

[6:46:45] can't hear y'all either. So okay, what I said is that one

[6:46:49] of the things that you mentioned wanting to learn was

[6:46:51] how what this new case would look like in front of the

[6:46:53] Planning Commission. And so in order in my mind, in order to

[6:46:56] make a continuance worthwhile, it would actually be to send

[6:46:59] something back to the Planning Commission. And I see Aaron

[6:47:01] Kane has already raised his finger at me, but that is that

[6:47:04] is my. Yeah. Go ahead. Sure. So just something to be

[6:47:08] aware of is that Planning Commission does not have a

[6:47:11] purview to review annexations per se. All they have to review

[6:47:16] is the zoning. And they do not review annexations. They do not

[6:47:19] review utility extension agreements. So from a planning

[6:47:24] commissioner's perspective, nothing has changed. This is

[6:47:28] still a direct translation. Annexation to rural

[6:47:33] residential, rural residential. Rural. Residential. Not

[6:47:37] reviewing the UEA, not reviewing whether or not it

[6:47:40] should be annexed. So just something to keep in mind if

[6:47:42] you're going to send it back to Planning Commission. To them,

[6:47:44] it's going to look just like the case they saw.

[6:47:47] Oh, that's a good. Call.

[6:47:50] Council member does that change your.

[6:47:52] I guess then the continuance is just with us and we can choose

[6:47:55] to engage Planning Commission, Environmental Affairs board,

[6:48:00] others and helping to evaluate it more informally. But I guess

[6:48:03] then the continuance would just be us.

[6:48:11] Can I say one more thing? Oh, sorry, I, I just want to say

[6:48:17] one more thing, which is that I appreciate that comment. And I

[6:48:20] think it's important that we are looking at things with an

[6:48:24] eye towards race and equity, and also I spend I have to be

[6:48:33] also at work in seven hours to court to help people stay

[6:48:38] housed, which is what I do with my daytime job all the time and

[6:48:43] what I don't want for folks is to be housed in places where

[6:48:47] it's not sustainable for them. And we're hearing this, these

[6:48:50] comments about this horrific traffic, the terrible

[6:48:55] infrastructure that's not a sustainable place to live. So,

[6:48:59] I mean, we can build houses, we can just build houses

[6:49:03] everywhere, I guess. But it's like we have to build houses

[6:49:06] that are meaningful and actually can house people and

[6:49:09] are places that we think that folks deserve to live. It's

[6:49:12] it's not enough to just build four walls and a roof. It has

[6:49:16] to be a place where we also would feel comfortable living

[6:49:20] and, and put the standards as if it were our own family. So I

[6:49:23] understand both sides of that, but I just want to I wanted to

[6:49:27] to state that, which is I think we're all worried about housing.

[6:49:32] And also we can think critically about growth. With

[6:49:37] that concern in mind.. And just since we're going down

[6:49:42] memory lane at two in the morning, I do recall a case

[6:49:46] where it was around a light rail maintenance facility at

[6:49:50] the fencing where we did, I think, go the transit authority

[6:49:54] did condemn a black family's land, and they also condemned

[6:50:00] it. And then they also offered a lease back to them. So if

[6:50:03] we're going to just want to make sure that we're just

[6:50:05] weighing all the sides of the coin. Now, if we talk about

[6:50:07] like, you know, we're talking about the past, that we have

[6:50:09] had some moments where we may not have made the best

[6:50:11] decision. So I just want to gain clarity on from this point

[6:50:14] forward, though. So are we just simply my colleagues asking us

[6:50:18] to send this? I mean, continue this while you all conduct

[6:50:21] yourself study to feel more confident in your answer or

[6:50:25] just like and then ideally like what? What's the timeline for

[6:50:28] that? I mean, I'm the one proposed

[6:50:33] that, you know, to me like three months, 90 days to answer

[6:50:36] some of these questions. Right? Is there a potential like as

[6:50:39] Council Member Kopac said, rubber hits the road. Is there

[6:50:41] a potential buyer for this? I think I think conserving this

[6:50:44] land long term, some kind of folks who want to buy for

[6:50:48] conservation purposes would be a great option, but I think we

[6:50:51] have to be like, there's there's questions that have

[6:50:53] there been conversations, whether or not that the owners

[6:50:55] have saying there's not conversation. So I think giving

[6:50:58] time for that conversation to like, you know, what part of

[6:51:01] yeah, yeah. Let me ask you a question. Can

[6:51:03] I councillor. So what is what is the value of the land? Do

[6:51:09] you all know that. The my liberty.

[6:51:12] To share. That the the lands under

[6:51:15] contract for $40 million and we have not had a an offer from

[6:51:19] any groups, not just a serious offer or were in discussions.

[6:51:23] There hasn't been an offer for that land. So to continue it

[6:51:26] for a discussion that frankly could have been had during the

[6:51:29] last three years that this case is pending, I think, is if

[6:51:33] there's groups that are out there that are waiting in the

[6:51:35] wings, I question why they haven't approached the owners

[6:51:38] directly on that. I think the other thing to note, and this

[6:51:42] might have been my mistake, is that the Tia has been

[6:51:44] submitted. It was submitted in connection with the

[6:51:46] conservation subdivision. So that has been reviewed by both

[6:51:49] the city staff and Ddot, and they've concurred with the

[6:51:52] findings. So of course that goes through the the process

[6:51:56] for the conservation subdivision. But it was

[6:51:59] submitted. And that's how I'm able to say we're committing to

[6:52:02] these things because we already have an email back from both

[6:52:05] city staff and from Dot that that they agree with. What

[6:52:09] we've shown is improvements. And then Council Member Kopac

[6:52:12] to your question on the conservation subdivision, we're

[6:52:15] willing to offer a proffer that that that be part of the UEA.

[6:52:19] We had discussions with planning and the city

[6:52:22] Attorney's office about what things would go in the in the

[6:52:24] UK and what wouldn't. But that's how we arrived at doing

[6:52:27] the open space covenants to not only say we're recording these

[6:52:30] binding covenants on the land, to say that it will be

[6:52:34] submitted as a conservation subdivision, but it will also

[6:52:37] be reflecting the open space that's shown in that

[6:52:40] conservation subdivision. That exhibit B I showed on the

[6:52:43] screen was the actual open space exhibit from the

[6:52:46] conservation subdivision. So we're already bound under the

[6:52:50] the open space covenants that will become effective if this

[6:52:53] land is annexed. But we're also willing to say that can be a

[6:52:57] condition of the UEA that this would proceed as a conservation

[6:53:01] subdivision if that would make the council comfortable in

[6:53:03] taking action tonight. We don't have time under our contract to

[6:53:07] to wait for three months, and I think the questions, they're

[6:53:11] tough, but I do think that they've been answered and we

[6:53:15] would like to proceed tonight and and hope that you can find

[6:53:18] it more beneficial than not to approve this case and move

[6:53:22] forward. Well, I have a question. What

[6:53:26] what's different about this property than the other

[6:53:33] properties adjacent before housing was on them? I don't

[6:53:39] know if that's a staff question or like but before there was

[6:53:44] development out here. What what what the land that was

[6:53:48] developed on where there are communities and subdivisions on

[6:53:52] now, how did that land differentiate from what's being

[6:53:57] proposed here? Do we know that. I cannot speak to that, though

[6:54:01] those the existing developments that are out there now very

[6:54:06] much precede my time with the city? I can't really give you

[6:54:10] an answer as to what the decision making process was.

[6:54:13] Then, when those were approved. Yeah, I I'm just thinking about

[6:54:19] the all of the. I mean, I, I still used to live over there,

[6:54:26] you know, and and I'm looking at what is happening over

[6:54:30] there. I and to be honest with you know, your colleagues I, I

[6:54:35] do want to make a decision tonight if there is more

[6:54:40] information that needs to be, you know, retrieved. I'm

[6:54:43] amenable to that. But I think, you know, when I do look at the

[6:54:47] complexities of this case, I think the positive outweigh the

[6:54:52] negative on it. And and that's just me weighing the options

[6:55:00] here. So I won't I won't belabor editor. And I don't you

[6:55:06] know, I won't believe it I, I whatever you guys want to do

[6:55:09] I'm amenable to it. I'm prepared to make a decision

[6:55:11] tonight as well. Yeah. And I would want the

[6:55:17] opportunity to review the UEA with the committed language to

[6:55:21] understand whether it reflects the protections that have been

[6:55:24] asked since. I think that still remains an open question. And

[6:55:30] so, I don't know. That's harder for me. I mean, I can't do that

[6:55:33] this evening. So I don't know if there's a shorter

[6:55:34] continuance period than 90 days. It would be acceptable.

[6:55:39] And for me, I don't think since the, you know, the court case,

[6:55:41] I don't think we've done a conservation subdivision at the

[6:55:44] city level. Right. So we've got so is the planning director

[6:55:47] said this is no longer a regulatory language. It's sort

[6:55:49] of like a suggested language. So it's not clear to me with

[6:55:55] the concept, with the with the, with the proffer to do one.

[6:55:57] What exactly that what are we actually what can we count on

[6:56:01] as a city. So that's why I have questions about that. I'd love

[6:56:03] to see answered. I try my best to answer.

[6:56:10] Commissioner kopecks question or Council Member Kopac

[6:56:13] question. I'm still getting still, still used to be you

[6:56:15] being on planning commission. So if the council chooses, what

[6:56:20] you could do is if you were to approve the annexation. And

[6:56:26] City Attorney Raber. Yeah, I see you're looking okay. I

[6:56:29] believe what you could do is you could, if you were to vote

[6:56:32] to approve the annexation, you could delay the UEA. And that

[6:56:38] could come back to you at a later time with that language.

[6:56:42] And then that could be on consent. And then you could

[6:56:46] approve the UEA at a, at a later time. That might be a

[6:56:49] possibility to address a. Few leverages.

[6:56:52] Question. Well, let me go here and then

[6:56:57] go ahead. I just wanted to clarify for

[6:56:59] the attorney in this case, and I'm also the applicant, I feel

[6:57:03] as though you've stated that you do not desire to have a

[6:57:06] continuance. Is that what's been stated, and that you want

[6:57:09] may not want like you may not have the time. I just want to

[6:57:12] make sure like we're that we're aligning like what you've

[6:57:15] expressed and that we're not overlooking like what's been

[6:57:18] articulated tonight. Yes. Thank you for asking. We

[6:57:22] always do our best to make these decisions easy and not to

[6:57:24] put you all in a difficult position. We've done our best

[6:57:27] to do that tonight. If we had more time, I'd I'd be willing

[6:57:30] to do it. But we don't. And so we we have had cases where we

[6:57:36] make a commitment to the UEA to follow the conservation

[6:57:40] subdivision, which does have that restriction of the 50%

[6:57:44] open space in your Udo, that's required. That's not something

[6:57:47] that would be a wishy washy intent. It's absolutely

[6:57:50] required. And again, the covenants show where that open

[6:57:53] space would be. So we can make that verbal commitment. We can

[6:57:56] add that language and that can come back for the city

[6:57:58] attorney's review. If you can act upon it tonight. And

[6:58:01] subject to the the review of that language. But it would be

[6:58:04] a commitment to filing the conservation subdivision and

[6:58:08] that the UEA would be tied to a conservation subdivision going

[6:58:11] forward. So we would have to proceed with the conservation

[6:58:14] subdivision and only a conservation subdivision under

[6:58:17] the under the rules, which do have a tremendous amount of

[6:58:21] restrictions on how it's managed, who manages the open

[6:58:24] space, how it's maintained, all sorts of restrictions about

[6:58:29] what's to be included and what's not. And so I don't want

[6:58:32] to make it. I don't want to make light of the court case,

[6:58:34] but I don't want to pretend that there's nothing in your

[6:58:36] Udo about the conservation subdivision, because there's 3

[6:58:39] to 4 pages of requirements and regulations that we would have

[6:58:42] to follow, and we're willing to make that verbal commitment to

[6:58:45] work with the city attorney on the language of exactly how

[6:58:47] that would look in the UEA, and be able to move forward tonight

[6:58:50] to to give you that certainty. I mean, I appreciate that. I

[6:58:55] think the struggle is 1:02 a.m. and also, you know, through,

[6:59:00] you know, a couple of years I'm planning commission and time on

[6:59:02] council. I haven't seen a case on conservation subdivision,

[6:59:05] and I've never seen an attempt to do a translational zoning in

[6:59:08] connection with the utilities extension agreement and

[6:59:10] annexation. And so, you know, like I, I appreciate the

[6:59:13] suggestions that like, these are things that can just be

[6:59:16] made to work. But, you know, given what we're trying to

[6:59:18] accomplish here with the complexity is just difficult

[6:59:20] for me to have as much confidence signing up for that.

[6:59:22] And so I'd feel more comfortable at the next council

[6:59:25] meeting having this discussion. But if you don't want a

[6:59:28] continuance and you don't want a continuance. So I understand

[6:59:30] that. Yeah. Go ahead.

[6:59:41] So, Mr. Cain, Mr.. Henry, so what you propose one one

[6:59:46] possibility would be to approve the annexation, but to but to

[6:59:51] leave the UEA to a like at some later point.

[6:59:56] I think there are a couple of ways to address the concern.

[7:00:01] Council Member Kopac brought up about wanting to see the

[7:00:03] language. I mean, you have in the past approved zoning cases

[7:00:12] where a proffer has been made with an understanding that

[7:00:15] staff is going to work out the exact language later with the

[7:00:18] applicant, we could go that direction with this additional

[7:00:22] proffer that the applicant is made on the UEA, and staff is

[7:00:25] perfectly comfortable doing that, and it would involve

[7:00:27] staff from the city Attorney's office as well. We could do

[7:00:31] that. The other option I had kind of just thrown out there

[7:00:34] was you could vote on the annexation and if you approve

[7:00:38] it, wait to bring the UEA back to you with that language on

[7:00:44] consent. If you feel more comfortable wanting to see the

[7:00:48] actual language that's laid out, I don't think it's going

[7:00:50] to be that difficult. It's basically going to just say

[7:00:53] this UEA is only is contingent upon it being a conservation

[7:00:58] subdivision. Anything else that you, the UEA is invalid. Or

[7:01:02] again, city attorney will come up with much better language

[7:01:05] than that. But basically that will be the gist of that. I

[7:01:07] believe. So staff will be fine either way. Just wanted to

[7:01:12] throw those those options out there.

[7:01:20] So do we need to we need to modify the motion. Then if we

[7:01:23] want that right we need it. Yeah we would need to shape the

[7:01:27] motion for that. If that's the preference of us.

[7:01:32] I wanted the city attorney can help us with some of that. So

[7:01:34] what would that what might that look like?

[7:01:42] Any idea on the language. Motion?

[7:01:47] I mean, you could do something like.

[7:01:50] In a moment. Nice.

[7:01:56] I mean, I think it depends on which of the two options to

[7:01:59] city council. Yeah. Can we get clarification?

[7:02:02] Is there a preference on the options here?

[7:02:08] So option one again one would be that we would we would

[7:02:11] approve the annexation with a some contingency there. The

[7:02:17] other one would be that we actually come back and vote on

[7:02:19] the. So let's say option one is that

[7:02:23] you vote on the annexation. If the annexation is approved,

[7:02:27] you're going to hold off on voting on the UEA, and we will

[7:02:33] bring that to you at a later date. And that would likely be

[7:02:35] on consent. Option. The option two, let's say, is you go ahead

[7:02:42] and just vote on everything like normal with an

[7:02:44] understanding that a proffer has been made by the applicant

[7:02:47] to add one additional contingency to the. To the UEA.

[7:02:54] And you're going to go ahead and vote on that with the

[7:02:56] understanding that that contingency will be in there

[7:02:58] with final language to be worked out between planning and

[7:03:01] development staff, the city attorney staff and the

[7:03:03] applicant. Like I said, we do that somewhat regularly on

[7:03:08] zoning proffers. Go ahead.

[7:03:13] So, Mr. Mayor, if I'm sorry. My apologies.

[7:03:16] Council. Member I just wanted to say

[7:03:18] that. The Aaron is right.

[7:03:20] We do. Often take direction from you

[7:03:23] all in these meetings and follow up and make sure that

[7:03:26] things get in that were verbalized and committed to one

[7:03:30] additional kind of safeguard for the UEA is even if you were

[7:03:33] to approve the UEA tonight, as part of this consolidated item.

[7:03:37] Those UAS. Afterwards have to be executed

[7:03:40] by the city. So they go into our contract. Q I review them

[7:03:44] and then the city manager sees them. So there is an extra

[7:03:47] additional set of eyes to verify that what is supposed to

[7:03:50] be in there is in there. I'm comfortable with that. Go

[7:03:57] ahead. So just for clarifying

[7:04:00] questions. So we move forward. Then we basically like we're

[7:04:03] just going to we we done the public hearing. And so if you

[7:04:07] work these things out in the back end the public would not

[7:04:09] have any opportunity to provide feedback on it. It would just

[7:04:12] be trusting the will of council to make sure their issues are

[7:04:15] addressed. So are you asking.

[7:04:21] If you have for clarification on the options presented

[7:04:23] tonight? Yeah, well, I would prefer just to vote for it.

[7:04:28] There's a motion as it currently exists because that

[7:04:30] feels like I don't want to take away the opera. It feels like

[7:04:33] we're doing some more negotiating, but in a silo that

[7:04:36] doesn't necessarily represent like what the community members

[7:04:40] want. So I'm just trying to figure out, like, if we're

[7:04:42] moving forward in a way that kind of cuts out the voices of

[7:04:46] some people in the neighborhood.

[7:04:47] I didn't get that same interpretation. Let's get more

[7:04:50] clarity on that. Could you repeat what you said it.

[7:04:53] Sure. So the only thing that I have heard tonight in terms of

[7:04:56] like an additional commitment that could be baked into the

[7:04:59] UEA, is basically making the UEA contingent or valid only if

[7:05:04] it is a conservation subdivision. So it would be

[7:05:07] like adding one phrase or sentence to the UEA to make

[7:05:12] sure that that it is only applicable to a conservation

[7:05:15] subdivision. If someone were to try to do a different

[7:05:17] development, it would be void and they would have to come

[7:05:20] back and get another UEA. That's the only thing that I

[7:05:23] have heard that is actionable, that we could put in in terms

[7:05:27] of like an additional commitment. And so what I was

[7:05:30] suggesting is that we can do that just like we do. Like

[7:05:33] Aaron said, we do that all the time when there are additional

[7:05:36] proffers. You all don't see the final development plan or the

[7:05:39] final ordinance. We get it cleaned up. We work with the

[7:05:43] clerk and it gets stamped and signed, and we all verify that

[7:05:46] it has what it's supposed to. So we make a decision tonight

[7:05:49] and everything else is just a formality of it becoming the

[7:05:54] language that is contracted. So I don't I don't see another

[7:05:59] need for community engagement after that, since we're giving

[7:06:02] everyone what we're we're making the decision tonight.

[7:06:05] Everything else is administrative after that.

[7:06:07] That's what my interpretation is. Yeah.

[7:06:13] Go ahead. I mean, so I think I hear councilmembers question, I

[7:06:16] would prefer what Mr. Kane laid out as the first option that

[7:06:19] actually the, the actual the the utility extension agreement

[7:06:22] actually does come back to the council for later vote. That'd

[7:06:28] be my preference. And that is the additional

[7:06:31] language that would be added in. Correct?

[7:06:33] I think I think that's right. It would just be.

[7:06:38] To the adoption. Is that if I am I correct that

[7:06:40] was option one, that there the the UEA you UEA does come back

[7:06:46] to the council. It may be on consent but it would come back

[7:06:49] to us on an agenda. Correct. So the, the additional

[7:06:52] language that would be in there would be the same in either

[7:06:55] path we choose. Because again, the only thing that I have

[7:06:58] heard is adding a commitment that stipulates that the UEA is

[7:07:01] only valid if it's for a conservation subdivision. So

[7:07:03] the question I think before you is, do you do you want to see

[7:07:08] that explicitly and you could just omit the second part of

[7:07:13] the motion. Don't say the to enter, you know, authorize the

[7:07:17] city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement.

[7:07:20] Leave that off of your motion and you could go that route.

[7:07:23] You include it. Then staff will do what we normally do with

[7:07:26] development plans, and we will make sure.

[7:07:28] That that will be back on the agenda at a later date.

[7:07:31] In the in the first yes scenario.

[7:07:34] I am okay with that. If you all are okay with that.

[7:07:36] Not asking for that is that still? You? No, no no, you

[7:07:41] would. Be the we'd be voting.

[7:07:42] You would just. Oh okay. So that would.

[7:07:46] Come back okay. The. Councilor. Do you have

[7:08:03] clarification on what we are talking about of here?

[7:08:06] I think I do. The option one is to take or one of the options.

[7:08:10] I'm not sure I've lost track which one is which. One of the

[7:08:13] options is to take action on both the annexation and the

[7:08:17] UEA, with the verbal proffer that we do agree to, that we

[7:08:20] would be only be able to move forward with the UEA if it's

[7:08:24] developed as a conservation subdivision, and staff would

[7:08:27] work that out based on how they typically do for development

[7:08:31] plans. Or the second option would be making taking a step

[7:08:35] forward on the annexation with the UEA to come back at a later

[7:08:38] date. Our preference would be the first, but if it's we want

[7:08:42] this project approved and if the only way to do that on this

[7:08:45] is the second we can make that work, we just need to be able

[7:08:48] to move forward. Council Member Cook.

[7:08:58] I'm not sure how I understand that. That second option is

[7:09:01] functionally different from a continuance, so I'm just

[7:09:03] struggling a little bit if it's going to come back anyway. It

[7:09:05] sounds like we're all coming back anyway. But that being

[7:09:10] said, I just want to I just want to like go back to the

[7:09:15] fact that this is only one issue of many, many issues that

[7:09:19] have been brought and that we still don't know. And the big

[7:09:23] one is that there is a huge chunk of Army Corps of

[7:09:27] Engineers land that they are likely to not approve any

[7:09:31] development on. That is going to be infrastructure

[7:09:33] improvement. That's going to be sewer pipes. All of these

[7:09:36] things that we are talking about tonight that make this

[7:09:38] seem like it might be a nice project, could possibly not

[7:09:41] happen at all. So to me, it's this whether it gets verbally

[7:09:46] put in and we come back later or, or because verbally put in

[7:09:50] tonight or we come back later for this amendment, it doesn't

[7:09:53] actually impact the fact that this is a translational zoning

[7:09:58] or large parcel of land with a lot of unknown factors that

[7:10:02] frankly, like make even the possibility of the good things

[7:10:07] just so far outweighed by what seems like it's going to be

[7:10:11] just a catastrophic mess that we're going to have to pick up

[7:10:15] later. So I guess it doesn't really matter to me which one

[7:10:19] we go with. I'm still going to be a no. I think there's so

[7:10:22] many unknowns here. I cannot imagine that we would vote yes

[7:10:25] on this project, even if the conservation was written in.

[7:10:29] That to me, was like sort of not the most important piece of

[7:10:31] this. Thank you for your comments.

[7:10:36] Yes. I'm just wondering, are there

[7:10:39] other? First of all, I'm not sure I fully understand the

[7:10:41] safeguard of it coming back to us. Maybe I need to hear it

[7:10:44] again, but you know, I you know, anyways, it's been a long

[7:10:50] night and a long week, so I'm doing my best here. I want, you

[7:10:56] know, is there then an opportunity to have, like, you

[7:10:59] know, other safeguards put within the UEA if that's the

[7:11:05] direction we're going in. Otherwise I think there are

[7:11:08] legitimate concerns that if this doesn't go forward, then

[7:11:12] you get the same amount of traffic. I mean, you're shaking

[7:11:17] your head, but like that legitimately could happen. Like

[7:11:19] somebody could develop this like, you know, without going

[7:11:22] through an annexation process where you have single family

[7:11:24] homes without the preservation of the open space with the same

[7:11:27] amount of traffic. Or you may be deciding, do you love

[7:11:30] traffic or trees more, or do you, you know, do you love

[7:11:32] trees more than you don't like traffic? Because those are

[7:11:35] legitimate outcomes of this of this process. So.

[7:11:40] Ladies and gentlemen, please, please.

[7:11:44] Yeah. And this is, this isn't the venue for having.

[7:11:46] Correct? Correct. It's not having time to discuss.

[7:11:49] It is, but have been told by the applicant that that's not

[7:11:51] possible. And so it makes it difficult to evaluate.

[7:11:58] Are there any other comments? All right. I have to figure out

[7:12:03] what the question is. Which of the two options.

[7:13:18] All right. Council colleagues I need a little direction here.

[7:13:25] The the direction is am I going to read this entire sentence or

[7:13:28] am I going to read half of it? And what I is, are we going to

[7:13:34] move to adopt an ordinance annexing Morgan Farms, period.

[7:13:40] Or are we going to adopt an ordinance annexing Morgan Farm

[7:13:44] into the city of Durham and to authorize. Well, I'm sorry, the

[7:13:48] first option is annexing Morgan Farm into the city of Durham,

[7:13:51] period. Or annexing Morgan Farm into the city of Durham and to

[7:13:54] authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension

[7:13:58] agreement with the MI Homes of Raleigh, LLC. I need direction,

[7:14:04] so I'm going to say option one is just annexing into the city,

[7:14:08] and we bring the other part back later. Or option two read

[7:14:13] the entire motion and we follow the same practice that we've

[7:14:17] been doing with other cases where they make the proffer and

[7:14:20] staff takes it on, adding it to the language at a later date.

[7:14:25] So if I can get a option 1 or 2 from each person, Council

[7:14:30] Member Kopac. I'm not clear on, I'm not sure

[7:14:35] I'm clear on what the advantage of one versus.

[7:14:37] The other. So so.

[7:14:39] I'm saying I'm not clear. I'm not sure I'm clear on the

[7:14:42] advantages of one versus the other.

[7:14:43] So option one is yes, we annexed it into the city and it

[7:14:49] stops there. Nothing else can happen until nothing. The

[7:14:52] utility extension agreement cannot happen until the

[7:14:55] language is inserted. The staff takes care of it, and then it

[7:14:58] comes back to council at a later date and be placed on the

[7:15:01] agenda to be approved. And the annexation just happens by

[7:15:05] itself, or the annexation happens and the utility

[7:15:08] extension happens, and we rely on staff. Indeed, the legal

[7:15:14] team and the applicant and the owners to pretty much do what

[7:15:19] we normally do with other cases. The developer makes a

[7:15:21] case, makes a proffer, and staff said, all right, we've

[7:15:24] heard it. We're going to add it in and we'll we'll move on from

[7:15:27] there. So are we going to rely on staff to just add the

[7:15:31] language in there and they move on, or are we going to annex it

[7:15:36] and they bring this back for us to review it again on the

[7:15:39] agenda later, which is the utility extension, which is

[7:15:44] where the leverage points are, I guess.

[7:15:46] And so can nothing happen if there's an annexation and

[7:15:50] nothing else. Let me I'll let the attorney

[7:15:52] address it. Okay. I have cleared that

[7:15:55] clarify this with the planning director.

[7:15:57] So if you want to. See the.

[7:16:00] UEA at a later date and you want to see the language that

[7:16:04] gets hammered out, making sure that we're dealing with the

[7:16:07] conservation subdivision, what you would do tonight are the

[7:16:11] things that you have had the public hearing for. So you

[7:16:13] would vote on the annexation itself. You would vote to

[7:16:16] assign the initial zoning. So it's in it's a translational

[7:16:20] zoning and that would be it. And then the UEA would come

[7:16:23] back as a contract. So you don't have to have a public

[7:16:26] hearing to approve a contract. Okay. Does that make sense to

[7:16:30] everybody? But if we grant the annexation

[7:16:36] tonight, we cannot grant it. So it would just be granted. So if

[7:16:41] the utility agreement comes back and we don't like it as

[7:16:44] it's written. We're opening up for not great.

[7:16:49] You would have a piece of property that's in the city

[7:16:52] with city zoning, but not an agreement to extend the

[7:16:56] utilities. Yes.

[7:17:02] As a council. So so with that, with the annexation approved,

[7:17:07] but no utility extension agreement, that's in practice.

[7:17:13] Do you not an annex. You don't you don't have the full rights

[7:17:16] of an annexation, right? If you don't have the utilities. So

[7:17:18] it's so it's it's annexation in name only. Because you don't

[7:17:25] have you don't have you don't have the, the the rights to the

[7:17:28] utilities. I mean, the property would be

[7:17:32] within the city's jurisdiction. But lacking.

[7:17:35] But lacking the water and sewer infrastructure.

[7:17:39] Yeah. Thank you. So nothing they can do

[7:17:41] basically with it. They our leverage is the utilities. You

[7:17:49] know, so that that's you know, and it's going to come back to

[7:17:52] Council Member Burris point and we'll come back on the agenda.

[7:17:55] No, it won't be a community meeting. But if it's on the

[7:17:59] agenda, it can be pulled and people can address it that way.

[7:18:02] So to me this kind of meets everyone's concerns. But so

[7:18:10] what am I doing? Am I going to. So let me Council Member Kopac

[7:18:14] I can start down here, give you some time?

[7:18:17] Yeah. Council Member Rist option 1

[7:18:20] or. 2, one, which is like the sort

[7:18:22] of half. Of the annexation.

[7:18:23] Just annexation. Yeah. Okay. How do that.

[7:18:26] Council Member Cook. I think we put the whole thing

[7:18:30] to a vote tonight. I'm sorry.

[7:18:32] The whole thing to a vote tonight.

[7:18:36] No. Before we get to that, I need to know.

[7:18:37] One was. As I proceed, as normal. Oh, I thought that was

[7:18:42] one of the options. Well, before I before I moved

[7:18:46] to the entire motion, you know, let me do this. Option one is

[7:18:50] just the annexation. Option two, annexation with the

[7:18:53] extension agreement later. Option three is everything, as

[7:18:56] is. Everything as is.

[7:18:58] Okay. If we do everything.

[7:19:03] As is. Is that not allowing the

[7:19:05] proffer included. with the conservation or it is included?

[7:19:09] I mean, the property has already been made, so it would

[7:19:11] be so. Yeah.

[7:19:12] Proceed like. We normally.

[7:19:13] Would with the proffer. So everything as a. as it's all

[7:19:17] right. That's option three. That would be okay.

[7:19:22] Option three. And I'm open to option one.

[7:19:33] Just annexation. Just I'll do three if we want. But I want to

[7:19:38] vote for it. So either way. I mean if it's one I'd want to

[7:19:45] have more included than we've already talked about, but it

[7:19:48] seems that's a little bit difficult to do here. At 2:18

[7:19:51] a.m.. So I guess I'll say, excuse me. Yeah. What's done? I

[7:20:02] guess I'll do option three. Either. I don't, I don't, I

[7:20:11] don't know, I don't, I. Four on three. Oh is it for three. You

[7:20:18] said what did you say. Three. Three.

[7:20:21] Just read the. Motion. Mr. mayor. The proffer

[7:20:24] has been captured. Correct. The proffer is captured.

[7:20:27] Of the conservation subdivision and tied to the utility

[7:20:29] extension agreement that has been captured. Staff has that.

[7:20:32] Okay. Thank you for nodding. Thank you. Just to clarify,

[7:20:35] option three is with the commitment in the UEA to have

[7:20:38] the conservation subdivision. Correct. Okay.

[7:20:40] Thank you. Yeah. We'll just not extending further time. All

[7:20:45] right. All right. So I would read it that read everything

[7:20:51] is. So I'll entertain a motion at 2:20 a.m. to adopt an

[7:20:58] ordinance annexing Morgan Farm into the city of Durham and to

[7:21:02] authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension

[7:21:06] agreement with am I Homes of Raleigh, LLC. This is with the

[7:21:11] proffers capture. Is there a motion?

[7:21:14] So second. Move them properly. Seconded.

[7:21:17] Madam clerk, please open the vote. I want you to give us.

[7:21:31] All right. Please close the vote.

[7:21:36] The motion fails 5 to 2 with Mayor Williams and Council

[7:21:41] member wrist voting. Yes. All right. That's a all right.

[7:21:48] Thank you all for your time. Thanks for coming out. We are

[7:21:53] adjourned at 2:21 a.m..

Regular City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript