City Council · Regular Meeting · April 20, 2026

Thank you. I'll now pass it over to Council Member Rist for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If it is your practice, I invite you to rise with me and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, Madam Clerk, if you will.

All right, I am going to call the roll. I'm Mayor Williams and I'm here., Mayor Pro Tem? Here. Council Member Rist? Here. Council Member Cook? Here. Council Member Kopac. Here. Council Member Baker. Here. Council Member Burris. Here. Thank you all so much. Madam Clerk, everyone is here tonight, if you couldn't see. All right, we will start with our ceremonial items, and the first one will be National Poetry Month. Read by Council Member Burris.

She is not going to say, I'm just giving her this for the first time. She's going to say that she was well prepared and asked earlier this month if she would read the proclamation for tonight.

And she'll be joined by our Poet Laureate Chris Vitello. Good to see you. Thank you. Good afternoon. And I had a whole week to read this.

Thank you so much, Mayor Williams. No, I'm joking. All right. So whereas National Poetry Month was established in 1996 by the Academy of American Poets to celebrate poetry's vital place in our culture and its enduring power to inspire, heal, and unite communities, and whereas poetry enriches civic life by giving voice to diversity experiences, preserving history, advancing dialogue, and nurturing empathy. Our local poets, educators, librarians, and arts organizations cultivate creativity in classrooms, libraries, bookstores, and community spaces, ensuring that poetry remains accessible to all residents, to residents of all ages.

And whereas the City of Durham Poet Laureate Program was established in 2021 with their inaugural Poet Laureate appointment of DJ Rogers from 2022 to 2023, and our current laureate, Chris Vittelli, Vitiello. You got it. Thank you. Appointed in 2024 through 2027. And whereas the City of Durham is committed to supporting the arts as an essential public service that enriches civic life, nurtures imagination, and strengthens community connection through the city's Durham Poet Laureate program, supporting 910 students in 2025 through learning opportunities.

And whereas the city— whereas the arts in Durham are vital to our quality of life, our economy, and reflect the beauty and vibrancy of our community. Poetry through reading, writing, performance, and public art strengthens literacy, supports lifelong learning, and contributes to our local economy and cultural landscape. Now, therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim April 2026 as National Poetry Month in the City of Durham and encourage residents to celebrate by reading a poem, writing a poem, attending a poetry event, and sharing the power of words with others. Witness my hand in the corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina, this 20th day of April, 2026. Oh, great.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I have a few words. Thank you for reading that, yeah, and thank you for the proclamation. We probably have a ton of poets in this room. Durham is full of poets, so is the whole area. When I proposed a theme of Poetry Everywhere when I applied to be the poet laureate, That was something that I was really committed to.

Last week I was at the Hill Learning Center working with kids. I wrote at the Duke Children's Hospital prom on Friday night, the Scrap Exchange Earth Day shebang on Saturday. I was teaching a workshop on memory poems this morning at the East Regional Library. I'll be doing other Library Fest things, something tomorrow night at the main branch just across the street. And this month we're doing another cool thing to demonstrate this theme as you walk around downtown.

Hopefully this comes coming weekend, there will be maybe some poems on the sidewalk that you can discover and stop and read, maybe even interact with physically. So keep your eyes on the ground, as well as the sky, and look for some poems. And then on April 30th, if I can plug an event, over 20 poets will be reading. It's a reading that we're doing for the second year in a row called the Reading for the End of the World, since the world seems perpetually to be ending. And then tomorrow we figure that out all over again.

It'll be at the auditorium of the main branch of the library, 6 to 9 PM, 22 poets from Durham and the area all reading about 6-7 minutes each. Sounds like a long night, 3 hours of poetry, but it will go fast, and it's a testament to how many poets we have in the area. And I wrote a quickie little Durham poem, if I may read it to you all. I understand hope for Durham is a theme that will be used this week, so I wrote this poem. Hope, hope is a dangerous thing.

What if you had a hope and then had to follow through with it? What if others shared your hope and we all had to make it happen together? Hope for Durham in these fraught times for both people and birds means taking the risk that the future we hope for requires. We could huddle alone, Hopeless at home anywhere, but not in Durham, not here. Thank you all so much. Thank you so much. Good evening. I would like to invite up Ashley Eason from the Tuberculosis Complex Alliance.

Proclamation. Whereas tuberous sclerosis complex, TSC, is a rare genetic disorder that leads to the growth of non-cancerous benign tumors in vital organs including the brain, heart, kidneys, skin, liver, and lungs, and whereas approximately 50,000 Americans and 1 million people worldwide are living with tuberous sclerosis complex, a disease that currently has no cure, and whereas TSC is a leading genetic cause of both epilepsy and autism with varying degrees of severity in those affected, and whereas TSC affects individuals differently with some experiencing severe complications and others remaining undiagnosed due to mild symptoms. And whereas TSE can result from a random genetic mutation or be inherited through family lines, the impact of TSE can lead to life-threatening complications, including brain fluid buildup, heart issues, kidney damage, lung failure, increased risk of cancerous growths, and vision impairment. And whereas the prevalence of TSE is comparable to other well-known conditions, such as Lou Gehrig's disease, ALS, and cystic fibrosis, underscoring the need for greater awareness and understanding. And whereas the City of Durham is committed to raising awareness about tuberous sclerosis complex, supporting individuals with TSC, and advocating for continued research and access to medical care.

Now therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim May 15th, 2026, as Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Awareness Day. And the City of Durham encourages all citizens to join in this observance to promote awareness, understanding, and support for individuals affected by TSC. Witnessed by hand and corporate seal, City of Durham, on this day, Leonardo Williams, Mayor, City of Durham. Thank you so much. Yes.

We want to thank the City of Durham, for recognizing tuberous sclerosis through this meaningful proclamation. For our family, this recognition is deeply personal. Our daughter Nora, she's right here, has been living with TSC since birth., this rare genetic condition again causes benign tumors to grow in vital organs such as your brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, eyes, and skin. For Nora and many others, these growths in the brain often lead to debilitating seizures.

She has seizures on a daily basis. There's not a day that goes by that she doesn't have a seizure., and it also causes developmental delays., from her earliest days in the NICU to the many medical challenges she has faced, Nora has shown incredible strength. With the help of physical therapy, she begun walking just 4 months shy of her third birthday, a milestone that meant everything to our family.

Through speech therapy, she has learned American Sign Language to communicate, and with occupational therapy, she is gaining the skills to navigate a world that isn't always built for her. Nora's journey is a powerful reminder of why awareness, research, and support matters so much. This proclamation helps shine a light on children like Nora and the thousands of others living with the complexities of TSC. It reminds us that their stories matter, their voices matter, and they are never alone. So thank you, City of Durham, for standing with families like ours and helping bring in hope, understanding, and visibility to the TSC community.

With gratitude from the Easton family and the TSC of the Carolinas. Also, on May 2nd, in Charlotte, North Carolina, we'll be having a Step Forward to Cure TSC where we're raising funds for research. So if you guys can come out, that would be nice. Thank you guys so much.

Good evening. I'd like to call Randy McKay and Rebecca Lee from the Carolina Theatre, and actually all the staff, board members who are here, come on and join us. Come on, there's a big crowd. This is a big event today. It's not often that we celebrate a 100th anniversary in Durham, so this is quite exciting.

I have the great pleasure of being the City Council liaison to the Carolina Theatre, which has an amazing board and staff, and as you all know, it's a great institution in Durham. So glad that all these folks can be here. It's awesome. Thanks for coming, everyone. Yay! Yay!

All right.

Okay, whereas the Carolina Theatre of Durham first opened its doors in 1926 as a centerpiece for entertainment, film, live performance, and community gathering in downtown Durham, and whereas for 100 years the Carolina Theatre has served as a cultural anchor hosting films, concerts, theatrical productions, community events, educational programs, and film festivals that have enriched the lives of Durham residents and visitors, including the world premiere of the movies Bull Durham in 1988, The Best of Enemies in 2019, as well as live appearances by stars such as Katharine Hepburn, Ronald Reagan, Tallulah Bankhead, Jane Wyman, Montgomery Clift, And whereas the theater's historic architecture, marquee, and interior spaces are emblematic of Durham's cultural heritage and contribute to the unique character and vitality of the downtown district. And whereas historic civil rights protests in the early '60s challenged the Carolina Theater's own policy of racial segregation and ultimately led not only to full integration at the theater, but also the recognition of youth-led organizing tactics as a strategy that influenced the entire civil rights movement. Generations of Durham citizens, civic organizations, volunteers, donors, artists, and theater staff have contributed time, resources, and passion to preserve, restore, and sustain the Carolina Theatre as a welcoming public venue. And whereas the Carolina Theatre has supported local artists and nonprofit organizations, promoted arts education, and helped stimulate $10 million and direct economic impact. The City of Durham recognizes the role of the Carolina Theatre in advancing community engagement, cultural diversity, and the arts as essential elements of a vibrant and inclusive city.

Now therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim— I'm sorry, commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Carolina Theatre in the City of Durham and encourage residents to join in expressing deep appreciation for the 100 years of cultural, educational, and civic contributions of the Carolina Theatre by participating in their centennial events and celebrating their rich history in Durham. Witness my hand in the corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina, the 16th day of March, 2026. Leonardo Williams, Mayor.

100. There aren't that many institutions in any city that survive 100 years. So I want to thank Mayor, Council Members, and staff, and our team, and all the generations of leaders that have gone before us to keep this jewel in the heart of the city for 100 years. And thank you to our community members who have consistently rallied to support the theater, from saving it from demolition to demonstrating to ensure that it was open to all our community members, to supporting its programming, community initiatives, and school education programs. The theater is important to everyone in this room and everyone in our community, even if you've never entered our doors, because every year we add $10 million to Durham's economy We support more than 400 full-time jobs in this community and see 15,000 school students through our education programs.

And we return a significant amount of tax base to city and county coffers, which funds all the other priorities this council and our county may have. In fact, every dollar that the city gives to the Carolina Theatre returns as $12.50. To the city's economy were a good investment. So thank you. Thank you all again for the recognition and for your continuing support.

And as Carl said and read in the proclamation, we are celebrating our centennial for all of 2026, down to the very last seconds of it, with a gala New Year's Eve event that we'll be announcing soon. So please come celebrate our centennial with us. Join us at the theater or in the many events that we are throwing out in the community. But most of all, thank you for your support all these years, and we look forward to what the next 100 will bring.

And as the Army for Carolina Theater is leaving, I'll invite the Army for Tennis to join me. If we have representatives from the Durham Orange County Community Tennis Association, Eno Community Tennis Association, The U.S. Tennis Association of North Carolina Central Tennis Association.

Alright, thank you all for coming up.

I don't know who sends more emails, Pickleball, zoning cases or tennis? I think it might be— yes., thank you all so much., Council Member Rist wanted this one. I also wanted it, so we're both up here., I, I always tell the story of when, when I was in high school, we started a tennis team because we didn't see any Black kids playing on TV.

And so in Halifax County, we started the tennis team. We got beat by everybody, but we didn't really care to win or lose. We wanted to be represented. And so it feels good to have started that and continue our passion for it. Also, it gives me great joy to be a graduate of NCCU with Council Member Burris. And they are winning championships out here. So congratulations again.

All right. So the proclamation reads today, whereas tennis is a sport that can be played throughout an individual's lifetime and is accessible to people of all ages, skill levels, physical abilities, and levels of fitness regardless of environment, and whereas tennis provides significant benefits across multiple dimensions of health, And research has shown that individuals who actively play tennis as a form of cardiovascular exercise may add an average of 9.7 years to their expected lifespan compared to sedentary individuals. Please get out and play tennis if you want to live a long life. And whereas the City of Durham offers numerous opportunities for individuals both new to the sport and experienced players to participate in tennis through its public parks, schools, and clubs located throughout the city. And whereas the Durham community provides opportunities for social play, tennis instruction, competitive leagues for residents and non-residents, as well as school matches and tournaments that foster community engagement and athletic development.

And whereas local organizations including DOCTA, NOCTA and USTA North Carolina provide valuable resources, programs, events, and leagues that enhance the tennis experience and promote participation in the sport throughout our community. The City of Durham is committed to expanding access to tennis and ensuring opportunities for individuals of all ages and abilities to participate in the sport in order to promote health, wellness, and community connection. And we got your emails. We're going to work on it. Now, therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim April 26th, 2026— May 2026— National Tennis Month in Durham and encourage all residents to enjoy the sport and support its local national organizations.

Witness my hand and the corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina, this 20th day of May 2026. Thank you so much. Hey y'all, my name is Adrian Charleston and this is my 8-year-old son. His name is Lightning. And I am here with my, some of my tennis community, Dr. Durham Orange County Tennis Community Association, Eno Community Tennis Association, of course the illustrious North Carolina Central Tennis, and just some other, great tennis advocates in the city.

I just really like to say on entire, on behalf of our entire tennis community, thank y'all for this acknowledgement and acknowledging the powerful, sport of tennis in the community and just how it's a vehicle for community success in the community connection and health. Tennis is of course, like he said, one of the few sports that really does, that a person can play for a lifetime. And it brings a lot of people together of all skill levels, all ages, all backgrounds. We want to continue to grow that in the city of Durham. Whether you're picking up a racket for the first time or returning from years of being off, we want to make sure that y'all have a safe place to continue to grow.

And National Tennis Month is about more than just playing the sport of tennis. It's really about building community, which I've been able to grow since living in Durham, and create spaces where people feel welcome, kids can grow in confidence, and families and friends can come and enjoy a time together in a healthy way. Right here in our community, we're seeing that impact every day. We're seeing it through local parks, schools, other community organizations like the organizations I named, Dr. Eno, North Carolina Central Tennis Program, and Duke Tennis Programs. And we're all working to make tennis more accessible and inclusive in the city of Durham.

And so I really do appreciate this proclamation today, and I would just like to invite y'all to get out and play tennis, get on a tennis court, even if you've never picked up a racket before, come out, enjoy the nice weather we're having, and just remember that it's a place where you can continue to build community. And this is not just a game for us, it's not just a sport for us, it's actually a place where we have made family, friends, And it's a passion for many of us in the community. So thanks again for this honor, and we look forward to continue to grow the game in the city of Durham. And my son wants to say one thing. Lift him up.

Oh, whoa. Go ahead. Please come to the North Carolina Central Tennis MIAC Championship in Cary, Tennessee. Park. And that's this week.

All right, thank you all so much for your patience through that. All right, at this time I'll start to my left, and Council Member Kopac, you have any announcements? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, obviously Tax Day just passed and seemed like a good time to remind folks about the city's longtime homeowner grant program, which works alongside the county's Low-Income Homeowner Relief Program. For the first time this year, we've used up all the funds for the program after extending eligibility to anybody who qualifies and also has been a homeowner for at least 5 years.

You have until the fall to apply, but it's worth researching eligibility now. This is an important anti-displacement tool that the city and county have put forward, and we know that one of the best ways to promote affordability is to keep people in their homes. Also, happy Earth Day and Earth Month. One of my favorite authors, Paul Hawken, wrote, "If you look at the science about what's happening to the Earth and are pessimistic, you don't understand data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this Earth and you aren't optimistic, you haven't got a pulse." I was sorry to miss the Earth Day celebration yesterday in Durham, but I was in Washington, D.C., leading a panel with Environmental Defense Fund on navigating these tumultuous times from the federal government on down.

And the mood was somber, but there was clear energy for both resistance and for collaboration around pragmatic solutions. And we have to do both. I'm excited about what I'm seeing in Durham, from our renewable energy plan to protecting the 30% of the county outside the urban growth boundary, other plans to protect and expand protected areas across the city. And the advocacy I see by groups on a number of issues in our great city. I'm excited about Earth Day, but I'm looking forward to one day celebrating Regeneration Day, the day when we can say we have reversed the impacts of climate change and met our local, national, and global goals for climate and nature.

Because at the end of the day, we are not separate from nature. We are a part of it.

Council Member Baker. Good evening, everyone. I'll associate myself with the wonderful comments of my colleague, Council Member Kopac. May 1st is coming, International Workers' Day. It actually began in the United States, although it's not federally recognized. We celebrate Labor Day in September.

There's a growing movement to support May Day, and we will actually be having May Day celebrations in Durham. People can show up at 5:00 PM at CCB Plaza a few blocks away. Friday, May 1st, 5:00 PM, CCB Plaza, for those of you who are interested. And I actually just saw that Durham Public Schools looks like is not going to have school that day. In celebration of May Day.

So I want to encourage folks to come out to that. And other than that, I look forward to a productive meeting. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to those who are joining us in council chambers but also virtually as well. I'm excited to have you here tonight, and I look forward to what I know will be a great meeting. I'll be brief with my announcements. Mostly I want to to extend gratitude to the various members of our community who, for inviting me to fellowship and join them over the past 2 weeks. So first, I want to extend gratitude to members of the Bragtown Community Association.

I had an opportunity to attend their monthly meeting where I learned a lot about the issues impacting our neighbors in that part of the area, but also really forward thinking about how we can collectively address some of the issues around affordable housing, but also some predatory towing practices. So look forward to unpacking that more. Next, I want to extend my gratitude to students from Dr. Stanberry's, at NCCU, NCCU's municipal politics class, and also it's been gratitude to my colleagues who answered their emails and engaged with those. So thank you to Council Member Kopac and Council Member Rist, who I believe were also engaged with those students as well. Had a chance to be on a panel discussion with some other esteemed panelists such as Dr. Henry McCoy, Commissioner Stephen Valentine, Dr. Jarvis Hall of NCCU.

We really had a great time engaging students about just what they— the role of local government, and I was really excited about participating because it shows that our students are actually watching and they have critical thinking and they understand that some— there's some issues in government in Durham that are not working for them, particularly around the topic of affordable housing, but also community safety. So I'm glad to know that our young folks are paying attention to the policies and the outcomes and want to make sure that everything lines up., also wanted to shout out to Grace Inc., Tiffany, who's led by Tiffany Swoops, for inviting me to participate in the panel discussion, also led by— organized and led by youth leaders on the topic of gun violence. So I had a chance to share the stage with Representative Zack Hawkins and other esteemed panelists to share more insight about the toll that gun violence has on mental health, as someone who's experienced that in my childhood as well. So definitely want to hear from our kids.

And the theme that we heard, and I'll never stop beating this drum, is that we are normalizing gun violence in our community. And just because some folks don't see it or hear the gunshots every night doesn't mean that we all should not care about the lasting trauma that we are enduring on children in this community. And then finally, had opportunity to attend opening night of Wendell Tabb's Third Day, which is a very powerful play, attended on Friday night. And, I know it's, hope if you got a chance to, participate, it was really, really, motivating and thought-provoking. So thank you all for joining us tonight.

Look forward again to a great meeting. Thank you, Council Member Rist. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, colleagues, city manager, staff, folks in attendance. Good to see you again. A couple of things.

Happy, happy Poetry Month. Thanks to the Poetry Box for being here for that proclamation. Also, happy early tennis month since it is May. But also, I want to say happy Earth Day and thanks to the staff of the Durham Parks and Rec Department who came out on Sunday and organized a great Earth Day festival at Central Park. Really amazing event.

Happy to participate in that with Council Member Baker and and, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero. Also had a great visit last week to the Durham Emergency Communications Center. That's where the 911 call center is for the City of Durham, for Emergency Communicators Week. I want to thank Director Randy Beeman and his assistant, Tangela Walker, for leading us there. I also want to thank Sarah Allen, who's one of the call takers.

I was able to sit in on a call with Sarah, and we're just amazed by the amount of knowledge she brings to that, the quickness she brings to these calls that come in at a rapid fire pace on all kinds of things you can imagine. Also was amazed that, you know, you know how it is when you're talking to someone on a cell phone, it can be hard to hear sometimes, and she heard every word these people were saying. It's often hard to hear. So Sarah was an amazing, amazing, amazing talent at the call center, and I appreciate all the folks who work there and spend a lot of time and intense hours in the call center. Also last week attended the Step Up Durham Impact Lunch 2026.

I want to thank the director, interim director there, Kashmir Bentley, who was also a participant in Step Up earlier. If you don't know Step Up, they spent about a decade in Durham empowering job seekers in the Durham community who face significant barriers to finding employment. They're doing an amazing job at Step Up, and I hope you appreciate their work, and I want to congratulate them on their impact here in Durham. Finally, the last thing is last Thursday I also participated in the 30th anniversary celebration or gala for the Durham Partnership for Children, which really spearheads our work on early childhood education here in Durham. Thanks to their director, Kate Irish, who leads that great organization.

And also we had a great speaker there, Lieutenant Governor Rachel Hunt, whose dad, as you probably know, Jim Hunt, is one that founded the whole Smart Start movement around Durham. So it was a great event there. The city is not directly involved in a lot of early childhood stuff. It's more the county. But so much of what we do in terms of parks and housing and other supports are supporting our kids in the earliest years as they prepare for, for lives of meaning and enjoyment and impact.

So thanks to Durham Partnership. It's great to have strong partners like them in the world of early childhood. The last thing, Mr. Mayor, I do want to ask— I don't know if I should do it now or later, but I do need to ask for an excused absence from our May 7th work session. I'll be at a conference that day. Do we do that now or do we do that later?

Yeah, I would entertain a motion to grant you an excused absence for May 7th work session. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, can you please open the vote?

Thank you so much. Please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Cook. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you to my colleagues for those excellent announcements., I'm sitting pretty heavy tonight and holding space for this week of men harming their intimate partners and children. We've been seeing everything from well-known political figures in Virginia to a man and his entire family of, I think, 7 children in Shreveport, Louisiana, and then the tentatively identity-hidden folks, 60 80 million per month visitors on online chat rooms.

To survivors, this is a difficult week. To those still experiencing violence and those who have experienced violence, we see you, I believe you. Just want to hold some space for that today. It's been really hard news. Not that anything is surprising in that, but also always difficult to hear.

I did have some really awesome opportunities this past week as well. One of the things that I got to do was with Council Member Rist and Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, visit the 911 call center. Also want to send my thanks to Randy and Tangela. And then my person that I got to sit with was Adriana, and she was also incredible. Everyone there is amazing.

She also made guacamole for the whole office, and I got to have some, and it was really spicy and delicious. I also want to recognize that that day they were having a memorial for someone that they lost. We lost Nakia Farrar. And so I just want to recognize her memory as a city employee that was really, really special and beloved by so many. That's a really hard job to answer crisis after crisis.

So, yeah, but really meaningful work. And I'm so grateful for the folks that do that. I also got to go visit the Hillandale Golf Course and talk to folks about Swing Pals. This is such a cool It's a program for middle school students, public school students across the city. It's expanding.

It's right now in 6, I think, out of 9 cities or public schools, and they are hoping to expand to all 9 of the public middle schools. And one of the incredible— one of the many incredible programs that are going on at Hillandale Golf Course, if you are a golfer, you've probably been over there. If you are not like me, You might not know that that is a place where you can go golf for $40, and if you can't pay that $40, they will work with you. So it's someplace that's open for everybody and with a real commitment to holding up community, which I really appreciated. So a shout out to Carl and Doug for taking me on that tour.

Also got to go to the Equity Before Birth dance party, which was super fun, and people were like really breaking it down. So I was really happy to be to be there and to celebrate that awesome organization as well. And then finally, I got to go to the screening of Celebrating the Story of Grant Street with several of my colleagues as well. To the not old, as they like to say, to the young ladies of Grant Street who have ensured that their community survived urban renewal and will be something that can be passed down to future generations. Brenda Bradsher, Vivian Gunn, Pam Blake, Diane Merritt, Joanne Brown.

These women, if you haven't met them, are incredible. They're just amazing pillars of the Hayti community and of all of Durham. I also want to shout out to Council Member Burris, who had a recognition— was recognized in the film for the work that she's done in that community, and to Justin Reed, who was the filmmaker, and Jarvis McInnis, who hosted and forced us to talk to our neighbors. And my audience neighbor was Mildred, who had lived here— she was for her entire life in Durham and specifically in Hayti and shared her story with me. And that was really special.

So thanks to all of those folks who made that happen this week. And those are my announcements. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Thanks. First up, it has been It's spring in Durham, which means that it's event season for us. So I have had the pleasure of seeing, I think, every single one of us at one event or another that many of you all have named. So I'm not going to go through the list.

I do just want to shout out Durham Parks and Rec for an excellent Earth Day festival celebration yesterday and look forward to a meeting. And I will be brief. Thank you. Not with this sign-up sheet. A lot of voices going to be heard tonight. Looking forward to the engagement. Colleagues, thank you all for traversing the city. There were lots of things happening.

I unfortunately did not get a chance to get to the Full Frame Festival, but I heard it was amazing and just really, really, really good. I hope that I can go back and capture some of those with the Earth Day festivities and everything else that was going on reminds me of why there are 7 of us. I was away at Harvard at a fellowship that Durham has won, and we will be bringing some of those resources to Durham. We will utilize the resources of the Graduate School of Design from Harvard, where they will be putting fellows into the mayor's office to work with our community engagement department, as well as our planning department. And we will be focusing on some very specialized projects throughout the city.

So I'm really excited about those resources that we don't have to pay for. And they come with the resources and weight of Harvard University. I really want to thank my special assistant, Emmanuel Ago, and our Director of Community Engagement, Director Starla Tanner, for joining me up in Cambridge. Over the last week. Thanks to the Black Policy Summit by the Black Student Union at Harvard also for inviting me there to represent the city of Durham.

And shout out to the African American Mayors Association and the American Beverage Association. I'll be talking about this more tomorrow, but the city of Durham won the largest award in the country for food insecurity. So tomorrow I'll be talking about the not only $25,000 award that Mayor Schewel helped us get, but also the $175,000 award that I'm just really proud of my office staff who applied and got this grant for Durham. And I will be talking about that more in detail tomorrow. Speaking of tomorrow, tomorrow is— while later in the year, tomorrow will be the State of the City.

In past time, the State of the has been just a part of a normal agenda item, and we would just have it in here. When I got elected, I thought it should be a city celebration to celebrate all the things that we have going on. And so we will do that tomorrow at DPAC. Doors will open at 5 PM, and we will not only celebrate all of the grants and awards that we've gotten— the Bull City Future Fund will be giving out an additional $30,000 tomorrow to youth-serving organizations right here in Durham. Really excited about that.

And I'll be bringing a close friend of mine to town to be a guest speaker in a fireside chat. That's Mayor Brandon Scott from Baltimore, Maryland. So I hope you can make it tomorrow. Doors open at 5:00, and we'll be at DPAC tomorrow, and program starts at 6:00, and we will have the city on display. I thank you, Council Member Cook, for mentioning this.

It's something I've been paying close attention to as well. I am looking at this though, as there are some serious mental health issues going on in our community. And, you know, people hurt people, no matter whether Black, white, or whatever. We've seen some tragedies happen, and I really hope that we can really, really check on our neighbors. People are not okay, and I'm really worried about that. So hopefully Folks are taking care of one another the best we can, and we'll, continue to strive together.

All right. Okay, thank you. We are going to get on with the agenda here.

And before we get on with that, I'm going to— before I get to the consent agenda, I'll go ahead and pass it to Mr. Manager for your priority items. Thank you, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. The City Manager's Office does have one priority item this evening. That is for agenda item number 19, the American Rescue Plan Act update.

There was additional information requested at the April 9th work session, and that's been attached under agenda item number 19, which is in the no-action agenda items informational purposes only section of the agenda this evening. Those are our priority items. Thank you so much. Madam Attorney. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council. It's good to see you. The City Attorney's Office has no priority items tonight.

Thank you. Madam Clerk. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and, City Council members. The City Clerk's Office has no items this evening. Thank you. At this time, I'll go ahead and read the— for me, the, Read the consent agenda. Item number 2, approval of City Council minutes. This item has been pulled. Item number 3, there's my, sign up.

You see my sign? Okay, thank you. Okay, oh, it's 13, not 3. Item number 3, item number 2 is approval of the City Council minutes, which has been pulled. Item number 3, Durham Workers' Rights Commission appointment.

Number 4, item number 4, grant budget ordinance accepting, a Share Our Strength No Kid Hungry, grant which is what I just referenced. Really excited to receive that. Item number 5, approval of Wake County Emergency Operations Plan. Madam Clerk, I will sign this after we pass on, and I'll get it back to you. Item number 6, interlocal agreement between the City of Durham and the County of Durham to fund Community Solutions consulting work on the homeless strategy— homeless strategic framework. This item has been pulled.

Item number 7, ST-332C, pavement condition study presentation. Item number 8, proposed 10-year lease with Liberty Arts Incorporated for arts pavilion at 505 Rigsby Avenue. Item number 9, Durham Rail Trail construction manager at risk, CMAR, with Balfour Beatty Construction, Holtz Brothers Construction, and joint venture. Item number 10, interlocal agreement for fire and emergency medical services, Station 19. Item number 11, utility extension agreement with Jason Jones to serve 102 North Maple Street.

Item number 12, utility extension agreement with— The Light Is Red LLC. The Light Is Red. The Light Is Red. OK. LLC to serve 2502 Andrew Avenue. Build Sense HQ.

Item number 13, Third Amendment to the contract with Duke University for city fiber. That item has been pulled. Item number 14, fiscal year 2023 state and local cybersecurity grant program grant project ordinance and authorization to execute memorandum of under— memorandum of agreement. That item has been pulled. Item number 15, Federal Transit Administration bus and bus facility grant project ordinance.

Item number 16, purchase contract with Gillig LLC for 10 diesel buses for Go Durham. Number 17, service contract with Palmetto Underground Solutions LLC for the 2026 lead, lead service line inventory field verifications project. Item number 18, award construction contract to PC Construction Company for the Williams Water Treatment Plant Basin Improvements project. Item number 25, legislative priorities for the 2026 short session of the North Carolina General Assembly. Item number 21, it's Consolidated annexation Bella Ridge.

Number 22, consolidated annexation Patterson Hall. Item number 23, consolidated annexation Morgan Farm. Item number 24, consolidated annexation 9415 and C751 Highway. Colleagues, I will probably change that order just a little bit. And, we have the information section here.

All right, thank you all so much. That is our agenda. Thank you. Mine is somewhere around here. Oh, it's right here. Yeah, it's a lot of papers. All right, I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exceptions of items 2, 6, 13, 14, 21, 22. I'm sorry, 6, 2, 6, 13, and 14. So moved. Second. Second. So I move the property. Seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote.

Motion passes 7-0. Thank you so much. We'll get right into it. Item number 2.

I have an online speaker. Two speakers, Abby Barcelo and Randy Stanley. Randy Stanley is a resource person. Abby Barcelo, can you hear me?

Mr. Mayor, I don't see Ms. Barcelo on the queue. Okay. There's a phone number there. Could be. Okay. All right. Thank you. I will— I'll come back. All right. Next up is— well, I guess I should go ahead and call on it. Yeah. I'll go ahead and call on the vote. Okay, colleagues, I'll entertain a motion. I'll entertain a motion to approve for the approval of City Council minutes. So moved. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. All right, thank you. Next, I have item number 6. That is an interlocal agreement between the City and County of Durham to fund Community Solutions Consulting work on the homeless strategic framework. This item was pulled by Raina Ruzenko. Can you hear me? See where I'm at. Okay.

Raina Rusenko, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. There you go. Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Great. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Raina Rusenko.

I'm a Durham resident and a sociologist specializing in homelessness and public policy. I'm commenting tonight because I have concerns regarding the direction of policies relating to homelessness here in Durham. For one, this year there has been a growing number of clearances impacting our unhoused neighbors, most recently in Oakwood Park. In my work, I detail how public policies from welfare to parks management tend to systematically render homelessness an unprotected status. That is, many public sector regulations and practices often strip unhoused people of their democratic and human rights, even if they do not explicitly criminalize them.

Clearances are one obvious example of this. My work also stresses that failing to protect unhoused persons wherever they may be is unacceptable. By refusing to protect the rights and dignity of unhoused persons unconditionally, the public sector compounds the insecurities they face and normalizes violence against them. To be clear, I'm saying that clearances normalize violence against unhoused persons. Last week, the Indy Post, the story on abuses at the Durham Rescue Mission.

I name this to stress that while sleeping rough carries many risks, it is still preferable for many people who find no refuge in our present system through no fault of their own. We should be protecting people wherever they may be, even if it's on the street, at all costs. I do also have concerns about Built for Zero, which aims to achieve functional zero in homelessness. Built for Zero has many problems, but I'll highlight just one here. Functional zero is a pivot from prior decades of earnest efforts to achieve an absolute zero in homelessness.

Instead, this new approach is limited to managing data, treating homelessness itself as an inevitable stream of, quote, inflows and outflows calculated using numbers that can be easily manipulated. For example, logic would imply that an outflow category would consist of people who have exited homelessness, but in fact it can typically include people who service providers have lost contact with. Built for Zero is not a system for developing solutions to homelessness, but a system for technocratically managing the status quo and quantitatively redefining progress, often to the qualitative detriment of users. By embracing a functional but not actual zero, Durham is signaling that homelessness is an acceptable status quo. And if as a matter of policy Durham is therefore allowing for in their B, Built for Zero populations, hundreds or thousands of people to remain homeless.

We should not be denying any unhoused neighbors maximal levels of protection or care, and that includes when they are in encampments and on the streets. It is imperative that Durham not conduct any more clearances. The city should do better and work harder to ensure all Durhamites have the social and economic security that they need. Lastly, I'd also like to encourage more Durhamites to extend their care to unhoused neighbors and not let the tide turn against them. Thank you. Thank you.

Right, colleagues, at this time— yeah, that's all I have. Oh, that was number 6, right?

Colleagues, I entertain a motion to resolve that the city manager is authorized to execute an interlocal agreement with Durham County to fund the Community Solutions Consulting work on the homeless strategic framework. So moved. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Thank you. Please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. Next up, item number 13, Third Amendment to the contract with Duke University City Fiber. Miss Peterson.

Welcome. You have 30 minutes. Thank you. Is Mr. Smith here? That's representing the city on this project. What I would like to sort of find out— close to $7 million we're talking about this project for, to bring fiber, to bring fiber to the community. I support fiber to every home, to every business, to every park. But here's my concern, and I'd like to sort of just round this off to $7 million.

What is the dollar amount that Duke has put in for this project? Because that's not here. In my understanding, this was a project for the city.

And Duke University. And I don't know if Duke is in the house, but I'm hoping that they're here because I would like to know the dollar amount that they have put in so far with this project. Also, I heard the young lady speak about homeless. We've got to make sure that our local residents will get this job to lay the fiber. Now, my understanding a little bit about fiber, you have to put it, lay it in the ground.

So that's one group of persons that need to have that skill to lay the fiber. Then you have to have persons that have the skill to bring the fiber to the building. Then you have to have another group of persons that know how to take the fiber from the building outside to bring the fiber inside of the building for your various hookups. If you're going to put the fiber out in the park, you've got to have some folks that know how to do all that. So we're really speaking about 3 or 4 different layers of fiber optic, Mr. Mayor.

I don't know if you know this or not, but I have a little background years ago with fiber optic. And matter of fact, I was so glad when Durham started to bring fiber into the community. But my two concerns are how much money— because this is supposed to be a joint project with Duke and the city— how much money has already Duke thrown into this project? Also, once we put the fiber around into the community, in the parks, we need to make sure that we're not going to have to pay for this if the city is already putting out close to $7 million. Mm-mm.

Please don't send us a bill. If Duke is going to be involved with this, let's make sure that they put their dollars amount in this. We want to make sure that we're going to hire our local folks. When my husband and I, when we trained, we had over 400 and some students in this community that were trained in copper cable and fiber optic. We need to try to reach back out to them, Mr. Mayor, and try to help them to get some employment with this project.

And is Mr. Smith here to answer some questions? I'm sure that staff could speak with you. I'm sure we can get some information for you. I'm sure we can get some information for you, but you're going to have to communicate with staff and they can, they can answer your question, whatever questions you may have. You may be better off sending an email so that that person can get in touch.

So no one is here to tell us how much? Well, I won't do the back and forth dialogue right now because we're in the middle of the meeting, but I can get staff to hear you and they can— okay, they just— they'll speak with you once you finish your item number 14 because I have you pulled for that as well. Okay. Oh yeah, yeah, I'm sorry, one moment.

Colleagues, I'll entertain a motion to authorize the city manager to execute the third amendment—, third amendment to the scope of services between Duke University and the City of Durham in the amount of $426,899 for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $6,797,776. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote.

Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. Item number 14, Miss Peterson, this is on you. I'm sorry, there was another person that also signed up to speak on number 13. Your name is there, but you didn't put in number. Miss Peterson. Okay. Ms. Peterson, you're on number 14. You have 3 minutes. I'm waiting for the— also for the timer to come up.

There you go. Thank you. Well, I think I sort of have the same concern too about the cybersecurity. And I'm hoping that we have some young folks that are listening. Fiber optic cybersecurity, A1.

Awesome 3, 3, 3 industries that we really need to make sure that our young people are going to be involved in these, in these 3 areas. Booming businesses, not just across this country, but across the world. So I would also like to know, I see it's only 138,000, Mr., Mayor, but can you tell us Are they going to be reaching out into the community to make sure that our local young folks are going to be getting employment for this project? And I don't know if that person is here to speak, but once upon a time, Mr. Mayor, when we had the City Council meetings, these persons' names on these, on these very projects were supposed to be here sitting over there, and when we citizens have questions, they're supposed to come up and answer the questions. Now, here's going to be another project that we need to find out how many of our local citizens will be able to get employment on this project also.

Is that person here tonight? So, Miss Peterson, and you've been doing this longer than I have. Yes, sir. We have work sessions, and I'm going to pause your time because I don't want this to be misleading. We have work sessions, and that's where we go into detail about these things, and we also invite people to come to the meeting, or we actually have some time where we can engage.

That's why we do those things 2 weeks before tonight. Tonight we get into the voting of it. So staff is available to answer any questions, but tonight you're providing public comment. So you're letting us know how you feel about it before we actually take the vote because the work on it has been done. And so we have time to go through that.

And if there is other questions, we want you to make sure you reach out ahead of time. But what I won't do is go back and forth at the podium with the staff member, myself, and the speaker. That's just not how I facilitate the meeting, and that's just not how it works. Well, let me just share this with you, Mr. Mayor. Tom, go ahead.

I've been involved with this city since 1978. You're the first mayor that is not allowing your staff that's being paid to come here and address us. Not everybody can get to the work session. And first thing, the room is too small. Okay?

It's too small. I know in the past persons can come, the staff that's being paid, should be able to be here and answer the questions. We only have a few minutes, and it should be very easy for somebody to tell us exactly what these dollars are going to be used for. Exactly, have they gone out into the community? How many jobs are going to be set aside for the minority community?

And the city has done that in the past. How many women? How many African Americans? So Here we've had one project over close to $7 million. We have another project here, $138,000, and we can't even get one answer to make sure that the community, particularly the African American community, particularly women that, that are going to be getting employment on a lot of these projects.

And what I'm going to just say this last thing. This is our money. This is the people's money. And we have a right to know who you're hiring, who you're hiring, and who is getting these dollars. And stop trying to act like when we ask questions, they're not important. They are important. You're speaking about tax dollars here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

And I don't want you to feel misled, and I don't want anyone else to be misled. We provide ample amount of time so that we can engage on these things. Ample amount of time. And there's not a single time that anyone leaves this room without having a question answered. It won't happen while you're speaking at the podium, but if you have a question, that's why all of these very capable staff are here to be able to answer any questions.

So I will not— I would not let it be the narrative that people cannot be informed on how things on this agenda works, and that has always been the case. Okay, that— I just want you— you said it, and I want to make sure it's very clear. All right, all right.

And we're going to— and I will— and I— and I also will love to speak with you afterward, but I don't— I don't want to have narratives that are going to be misleading. All right, colleagues, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the fiscal year 2023 State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program, SLCGP, Grant Project Ordinance, and authorize the execution of the grant agreement in the amount of $138,059. So moved. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you so much.

All right, first up, item number 21. This is consolidated annexation, Bella Ridge. Ready for the staff report.

Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and honorable council members, good evening. I am Peyton Burgess with the Planning and Development Department, and I am happy to be here with you tonight. Before I begin, staff would like to state for the record that all Planning Department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law, and affidavits of all notices are on file in the Planning Department. A request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning map change has been received from Kate Murdoch with McAdams for one parcel of land totaling 78.34 acres and located at 3013 Burton Road. This annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits.

As a part of this application, the applicant is seeking a change to the zoning district from Residential Rural, Commercial Neighborhood, and Residential Suburban 10 to Planned Development Residential 3.975 to allow up to 300 dwelling units and a maximum of 5,000 conditioned square feet of non-residential uses. The property is currently designated Mixed Residential Neighborhood and Recreation and Open Space on the place type map. The proposed PDR 3.975 zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you. You've heard the staff report. Are there any questions, technical questions or comments? All right, at this time I'll declare the public hearing open. Is there an applicant? Welcome. How much time do you think you need? All right, please put, 8 minutes on the clock.

Thank you, Miss Burgess, for your presentation, and good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Mayor Rist, Council Member Caballero, and members of the City Council. I'm Neil Ghosh, an attorney at the Morningstar Law Group at 700 West Main Street. We have some folks from McAdams here with us tonight. I know, I know Laura's here. Maybe Ben is in the audience from McAdams, as well as our traffic consultant Tyler Blang with Exalt.

And our client on this project is Ashton Woods Homes., this property is located at the corner of Burton and East Gere Street, south of I-85, which is actually less than a 15-minute drive from right here., it's past the Walmart on Glen School Road, past Glen School Elementary, or Glen Elementary School, and a few other businesses too. And I just wanted to point out that this is not like a rural area by any means. And in fact, between us and, I-85 to the north, it's somewhat industrial in character, and that's actually reflected on the placetype map.

Currently, the property's in the county It has a house on it and some old farm structures, and it also has an active cell tower. Historically, on the south side of this property, there was a railroad, and it was long ago abandoned, and now it's planned for the Panther Creek Rail Trail, and I'll touch more on that later. On the other side of that rail trail, there's an active residential development called Carpenter Falls., this assemblage is adjacent to the primary corporate limits of the City of Durham. At full buildout, the project will include up to 300 homes, a minimum of 200 of which will be townhomes.

And you can see on the graphic development plan that there is a stream pretty much down the entire west side of the property., you can also see that we are not crossing that stream, so there's a lot of undisturbed area. We also have a commitment that limits development within the floodplain to basically only infrastructure. There's also a wildlife corridor on this property, which, mostly follows that old railroad area. At the Planning Commission hearing, our development plan, showed our building and parking envelope within a small portion of the wildlife corridor, which was a mistake.

And since then, we have revised our development plan so that the building and parking envelope are, outside of the wildlife corridor., and that's reflected in your agenda materials. I mentioned before that the old rail trail area is planned for the Panther Creek Rail Trail., and at Planning Commission, we added a commitment to dedicate an easement for that trail, which is what we felt comfortable with on the spot. Since then, we've had, the opportunity to study this some more, and I think we can improve upon that commitment.

Rather than dedicate an easement for the greenway, We want to commit to building the greenway, at least a portion of the greenway that's on our property. I think that's a great improvement from where we were, and hopefully will help spur further development of that greenway by the city and by others. Also want to touch on traffic. The staff report indicates the most recent AADT for both Cheek and Burton are well below the design capacity for each of those roads., nevertheless, this project was required to do its EIA.

Because of the projected number of trips, and that study was very conservative. In addition to the site driveways, it included, studying 8 intersections. The project site, traffic trigger mitigation at one of those intersections, which is East Gear at Burton. A traffic signal will be required there in addition to a westbound left turn lane. The project also will require left and right turn lanes on both site driveways.

One of the more interesting things from the study is that the intersection there is expected to need these improvements regardless of whether this development occurs, just based off of the background growth alone. So this project will provide that infrastructure to the benefit of the public to the tune of about $2 million. As you all know, this is a growing area, but the growth right here has not been as rapid as it has been in other parts of the city. Many of the existing homes near this property were, were built, under the code that was active prior to the current UDO. So, you know, before 2005, a lot of the homes were built there.

But there is, of course, the Carpenter Falls community, which starts to get developed in 2024 and still is under development. Nevertheless, the comp plan recognizes the potential for growth here. The place type map designation for the property is mixed residential neighborhood. And the project includes a mix of housing types, including affordable housing. We also have a monetary contribution to DPS that is $5,000, but we want to increase that amount to $12,750.

We have open space and tree cover in excess of UDO requirements. We limit our impervious to no more than 50% and limit all impacts to the floodplain and wildlife corridor areas, and limit them to essentially just infrastructure in the greenway. I think this is an ideal development in this location. We added— with the added commitment regarding, you know, now the construction of the trail and the roughly $2 million worth of transportation infrastructure improvements and the affordable housing, the project provides clear public benefits. And I will also say that I did not expect when we work on this project the amount of support that we had for this project.

I know we have opposition as well. But a lot of property owners in this area have long desired to gain access to city water and sewer. There is already a water line in East Durham, which we will be extending down Burton. The real issue in this area has been access to sewer. The existing sewer force main that we'll be tapping into is south of us.

So it's like in that railroad area, and we will be extending sewer from there through our site up to both Burton and Gear, which will bring that utility a lot closer to many property owners., as you know, this project was strongly recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on an 8-2 vote, so we're very proud of that. We hope to have your support tonight as well, and our team is available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you for your, presentation. Okay, I have one. All right, I have just a few speakers here, starting online., Penny Mace.

Penny Mays, can you hear me?

Mr. Mayor, Ms. Mays unmuted, but we can't hear her.

Ms. Mays, can you hear us? All right, I'll go ahead and start in person.

Donna Stanback, Thomas Layton, Tammy— not sure which one— Sawaya. Is that Tammy Sawaya? All right. Pam Williams, Tina Motley-Pearson, Pam Andrews, Wanda Allen, Vicki King. I'm assuming you all know why I called you all up.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes.

Good evening. My name is Tina Motley Pearson and my address is on file. This area has already been overwhelmed by development over the past 3 years. The map clearly shows multiple approved projects totaling 890 new dwelling units, bringing an estimated 7,200 additional vehicle trips per day. That's not a small impact.

That's a significant and growing strain on our roads and community. And yet the biggest issue remains unresolved. The infrastructure simply does not exist to support this level of growth. We are already seeing the consequences. There are well-documented concerns about sewer capacity, and just as critically, there are gaps in fire service, police, and EMS coverage.

Policy 122 is not vague. It clearly designates these as future growth areas where infrastructure and service upgrades are required, required, not optional. The data in front of you shows clear deficiencies, fire service gaps across Fletcher's Chapel, Hamlin Road, Stallings Road, and others, along with areas already struggling with sewer capacity. Approving more development under these conditions is not planning, it's ignoring reality. You're being asked to move forward without basic services needed to protect public safety and support existing residents.

This is not responsible growth. This is growth without a foundation. Thank you very much. Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Pamela Andrews.

Fire infrastructure is not adequate in Southeast Durham, as Tina just showed you. Policy 122 clearly shows the need for fire service expansion before more homes are built. 4 times within this policy, fire service needs are mentioned. It just— as Tina shows you, let's go right there. The city of Durham fire stations, which would primarily serve Bella Ridge, is Station 9.

Redwood Volunteer Fire Station, funded by the county, would likely respond as well. These units will respond to calls in over 68 new subdivisions in Southeast Durham alone, with current residents as well, straining the current resources. Next slide. In October of 2022, the fire department audit was done, recognizing that higher response times than the national standard dictated. National Fire Code 1710 for fire response time is 6 minutes and 30 seconds.

The two nearest city fire stations are Station 9 and 3. And will not likely meet the response time standards referenced in the audit even in ideal conditions. Station 3, a city station, would be 5.6 miles away or a 12-minute drive during non-peak traffic hours. Station 9 will be 7.4 miles away or a 13-minute drive during non-peak hours as well. The county volunteer fire station Redwood is 2.3 miles away or 4 minutes during non-peak hours.

However, it does not have a ladder truck to service the 200 townhomes planned of the 300 dwellings. The city fire stations would not meet the NFPA 1710 standard of 6 minutes and 30 seconds referenced in the audit. Because there is not a fire station in close proximity, the city might contract with Redwood Volunteer Fire Station, again, see Bull City Station 9 is the primary station for this parcel. However, mutual aid will come, of course, but how long will that take for this isolated corner of Durham County? The success of abundance agendas should be measured by outcomes, housing supply, stronger infrastructure, reliable access to EMS, fire and police services, and physical resilience, not approvals alone.

Do not approve density for the purpose of density. Or adding short-term revenue without clarity on the downstream planning needed for resulting expenditures to ensure public health and safety. This sets out in the county, there is nothing near it. Yes, 85 has a few industrials along the edges, the old Kenworth Park that's been there forever, the trucking store, but there's not other things around. Now you're going to extend fire services out whether can't get there in the required national standard time.

That's just not acceptable, guys. We're putting lives in jeopardy. Please say no. Thank you. Welcome. You got 3 minutes. Tammy Swayah. My address is on file. This is going to be like a broken record, but we need to be talking about this police shortage. We know we have a police shortage. It's 11 miles to this address.

Policy 119 says ensure new development within the UGB or within established levels of service for emergency services. That includes fire, medical, police, and public safety. EMS. This is the biggest concern right now. EMS is a county-run function.

Not EMS has not been addressed or analyzed with all these developments, and it's still not being analyzed before these annexations come here. We have a community member that monitors all the EMS., I'm going to state something of last Thursday that he talked about. A pregnant woman calls EMS, can't feel her legs. Durham has no first responders, no ambulances, no EMS. Durham asks Roxboro and Person County if they can respond. They could not. So what if it was you or your family member?

The growth in this area— we have grown in Southeast Durham. To a population of Wilson, they will say we still need buildings, we still need, development. No, we have meet our quota. We have to have our infrastructure, and you have to put people's safety in front of more development. Please think about this before you move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Good evening, Mayor Williams Durham County Council members, my name is Donna Steinbach, my address is on file. As, they mentioned earlier, this density is significantly higher than the surrounding areas.

If you'll look at the red star there, that is the location of the site, and you see all the surrounding, volunteer agriculture districts, and there more on the other side of 85 that are nearby. This, the blue sites represent the volunteer ag districts. We have more, present value, present use value sites that are for farming and for forests that are nearby., per Planning Commissioner on stage Brook, density as proposed would be too great a burden and detract from the character and aesthetics of the rural area. And it is indeed rural.

Its proximity is not just the site but is within a half mile of other, volunteer ag districts., considering, per Planning Commissioner Wouk, Considering the high rate of development in Southeast Durham and neighbors struggling to cope with increased traffic and no increase of necessary infrastructure, this project does not seem to meet the needs of the community. Next slide. And so what we have here is, that there are major concerns about the increase in the vehicles per day from the 2,600 vehicles on the existing Burton, and, with an increase of the 5,180 vehicles per day. And then with Year Street, we have an increase of 2,092, to the existing 5,908 vehicles per day per the NCDOT average annual daily traffic.

As you can see, we have farm equipment pictured because in these areas you have to share the roads. The farms were there first, but a lot of people do not get that and understand that. And in the state, there are quite a few accidents because of trying to mix areas as much as we're trying to these days, and there have even been fatalities. So I would, I know that they mentioned Carpenter Falls is adjacent, but Carpenter Falls is also a, Conservation subdivision. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Wanda Allen. I'd like for you to look at this slide. This project directly impacts 5 streams that flow into Panther Creek and ultimately into Raleigh Falls Lake, Raleigh's drinking water. And this is not a protected system. It's already impaired by sediment and pollution.

We're not starting here from a clean baseline, you guys. Balls Lake and Panther Creek are already struggling. And this proposal on a minimum stormwater standard that is not working today, it's especially on steep slopes and unstable Triassic Basin soil, which is on this site. Okay, I'm going to put it simple. You can't protect drinking water if you continue to add pollution.

A system that is already failing. We're asking for practical safeguards, strong stormwater controls designed for 100-year stormwater, real environmental monitoring during and after construction, such as treating the— excuse me, such as testing for turbidity before releasing it into the streams, and no variances. This is becoming a common problem. They come back and ask for variances or shortcuts. These are not extreme asks.

They are what the site needs. The photos that you're going to see tonight and on this slide shows best management practices are not working. Approving this project adds to that burden of the taxpayers having to clean it up. Please require stronger protection, and/or vote no. Thank you. Welcome. You have 3 minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Pam Williams. My address is on file., Panther Creek, which is directly south downhill from, Gears Street, for this project. So of course, you know, the water runs downhill, and we also have the perennial stream, the major stream on the west side.

We are asking, since this is terrific soil and the new stormwater policies that was put in, or requirements, UDOs that was put in in 2023 are not working. We've seen them not work, and we've got pictures showing that they're not working. We're asking for undisturbed stream buffers where no sediment ponds, grading, clear cutting, retaining walls, sewer easement, drainage ditches, except for those absolutely necessary, be put in the stream buffers. This is crucial to maintaining Panther Creek in this area. Panther Creek, as Wanda said, it's on the impaired— it's impaired.

It's on the 303 list. And we need these mature trees and no disturbance in the buffers to help with the sedimentation and the filtration. It is very important. And as you can see, here's some examples of construction being 30 feet from a— in the 100-foot buffer. This is allowed.

They could take out all the trees. On this one, this property line, right, this is on the property line. They're going to provide a 30-foot buffer, but only after they dig 15, 20 feet down, 1 to 2 feet from the property line., sewer easement going through this one, and also here they got a variance, for the, wetlands to the, stream., also this area is per the City of Durham's Environmental Justice Map.

It is right smack in the middle of the environmental justice. There's a lot of people that live out here in the residential homes on the side, well, next to this property up on Gears Street. My grandmother used to live right there at the corner of Gears Street and Burke Road. I know this area very well, and these people are not wealthy people. And we need to make sure we provide for them the infrastructure, what is needed.

And looking at this heat island map where the star is, as you can see, since it's mainly farm and trees and everything, it doesn't show the heat island. But where things have been built, where development has been built, you can see what the effects of high density or higher density and high impervious does to, the heat island effect in these areas., we asked you to not approve this, and thank you very much. Thank you. Welcome.

You have 3 minutes. Okay, I'm just— I'mma— let me close this down if I can. Okay. We also had two people that had signed up to speak, and you didn't call their name out— Becky and Tom Freeman. So I don't know if they were on the, the list or not, but anyway, I just want to Becky and Tom Freeman. I have them for 22, not 21. I'm sorry. Welcome.

You have 3 minutes. Okay, my name is Vicki King. My address is on file. I was raised in East Durham County and still live right around the corner from the intersection of Burton and Cheek Road. I come here tonight to ask the City Council to put in a temporary moratorium of 1 year to stop all construction, I'm sorry, development in this county until the infrastructure can catch up.

Gridlock happens every day on I-85 northbound. Let a wreck happen and Gere Street becomes a freeway. I'm not talking about a 35 mph freeway either. Just last week, stopped traffic was beyond— from beyond Redwood Road on I-85 all the way into town at Avondale Drive. 98, Highway 98, is a traffic jam both morning and evening.

Burton Road is becoming a traffic nightmare. What's Durham's answer when the reservoirs run out of water? What's Durham's answer to all the shootings? What's Durham's answer to no answer at all at 911 communications? These are all infrastructure problems the public wants to know.

We have asked the City Council to consider no deforestation, larger riparian buffers, monitoring creeks and waterways that run through these construction sites, but somehow those requests seem to get overlooked. I asked again, please slow down the approval of developments. With over 22,000 units constructed or approved for construction, cut down on the density. Oh, and there's currently 1,547 units for sale in Durham County and over 4,400 units for rent. Thank you for your time.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Mr. Mayor, I'm Thomas Layton. I was signed up for this. I'm going to pass most of my time here and wait till we get to Patterson Road to express how much I'm interested in agriculture. And you promised the last time I was here you would take consideration the value of agriculture to the communities that you're developing. I hope you have continued to do that.

And you're welcome to add all my time from this one to the next one, and I'll talk to you later. I can't bank time, but thanks for your comments, Tom. Good try.

Come up. Hello. Hi, Ms. Mays. Yes, I can. Loud and clear. Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm Penny Mays and my address is on file.

And as you've already heard, this area of Southeast Durham is already taxed beyond capacity for emergency services with increasing traffic problems, as again you've heard. When Carpenter Falls, Sagebrook, and Panther Creek, other developments that have been approved, come our way, the traffic is going to be tremendously increased. And God forbid that any of my family or our neighbors have a heart attack or some other emergency once all of this happens. With all due respect to this council, your decisions tonight very well may determine someone's medical fate. And are they going to receive emergency services, or will those services be so overtaxed that lives are going to be lost in our area?

Please make a decision tonight that puts water quality at the forefront, because our water quality is in danger. Consider our wildlife in this rural area, and it is a rural area. And please consider people's lives. These are very serious issues, and before any other development is approved in this area, we have to have more emergency services in place and infrastructure to support the people who are going to purchase housing in good faith, that their basic needs are going to be met. And as it stands, those basic needs of safety and clean water are being put at risk.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Those are all of the speakers that I have. Would the applicant like to respond?

Hello, once again, this is Neil Ghosh from the Morningstar Law Group., you know, I've been seeing the folks from, Preserve Rural Durham up here for years, and, generally they, they get really good information, and this is my only item on the agenda tonight, so I don't know if maybe they had the wrong presentation up, but if they didn't, that presentation is very misleading. This project is not in any future growth area. I want to be real clear about that, this project, there's no noted deficiencies from our, utility statement analysis that was done for this project. There's no noted deficiencies in the comp plan as far as fire service, sewer service, anything like that.

I recognize that some of those concerns exist, but one of the slides they had up there suggested that this project is in a future growth area, and it absolutely is not., there's also some mention, as we've heard many times about the need for infrastructure to keep up with development. And, first of all, I agree with that statement just generally, but I think that suggesting this project doesn't provide its fair share of infrastructure or do something about the infrastructure is incorrect. As I mentioned in my initial presentation, the intersection— the road improvements that this project is committing to and would be required to do are needed for the network regardless of whether this project gets built based off background traffic alone. There are, there are, potential traffic issues on, on the horizon, maybe even greater than what has already been described.

But this project is providing upwards of about $2 million worth of— and that's just transportation infrastructure. That's, that's to say nothing of the, public utilities that also are going, going to be improved as part of this project., I just want to make sure that we're real clear on what this project is versus maybe— I don't know if there's something else on the agenda, but this is not in a future growth area at all. I mean, is one of the— this is— this project has been carefully planned by my client, because of the information in the comprehensive plan, and that's why it received a strong recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. That's why it has a strong staff report.

This is a very good project in this location, and it does a lot for— it offers a lot in the way of public benefits through infrastructure, affordable housing, and now also building a portion of the Panther Creek Trail. Thank you. Thank you. I, I made a, a pretty significant mistake up here as well. I As I'm getting used to our new way of organizing this, I overlooked speakers under the applicant name.

I'm used to seeing them all above. So we do have more speakers. So to those speakers, my apologies. Asterisk Cook, Mike Rowe, Kokoro, and Talmadge Layton. If you all would come up. Okay. That's what you were talking about. Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Hello. Hi., very rare that I would get to speak after the applicant response., my name is Ashford Cook. My address is on file, and I am representing the Durham City Council Environmental Affairs Board Land Use and Planning Committee.

You all should have received our letter on this case, and I just want to read what I can tonight., the Durham Environmental Affairs Board Land Use and Planning Subcommittee has reviewed the Bella Ridge case and offers the following comments solely regarding environmental impacts. This site presents a highly sensitive environmental context. It lies within the Falls of the Neuse-Jordan Lake protected area, is underlain by Triassic Basin soils prone to erosion and persistent turbidity, and is bordered along multiple edges by Panther Creek and its associated floodway. The stream corridor and adjacent floodplain are not peripheral, peripheral to the site, but define its environmental function and connectivity to downstream waters.

We acknowledge several positive elements within the proposal, as the applicant has elucidated in their, in their presentation. However, we have concerns that the proposal as currently structured does not adequately address the primary environmental risks associated with the site. Most notably, the proposal does not include any defined stormwater control measures at the rezoning stage. Stormwater Services has confirmed that no SCMs are proposed within the development plan, with the expectation that stormwater design will be addressed later during site plan review. Given the site's location within a protected watershed, its proximity to Panther Creek, and the known behavior of Triassic Basin soils Deferring stormwater strategy to a later stage represents a substantial gap.

Without clear commitments at rezoning, there is insufficient assurance that runoff volume, peak flow, and sediment transport will be appropriately managed. While the development plan limits direct building within the floodplain, it allows for grading, utility installation, and other disturbances. These activities, particularly in proximity to Panther Creek, can result in indirect impacts to floodplain function, including increased sedimentation, altered flow patterns, and downstream flooding. Stormwater staff has also identified the need to evaluate future 1% flood conditions, reinforcing that flood risk on and downstream of the site is a relevant and unresolved issue. Taken together, these factors raise concerns that the project, as currently proposed, may contribute to increased sedimentation, degraded water quality, and altered hydrology in Panther Creek and downstream receiving waters.

For these reasons, we do not support the proposal in its current form. At a minimum, support would require the applicant to provide the following textual commitments: a defined stormwater management strategy at the rezoning stage, expansion of stream buffer, buffer widths where steep slopes or direct drainage to Panther Creek are present, with buffers measured from the top of slope rather than the stream bank to reduce erosion risk and improve long-term protection of the stream corridor. Thank you. Ms. Cook, are you speaking in your formal capacity on behalf of the EAB? Yes.

Director Young, is it not appropriate to have their report as part of the packet for consideration? Good evening. I think staff has been working with EAB to bring them into the review process so that they can act you will see their comments in the future like you do the BPAC comments. But to date, they have not been involved to that capacity. So I think that will be a new change coming forward. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Welcome. You have 3 minutes. Hi, I'm Michael Rowe. Myself and Coco Road actually signed up to speak to agenda item number 22, so I'd like to hold my time for that item. You said Coco Row, right? Yes. And Mike Row? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. Said he signed up for 22. I have him for both. All right, do you care to respond?

That was the, this is Neil Gosch again on behalf of the applicant., assuming that's all the speakers, I will, just mention I hadn't seen the information from EAB about this, so I don't really have— I haven't had the benefit to review that ahead of time. Listening to the comments though, I just want to point out that we do have commitments in the development plan that limit any impacts in the floodplain and limit any impacts in the wildlife corridor. But they are limited. That doesn't mean there won't be any.

And specifically, I believe the, the Greenway Trail, which, which has been— well, we've committed to building the portion of the Greenway Trail that's on the property. That is already planned in the open space trail plan. in part of the property that has environmental, you know, aspects to it. Floodplain, and the wildlife corridor are, I, I believe, are exactly where that trail is located in the open space trail plan., so there will, you know, I'm, I'm going to say there's not going to be any impacts in that area.

We have specifically accepted those impacts with respect to stormwater control., I appreciate that bringing— being brought up. I will say that the information presented, I think, I feel was accurate, accurate from EAB, which is to say that we didn't have any commitment specifically related in the development plan to stormwater controls., and generally speaking, that is the type of thing that would get brought up and considered site plan. That having been said, I think we're prepared tonight to add a commitment to handle the 100-year storm as part of this project.

So we will add that, which I think is responsive to some of the comments we heard. From EAB just now. Thank you. Thank you. All right, those are all of the speakers that I have signed up for this case. So therefore, at this time, I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. All right, colleagues., Council Member Cook, go ahead.

Thank you., Mr. Grisham, will you come back up? I'm going to actually read you the asks from the Environmental Affairs Board letter since you hadn't heard them. And I think you've addressed one of them, but a defined stormwater management strategy at the rezoning stage. So that one you have just talked about.

Expansion of stream buffer widths where steep slopes are directing in drainage to Panther Creek are present, with buffers measured from the top slope rather than the stream bank to reduce erosion risk and improve long-term protection of the stream corridor.

I'm sorry, you want me to respond to that? I, I just want you to note them because these are— there are only 6 on here, and the Environmental Affairs Board has identified all 6 of these as being needed., otherwise they say that the— they're concerned that the development result in long-term degradation of Panther Creek and downstream water sources. So you said you hadn't seen it. I'm just reading them to you.

So sure. If you were— just make a comment. Yes. For whatever reason, you're standing right there. Yes. Or sitting next to me. And I cannot— I don't know. There's something funny about this because I thought it was just me. I can't really hear it either. It's some type of— is it better? I think so. Yeah. Can you hear me now? Yep. Okay, great.

Okay, user error. Okay, so I'm going to read you these because these are the ones that they've identified all as needing. You said you hadn't seen them, right? Correct. Okay, so the first one we just talked about, which is the defined water— stormwater management strategy at the rezoning stage.

Then there's an expansion of stream buffer widths where steep slopes or direct drainage to Panther Creek are present. With buffer measured from the top of the slope rather than the stream bank to ensure— to reduce erosion risk and improve long-term protection of the stream corridor. The next one is removal of the wildlife corridor area from the building and parking envelope, which you've already done. The fourth one is no grading or clearing in the floodplain except where strictly necessary for essential infrastructure, with clear limits on such activities. 5, implementation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures tailored to the Triassic Basin soils, including phased grading, rapid stabilization, and redundant controls.

And finally, demonstration that the stormwater discharge will not adversely impact downstream floodplain areas, including analysis of future 1% flood conditions. And you're welcome to, respond to any of those. I do have a list of questions, but I just wanted to to make sure that those were on your radar as ones that— I don't know why I moved this way— as ones that we've been provided by our volunteer, our volunteer Commission on Environmental Affairs.

So I am curious about the undisturbed stream buffers. Is that something y'all are able to proffer? No. I mean, I think on the development plan you can see that there is one stream that is being crossed., no, there's a stream that goes down the entire west side of the property, which we're— that we're not touching that.

All right, but then there's a— there's kind of another finger of a stream on the development plan that comes up on the— I'm going to say southeast side., that does have a stream crossing that's kind of roughly south of the existing cell tower, that area., So, you know, I would just say no, we couldn't make a commitment to having undisturbed stream buffers because I know that there's already planned disturbance in some of that area for the stream crossing.

Okay. The open space commitment, I'm assuming, already includes both the wildlife corridor and the stream buffer. Is that correct? You're talking about the amount. I believe those would be calculated in that figure. Yeah, I'm getting some nods because it's a 20% commitment, but that's going to include already those, those protected areas that are— I believe that is correct. Yes. Are y'all able to increase to do 10% in addition to the wildlife and stream buffers?

I don't— I wouldn't actually know. I don't— I don't really think that we— like we're in a position to answer that question. Okay. Right now, because I don't know how much is in what. Okay.

The affordability, we've been seeing upwards of 10%. Are you all able to commit to 10% affordability? We— I don't think we'd be able to commit to 10%, but we did. We did talk internally about that, and I think we can improve our commitment, which I believe is at 5%. To, to 8% of the overall unit count, for this project. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions for now. Thanks. Thank you. Any other colleagues' questions?

Council Member Burris. Hello, Mr. Goff. Hello., just a couple quick questions just to try to provide clarity for my myself about this. And so I apologize, as I'm learning, if the, you know, it seems kind of redundant for you, but you know, you're the expert, not me.

Particularly around some of the policies and looking at some of your increased profits, I just have some questions, particularly around Policy 39. It looks like you committed to an additional 1% of tree preservation, additional 4% of open space. And I think for the tree preservation was set at like, what, 20? So you'd be doing 21%. And I believe What we're doing is preservation.

I want to make sure that— yeah, which is, just to be clear, is also in excess of what the UDO requires. So there's tree coverage. It doesn't always have to be preservation, but we've committed to preservation. Well, I just was curious about, like, the 1%. Like, what's the impact of that?

Like, what's going to be the benefit of 1%? Well, I think, I think what I'm saying is the really the excess is that it's preservation as opposed to just simple tree coverage. It is also numerically more tree coverage than is required, but it's also being provided through tree preservation, which I think is more valuable than, than tree coverage that is just, you know, where you take the existing plants out and then you replant 20%. This is 21% tree preservation. So let me just rephrase it so I can understand.

So you think at this increase, this metric, it would have a significant impact then, like the 1%, like environmentally? Preservation. Is, I think, more impactful than the 1%. The fact that it's preservation rather than replanting for tree coverage. Okay.

And then can you just— I just have a question. I do appreciate you all for increasing your profit for affordable housing from 5% to 8%. Just so we can all have a common understanding of this, tell us what this is. So does that mean that, like, for 8% AMI, that those units would be your reduced rate, or like, how does that work out for the affordable housing piece? Like, are they subsidized, or like, what does it look like?

Well, it's not subsidized, like, by any kind of, like, gap financing or government funding or anything like that. These are being provided by the developer in this case at a discounted price over what the unit next door, which would be exactly the same unit, would cost, right? So this is essentially them discounting the price, and the way that works, in this zoning case, but also just in the Durham UDO and, and through, whatever the department is now called that, that implements those things, they would record a covenant against property that would— that it's an affordability covenant that says that these houses, 8% of them, are, have an affordability covenant on them, and so that they have to be sold that over the next 30 years, they can only be sold to families qualifying at the 80% AMI level, which, you know, over the course of 30 years, that number's obviously going to change. But every year, it's still going— for 30 years, it'll be still at the 80% AMI level regardless of who's selling it, right? So, like, the developer is going to do it the first time, but because there would be a recorded covenant against the property, it would still carry through the next conveyance of that land.

That's, that's just how it would work. So the, I guess I would say the initial, I'm going to call it a haircut, comes at the developer's expense, right? After that though, it's the, it's the property owner who bought the house at a discounted rate would also have to sell the house at a discounted rate over the next 30 years. Okay, that's helpful to understand. And then I had another question about the policy, regards to accessibility.

So, and looks like there, that one wasn't consistent. So does that mean you won't be— and it doesn't really necessarily give us, like, to the, UDO, like, making sure that we have a mixed use of ages. So does that mean that these units will not have— and they will not have, like, access at grade, or will they offer any, first floor bedroom options? Yeah, so we were— that's why we hadn't made that commitment, because we don't know specifically that we will be— we will be able to do that. And I think part of the issue here is some of the topography challenges, which makes it difficult to say for certain that there will be at-grade entrances.

You know, when you have a flat piece of property, you can kind of build right on top of that and have an at-grade entrance. But when you have to make up for grade and stuff like that, that's when you start to get steps to the front door or steps from the garage into the unit, whatever the case may be., that's because of the grade challenges with, with any given floor plan. And then with respect to whether there will be any certain number of units that will have, first floor living. The majority of these units— so, so I believe it's 300 units total, right?

And the minimum of those will be— a minimum of 200 of those will be townhomes. Townhome units are general— I mean, they're going to be multi-story units, right?, and— but the way those generally are going to lay out are— they're probably not going to have all of the items necessary for first floor living. There may be a bedroom, right? But there probably won't be— also be kitchen and laundry and bathroom, you know, on that first floor.

That's why we haven't made that commitment. But I think— so to answer your question, I think you're right. We— I don't know that we're in a place where we can make a commitment where we will meet that policy. But I can't say for certain that there won't be units with first floor bedrooms. It's just that we're, you know, we're not comfortable enough to make a commitment to describe what that might look like on this project today.

Okay, because I just had, like, just thinking about consistency, I see that there's a commitment to making sure, like, the sidewalks are ADA accessible. And so I'm like, okay, if you're going to make sure the sidewalks have those accommodations, it would kind of make sense to ensure the units are also accessible as well. So, but thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Any other colleagues down here? Council Member Baker. Thank you., thanks for being here, Mr. Goff., First of all, are folks cold? Yes.

I'm literally looking at people shivering. There's a young lady on the front row with a blanket. Not cold. Not cold? Okay. Very comfortable. All right. There's a mix of opinions out there. I'm not going to make this controversial.

It's cold. So, I don't have any questions actually. I— On this Earth Day, barring any exceptional master-planned communities, I in good conscience can't continue to support auto-centric sprawl, car-dependent development on the outskirts of our city in this kind of scale and the rapid development and growth that we're seeing on the outskirts particularly in, in far East Durham. Driven out there many times. I don't know how you get out there any other way.

And I'm not sure that we'll leave an East Durham that will be reachable any other way, the way that is being approved for growth piece by piece and little by little.

You know, We're watching around the world, it's impossible to miss the turmoil, the global turmoil, and it feels like our entire society is a smash and grab by the rich. And we're seeing global turmoil around competition over fossil fuels and oil. And in a progressive community, we need to do everything that we possibly can to push back against that and fight against that. Not to just kind of openly continue to approve very large cases. 80 Acres is a very large case.

Again, little by little, with, I think, legitimate questions and increasingly legitimate questions around service and infrastructure., I don't know if many of you follow Strongtowns., Chuck, Chuck Marrone, who started Strongtowns, does a lot of— talks a lot about sprawl and the way that many cities are growing. He calls it a Ponzi scheme. Chuck was actually in Durham not too long ago speaking here to the community.

He's got an article. He says, and I want to quote this, sprawl is a, quote, style of development. It works extremely well for a specific type of large-scale private developer, they're masters of the assembly line approach: secure cheap land on the fringe, install infrastructure, and build tract housing as quickly as possible. At this scale, the profits are enormous and the risks are low. He goes on to say, but while private sector gets the cash, local governments get the bill.

Sprawling developments create long-term infrastructure liabilities—roads, water lines, sewer systems, schools, fire, EMS, etc. That far exceed the revenue they generate. Local governments, which are really just collections of us acting together, are left trying to maintain and operate systems that are fundamentally unaffordable. And I think every time over the past many years that these large-scale cases have, have come before council, not only is that approval— approving land for this kind of development, it's also sending a message that this is okay, that we can continue growing this way. And that you should, as a large-scale landowner, large-scale developer, some of the largest homebuilders in the country who are working in Durham, should continue doing this and doing what you're doing.

I've sat down with Mungo Homes a couple of years ago and I asked, why don't you do great master-planned communities that are preserving more open space, maybe a little more dense in certain areas, providing a mix of uses and civic spaces? And they said, because we know how to make money the way that we build now and because you don't make us. And that will continue. That will continue as long as we allow it to continue. So I appreciate the Planning Commission's recommendation.

I sat on the Planning Commission and was very frustrated whenever City Council didn't go along with the Planning Commission. Here now, here I am. But I agree with the comments of Commissioner Wouk from the Planning Commission. I think that Commissioner Wouk hit the nail on the head with some of these comments. You know, we had another committee of a board weigh in.

And also, I just, I think that this is sending a message. I think that it's continuing to do something that we know is part of a broken system. We shouldn't, we shouldn't blame individuals for being dependent upon cars for for our auto dependency. It's a systemic failure, and, and we are part of the system. And so I won't be supporting this one, and I, I'll just say now I won't be supporting the other cases, this evening.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor., first is a question for staff, and this relates to a couple of cases that we're seeing this evening in regards to applicant commitments, around infrastructure addressing traffic issues of concern. And I guess my question is just helping me understand this. So in this particular case, the applicant has talked about a $2 million commitment to infrastructure to, to address traffic issues in this area.

So how much does this address the current concerns versus just the incremental need from the additional units that would go in? And if this investment wasn't made through this development, When might the city have this in the plan to make this sort of investment?

Erleen Thomas. So the plan, and the traffic study does address both existing and future impacts from this development. So some of the improvements that they are making are going to address existing, issues that, that are happening today. If these improvements aren't made by the this developer, they will likely not be funded, anytime in the foreseeable future, as projects are prioritized and funded, you know, through NCDOT's prioritization process. And there are limited dollars to go around and, and address all of the future needs.

All right, thank you., next, a couple, couple questions for the applicant, Mr. Goff.

So I want to come back to a couple of the other, requests from the Environmental Affairs Board as well as from residents through Preserve Rural Durham and others., I would like to ask if this is a project where you could commit to no variances and no disturbances in the buffer and what that would look like for this project., well, I think I mentioned already, I, I know for a fact we can't make a commitment to no disturbances in the buffer. We've already got a planned stream crossing. So that is because of the one disturbance you have.

Okay. Yeah. And so we're going to have to— let me look over here. That requires one of those permits. No practical alternative. Yeah. So, like, I know that we have to get one of those. That's not a variance per se. I don't really even know if from a zoning standpoint someone can make a commitment to no variance. I mean, a variance is something specified in the UDO, and I'm looking that direction because I, I don't— I just don't know.

But, you know, I, I guess I would say the, the specific commitment that was asked for, I'm— we could not make that commitment because I know that we're going to have impacts to stream, to riparian buffers, and we're going to need one of those NPAs to do it.

So it is possible that an applicant can proffer to not seek variances or to not seek an NPA for any type of intrusion. You know, that is, proffer can be anything going above and beyond a normal process. There you go. All right. So the, the no disturbances is impossible. What about the no variances?

I mean, I don't know. I'll have to, I'll have to get with my client on whether they are comfortable doing that. I mean, no one seeks the development for the purpose of getting a variance later. A variance comes up, I mean, it's a high bar at the Board of Adjustment to get a variance. Yeah, and I want to acknowledge and thank in this process the feedback we're getting from the EAB and other volunteer boards, Planning Commission, BPAC.

I look forward to actually having these requests be part of our application packet, which gives us time to further evaluate and have these discussions as well. But I do think they're really important points to, to raise., so, I just want to say I appreciate, you know, aspects of this proposal that exceed the comp plan, you know, around open space, you know, and that tree preservation, which is what You know, I think the kind of thing that we, we look for when evaluating these sorts of cases, as well as additional commitments around affordable housing, the, the stormwater control measures, the increased DPS contribution, and the commitment to protect the most environmentally sensitive areas and build Panther Creek. I think some of these reflected the strong Planning Commission recommendation, and also some have addressed the Environmental Affairs Board recommendations. At the same time, I'm cognizant of the remaining concerns that have been raised by, by residents and advocates and volunteer boards.

I would like to discuss at JCCPC how we can better account for EMS along with the county, because I feel like that keeps coming up and it's something we haven't quite been able to wrap our heads around. I think some of the other infrastructure questions have been easier because they fall more within the city's control. And but this, this EMS one still seems to be a sticking point for for us and a really, critically important one., you know, I think the last thing is that, you know, on the affordable housing piece, I do appreciate that, that proffer. As I sort of weigh, the opportunities here, I mean, you know, for the city to provide all of the housing that we need would be an expensive proposition that would fall heavily on our taxpayers.

And so I think that including the improvements for traffic, which otherwise would not happen, you know, are something that I also don't take lightly in weighing these cases when considering all the tradeoffs that are in place. And ultimately, where we see any housing go has an impact on the neighbors and residents who live nearby. You know, we have to consider, you know, the, the ultimately the, the pressures, the displacement pressures that it puts on other parts of our city when we choose to not welcome those homes near where we live. And so there's a push and pull where we're connected across the city in these decisions that we make. And everyone has a right to, you know, to advocate for what they feel is best for where they live.

And we have to think about, you know, what is going to work for residents across the city. And I'm particularly, you know, concerned for residents who face that pressure and some of our more gentrifying neighborhoods, which is something to weigh against concerns about, you know, conversion of some of our more rural areas. And those are real concerns and trade-offs we have to weigh, you know, including a desire for all development to be along transit in the future and, you know, every development to be next to a park. And that is the dream that I would like to see us fulfill. I also think about the investment required in order to make that a reality.

And the opportunity we have in these limited cases to look for benefits for the community. So thank you. Council Member Rist. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have one question. Yeah, appreciate the comments from my colleagues, also the testimony from residents. I had one question.

I am— I'm actually— I think Council Member Kopac is now the official BPAC member, but I'm an alternate still. So I want to ask about the BPAC comments. Because there were a couple there that I think there wasn't a response to, at least in our packet. So there was a request from BPAC about building a sidewalk network within the development. And again, I think my notes show that there was no response.

I wonder if you consider that. So I don't know if I didn't respond. My understanding is that the road design requirements do require sidewalk anyway. So you can't make the commitment because it's already required. So it's required. That would— and that's my understanding. That, that interior roads do require sidewalks. Staff, just if you all could confirm that on the staff side.

Correct, that would be required by ordinance. Okay, thank you for that. Yeah, okay. The second comment from BPAC was about, around proposed signal locations uplift intersections with curbing and wheelchair ramps to accommodate potential future multi— the potential future of multi-use path. I'm sorry, I'm not— hold on, I have those BPAC codes. Again, that's at the proposed signal locations raised intersections with curbing and wheelchair ramps. Sorry, one second, I know they're in this.

Okay, which one are you referring to? I think it's the— oh, at the intersections to better serve wheelchair users and ensure the shortest crossing distance, place crosswalks and sidewalks to accommodate the potential future, multi-use path, right?

Yes, so the— yeah, that's not one that I think we'd be comfortable, making a commitment to. That's— there's a signalized intersection that is, I guess, technically it's offsite. I mean, it's at the corner of Geary and Burton., so we don't— I mean, the right-of-way I don't know that there's sufficient right-of-way to accommodate this. If there is, and I believe that's generally speaking how the design would, be required to go, is, is that you would have the sidewalk there and with the, with the curb.

Yeah, with the ramp. That's how those intersections, I, I believe they're designed. But whether it's going to be an MUP, I don't know that we can make that type of commitment just because, if I remember correctly, the corner of the prop— I'm sorry, that intersection is actually not part— like, we don't have the ability to expand right-of-way there by dedicating it ourselves because we don't have the frontage right there. But if you can— if the right-of-way is available, if you can actually get access, that would something you would intend to do? I, I don't even know that intent is part of it.

That, that is what's required by design, is to have those wheelchair ramps, and the, you know, the little yellow thing with the dots in them. Okay, thank you. The last one was about the, inclusion, oh right, of the, of the multi-use path along the proposed lengths of the roadway improvements. Want to make sure that's— I think there was some confusion about that, whether those— again, the multi-use path would continue along the, the roadway improvements. And again, well, again, that, that— so along our frontage, we would do the, the multi-use path, right?

That includes where the improvements are. Well, yeah, but beyond— that's what I'm saying, like, that's where the right-of-way is limited. We can't just we're— we wouldn't be comfortable making a commitment to have offsite larger right-of-way than would be required to fit that 10-foot-wide multi-use path because we just don't have control of that right-of-way. Like, we can't dedicate the right-of-way for it. But where we can dedicate right-of-way, yeah, we're doing the 10— the 10-foot-wide multi-use path.

That is what we're doing. And then where you can't get— where you can't commit to the right-of-way, we— what's the, what's the plan there? Like where the road improvements are going? Yeah, I mean, it's— I think it's going to be limited by whatever right-of-way is there, and, and that— and what, generally speaking, what DOT is going to allow it within that right-of-way. Which isn't to say they wouldn't allow it, but I don't know that we— that it fits or it doesn't.

We haven't designed it. You can't commit to that, but I appreciate that., yeah, so I, you know, this is— we say all the time, these, these cases are all complicated, right? There's no perfect case here. I think for me, given the— I think we've had a lot of discussion here.

You've been generous with the aggressive proffer or the additional proffer in affordable housing, additional funds for DPS, the Robie improvements, the proffer for the 100-year storm, building the— building the greenway on site, as well as the restricting the development in the wildlife corridor. So to me, this is a— You know, this is a site that's largely mixed-use residential by the plan we've developed and approved as a community. So this is within their urban growth boundary. I think you've done a lot to really sort of, sort of flexes to the request of the council. I think by and large, and I think with the, with the Planning Commission recommendation 8-2 to approve this, I think this is a pretty good case.

So on balance, I think this crosses my threshold and I will be supportive of this case. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Cook. Oh no, you went first, right? Yeah, Mayor Pro Tem.

All right, I, I've been on council for a few years now, and I, I still sort of, still sort of get caught up in this, this 30-year affordable housing thing., you know, just if you buy it at an affordable rate, then you have to sell it at an affordable rate. And I'm still, after all these years, still trying to find a balance of not capping someone in from being able to grow their wealth, but also not allowing predatory purchasing where someone buys it and then flips it. Because obviously, we have corporations that are buying housing and outbidding individuals. Have you all explored— other more creative options where we can have for sale affordable options, but not, you know, trap them in for 30 years?

Well, I will just say this. For my client, they sell it one time. Right? And so when they commit to affordable housing, they are essentially, like I said earlier, taking a haircut. On that, on that unit, on that affordable unit.

There's no governmental subsidy or anything like that. They're just discounting the price on the unit. What it— I mean, for them, my client, what it sells for by the person they sold it to has no bearing on, you know, their business model, right? They've already sold it one time. The 30-year commitment is what is, standard and defined in the UDO, which is why we had that commitment there.

So I can say, like, we did not explore other options because we were kind of taking the term affordable housing to mean exactly what it says in the UDO and seeing how much of that we could provide in this development. But I mean, I understand what your point is, but, you know, I, I didn't— I don't know exactly what you have in mind, but if you were saying, could the restriction be 5 years instead of 30 years, I'm sure my client would be open to that because actually it doesn't make a difference to them, right? Because they're selling it the one time. Got it. Got it.

And I'm not prepared to let that be some determining factor tonight. It's just something I always battle with. And I hope that we can get creative, more creative. That's not necessarily specific to you all in this one case, but just— in general. And that's more so to my colleagues.

I hope that we can explore other options for folks to take advantage of and, you know, find a middle ground there. Also, I know I've been talking about this a bit lately. You know, when it comes to supporting our schools, I think about, you know, let's say it's $500 per child. And it's 10 children. If it goes to the schools, it goes to a capital project, and it doesn't really have any impact.

If it was to go to the Public School Foundation, that has a much larger impact. And I will be meeting with them to see if that's something that the school system and the foundation could potentially explore, just how we can have a— For the record, I'm a fan, but, you know, I'm just sticking to the— I'm trying to see how we can have a greater impact for our, for our students. I agree. And have more of a defined relationship between the city and the schools, considering they're not in our jurisdictional or fiscal portfolio., but okay, thank you.

Thank you. All right. Yes. Thank you., I just wanted to follow up on a couple of those EAB ones specifically the expansion of stream buffer widths where steep slopes or direct drainage to Panther Creek are present with buffers measured from the top of the slopes rather than the stream bank. So the issue— we couldn't even begin to say today what those areas are.

We wouldn't be able to make the commitment. It requires some, some, some further engineering, and we don't have that level of be comfortable to make that kind of commitment. Okay, and then for the no grading or clearing in the floodplain except where strictly necessary, I, I kind of think that's what our commitment already says. So the only thing that's allowed in the wildlife and floodplain corridors would be infrastructure, and that includes a greenway. Specifically, the greenway is going to require grading, in in those areas.

And we've already— I mean, we've adjusted our commitment to build the greenway, but it is infrastructure. I mean, I, I, I think they're kind of saying the same thing. Yes, they are worded differently, but I think they are practically getting at the same thing. We are not making impacts in floodplain that are not infrastructure. Okay, thank you.

Those are my questions. I just want to make a quick comment, which is that, I was really— I'm really was really undecided on this case. I still feel pretty undecided, but I'm actually— interesting, I think that Council Member Kopac asked a question about how our infrastructure would be developed if it's not done by a private developer. And we hear a lot on this DICE and from the applicant tonight about how improvements follow development, and we don't see the improvements until we see the people moving there. But we really don't see that.

And the reason that we don't see that is because those improvements are really, really expensive. And we have a huge backlog citywide, but mostly statewide, of infrastructure developments. And so if we're going to talk about, oh, this will follow when there's people that will follow, and then simultaneously we're hearing, oh, we're not going to be able to make the improvements that are already needed without developer money. We're not going to be able to make the ones that are subsequently needed. And like the improvements that are coming, they are coming because they are beneficial to the project.

And that is, that is what it is. It's not solving all of the traffic issues, and it in fact is going to create more traffic issues. And we already know that we don't have capacity in the state budget or the city budget in this moment to infill that need. And that has kind of taken me over the line on this because it's— we've seen so much development in this area. We've seen so much cutting of trees and, and we saw the heat map earlier.

And I think that's something that I've talked about quite a lot and I think is really important. This is a justice issue. It's— it is a longevity issue. If we want to think about Durham surviving long term with increased environmental storms and impact, we have to think about what will happen after these developments come through. And it might look nice because there's something shiny being dangled in front of us right now.

But if we can't sustain it moving forward, then like, what are we passing down? So it's going to be a no for me tonight. But I appreciate the proffers, and I think that we're getting closer, and I hope to see projects that are more sustainable moving forward. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. I wasn't going to say anything. Changed my mind., so I think that, and I appreciate what Council Member Cook just shared, I think part of it is actually about the infrastructure.

What we often talk about is around transit and commercial, because we often hear from residents around, well, this is too much residential, we want commercial. No one's going to put commercial if there's not enough doors. That's, that is actually an economic decision., and then transit, if you don't have ridership, you don't get transit. You're not— no one's going to run a bus down your street or anywhere close to you if there's not enough people around you to get on a bus.

So I think those are the two places. On the infrastructure with traffic, I think it was a few weeks ago where there was supposed to be a traffic circle at Latta and Roxborough, and it was in the STIP, then it wasn't in the STIP, and I still have to follow up with staff to figure out what happened there because I've been on the TPO long enough where I remember it was a funded project and then it wasn't. I will be voting for this project. I think that there are some deep and important commitments. I think that saving $2 million on traffic improvements that we don't know when will get improved, especially in the state funding.

And let's just be clear, the state of North Carolina has a scarcity mindset, but it's not because we don't have money. We don't have money because we don't tax our corporations at the level that we want, and that decision is not made on this dais., so for, for, for folks who really want to see infrastructure being done well in North Carolina, your General Assembly is the place that you need to go. So I love that y'all are here. I hope you also also go put some pressure not on your delegation in Durham because they're trying to do the right thing.

Pressure across the state. We have a ton of money in the state. We are an affluent state at this point. It's just misallocated and underfunded. And they're passing the buck on to you at the local level and by default us and Board of County Commissioners.

So I actually appreciate— and I had a question for staff in a second, but I think the commitment around building the trail and that commitment— I understand what you're saying about infrastructure in that the reason you can't make the commitment. I'm clear on that. That is also saving us a lot of money as a city. It is. These are decisions around— no case is perfect. I appreciate colleagues asking for more. Every case does offer a little bit more.

We got, you know, 5% to 8%. Is it ideal? No. None of these cases are often very ideal. You're always going to make tradeoffs, and that's why it's a case-by-case basis.

For the master planning and all of that, I get it. I think that we also have to be careful. Paris is master planned. There were still thousands of people who got their homes and businesses taken away from them because the king decided that they wanted to make what was a medieval city a beautiful city now. But I bet you those people who had lived through that had an opinion when things got eminently domained and taken from them, essentially.

And I'm sure they didn't get compensated in the same way you get compensated today when things get taken from you, from your property, by, by the government. But that's not how these cases work. We look, or at least I look at the comp plan, which was widely done.

Maybe folks in this room didn't participate. Maybe you did. But it was a multi-year process. And at least how I make my decisions is around how close did this project get to our goals. Sometimes they hit all of them, sometimes they don't.

Sometimes it's a mix. And you just kind of have to make your decision based on that. And each one of us make a calculus in a different way. And that doesn't make somebody a better or less than environmentalist or not. I think every single person on this council has made deep commitments to environmental justice, to housing affordability, not just here when we do rezonings.

I will be supporting the case. I did have a question for staff about the steep slopes because we got a presentation around that. I don't remember if it was at a work session or JCCPC, but we were going to do some adjustments to that, to how we were doing that. And I just wanted to know, I thought we talked about it in the— for the UDO. Maybe I'm Totally. I'm going to look to Director Young for that answer.

Thought it was at JCCPC where we were talking about how we were going to be approaching steep slopes. Director Young is going to look at you with a confused look on her face. Okay, I'm going to find— yeah, let's follow up. Okay, I thought we were talking about how we were going to approach it in a, in a different way, moving forward. It may have been so in the LDC we did slightly change the requirements for steep slopes.

That may have been what you were thinking. Yeah. And it was in a way that was better environmentally to what we're doing right now. Yes. Okay.

So for those folks who do show up, residents who show up, because this is an issue that, that gets brought up in cases often, that is coming, that has been addressed with the new LDC. And I just want to name that as another place that we're trying to improve our environmental policies with the adoption of the new land use code. Thank you.

Thank you. We are— well, thank you, Council Member— Mayor Pro Tem, for stating this chicken-egg situation. I usually just, you know, I sometimes I state those realities and I state my vote, and sometimes I don't. I just vote. But for the sake of the really nice messages that I've got in my email of how despicable I am for voting for development, refer to those comments and please take the energy to the state.

And I will join you because they are putting us in an impossible situation. If you think it's bad right now, wait until they come for our property tax and we won't have anything to do any services. So your City Council members are not your enemies. I I promise. All right, colleagues, my goal is to take a break at 9.

That was 29 minutes ago, and we have, two other cases that are probably going to be about an hour and a half to two each. So, I am gonna— too late to call out sick. All right, so, those are all the comments I have. I'll go ahead and call for the question. Yeah, I did close.

Oh no, I didn't actually. I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. I thought I did that though. I don't think so because— yeah, it's okay. All right, well, it's closed now, and all of the comments and questions were in the public hearing.

So, I'll entertain a motion to conduct a public hearing to receive comments and consider the following motion. Motions. Motion 1, to adopt an ordinance annexing Bella Ridge into the City of Durham and to authorize the City Manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with Starlight Homes North Carolina LLC. So moved. Second. So moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote.

The motion passes 4 to 3 with Council Members Baker, Burris, and Cook voting no. Thank you. I'll also entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance by taking property out of residential rural commercial neighborhood and residential suburban False Jordan District B Watershed Protection Overlay Major Transportation Corridor I-85 Overlay County jurisdiction and establishing the same as planned development residential 3.975, False Jordan District B Watershed Protection Overlay, Major Transportation Corridor I-85 Overlay, City's Jurisdiction. So moved. Second.

Been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. The motion passes 4 to 3 with Council Member Baker, Burris, and Cook voting no. Thank you. And I'll finally entertain a motion to adopt the consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 160D-605. So moved. Second. The motion properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much, colleagues. We will recess for 10 minutes and we'll get back to Do it.

I was going to say hi, but he's banging the— he's banging the gavel. All right, let's get started.

Colleagues, excuse me, colleagues, at this time I will be moving item number 24 to be next on the agenda, and we are ready for the staff report, item number 24.

Switching up the order on us. Had to figure out which one 24 was.

Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and honorable council members. I'm Aaron King with the Planning and Development Department. Item 24 is Z-2500030A/BDG-2500019, 9415 NC-751 Highway. A request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning map change has been received from Jared Rossi, of Thomas and Hutton for one parcel of land totaling 3.885 acres and located at 9415 NC 751 Highway. This annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits to connect to city water and sewer.

As part of this annexation petition, the applicant, the applicant is not seeking a change in the underlying zoning district of residential rural. The properties are currently designated mixed-use neighborhood on the place type map. The proposed residential rural zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type. Staff and the applicant are available to answer questions. Thank you. You've heard the staff report. Are there any questions? All right. At this time, I'll declare the public hearing open.

And are we ready for the applicant? How much time do you think you need? 45 minutes. I'm sorry. No, we'll take, we'll take 2 minutes. Okay. Okay. 2 minutes. Hopefully I can buy a book there. Jeremy Anderson, Thomas Nutton, Mayor Williams, Pro Tem Caballero, and Councilman. Thank you this evening for taking the time.

I'll keep this short to try to save some time. As Aaron Cook mentioned, this is a translational zoning to rural residential, just requesting an annexation into the city to access water and sewer for this 2.3-acre parcel at the corner of Fayetteville and 751. If you're familiar with the map in the report there, it's really kind of filling in the one last piece on the west side of 751. There, there is city zoning, city annexation zoning to the north and on the opposite side of 751. So with that, I hope you'll honor the recommendation of the Planning Commission, who voted 10-0 for this, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, I, I don't have any signups for this one. Therefore, I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Colleagues, any questions, comments? All right. So I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing 9415 North Carolina 751— Highway 751— into the City of Durham and to authorize the City Manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with 751 Investments, LLC. So moved. Second. Been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. And I'll also entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance by taking property out of residential rural Falls Jordan Watershed Overlay District B County jurisdiction and establishing the same as residential rural Falls Jordan Watershed Overlay District B overlay city jurisdiction. So moved. Second. Been moved and properly seconded. Matter of record, please open to vote. Please close the vote.

Motion passes 7-0. And lastly, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 161-605. It's been moved and properly seconded. Please open to vote and please close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Awesome. Back up to item number 22, which I know will be just as quick.

All right, ready for the staff report. I will say I will reduce comments to 2 minutes on this one, and 23 as well. It's not because I don't love you as much, it's just that It's a lot of signups. All right, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, council members, this case is Z2500011/BDG2500007 Patterson Hall. A request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning map change has been received from Tim Cybers of CUNY for 4 parcels of land totaling 39.849 acres and adjacent right-of-way located at 309, 353, 401, 402, and 505 Patterson Road.

This annexation petition is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits. However, it is contiguous to a satellite portion of the city. The current zoning is Residential Rural and Residential Suburban 10. The applicant proposes to change the designation of one parcel, read 166353, and the portions of three parcels with reads 166352, 166250, and 166349, located west of Patterson Road, to planned development residential 44.703, to allow up to 180 townhouse, attached single-family, and detached single-family units. With up to 3,000 square feet of non-residential uses, excluding gasoline sales and drive-through facilities.

The remaining portions of these parcels on the east side of Patterson Road will be translated into the City of Durham as Residential Rural and Residential Suburban 10 as direct translations. The properties are currently designated mixed-use neighborhood on the placetype map. The proposed PDR 4.703 zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments for staff? I've got one question. Yep. Mr. Kane, on the— this is in the zoning map change report under the commitments and nexus of the UDO.

There in the— this is page 3, at the very bottom of page 3, it says— I just want to clarify that the, the document, it says at least 2%, but then in parentheses it's got 20% of the required open space shall contain environmentally sensitive areas, including all or a portion of the stream buffer. So is that— is that 2 or 20? I believe that's supposed to be a 20. Yes, that's supposed to be 20. Okay, my apologies for the error.

Thank you. That's it. All right, we'll let the record reflect that. All right, I'll declare the public hearing open. And how much time do you think you need? If we could have 12 minutes, please. 15 minutes, please.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, members of council. My name is Marie Farmer with Parker Poe, 301 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, here on behalf of the applicant, MI Homes. I am joined tonight by the project's landscape architect, Tim Syvers, with CUNY, the project's transportation planner, John Schick with DRMP, and representatives of MI Homes, including Juan P. Montes, Director of Land Entitlements. The team is proud to present this moderately sized mixed-use project tonight with numerous commitments to address the project's impact, including a first-of-its-kind voluntary transportation improvement that, in addition to the affordable proffer and donation to Durham Public Schools, will provide a total community investment of $1 million.

And I has been developing in this area for 25 years with communities throughout the Triangle. We wanted to illustrate a few examples of homes and amenities that MI has delivered locally to show the type of quality to expect from this developer. And I also has experience building communities here in Durham with several subdivisions currently under construction, including one that is providing a 5-acre public park. Park with multiple play structures and a pavilion with public restrooms. The project we are discussing tonight and the request is to rezone 4 parcels adjacent to city limits within the urban growth boundary along Patterson Road, just north of the Patterson and Wake Forest Highway intersection, that total a little under 40 acres.

The property is surrounded by city limits And the proposal is consistent with Policy 165 of the Comprehensive Plan because it will expand those limits and reduce the existing donut hole. Despite the site being located at the bottom of the Patterson Road future growth area, the proposal does further the Comprehensive Plan Policy Objective, 122, because it will upgrade sewer capacity with a public lift station. That will connect to the existing gravity sewer in Stallings Road, and there will be stubs provided to the adjacent parcels.

The current zoning on the site is Residential Rural and Residential Suburban 10, and we are requesting PDR with a development plan to allow for a mixed residential development with a neighborhood-scale commercial use consistent with the place type. The property is designated mixed-use neighborhood by the place type map, and our proposal meets this designation because we are proposing a mix of uses and housing types at a moderate density with integrated open space that will capture the environmentally sensitive features on site.

Again, this request is offering a number of key text commitments. We have committed to a minimum of 2 housing types, 10% of the units featuring a first floor primary bedroom and full bath. We, for the nonresidential use tonight, we are adding a minimum size for the nonresidential building of 1,000 square feet. We have committed to income restricted units or donation to the dedicated housing fund, and tonight we would also like to increase that amount. To $285,000.

We have committed to EV charging stations, a green building program, maximum 50% impervious surface, a maximum of 2 stream crossings, native trees, 20% of required open space containing environmentally sensitive features, and 22% tree coverage. At Planning Commission, we also increased our contribution to Durham Public Schools to $15,000, which comes out to more than $1,500 per student that would be generated by this new zoning. We have added a commitment for the 100-year storm, and we added a commitment for a third row of silt fence adjacent to the stream. After Planning Commission, in response to feedback we received, including feedback that we heard from Preserve Old Durham, we added a commitment to address the 100-year storm for the erosion control sediment basins so that we are addressing the 100-year storm for both pre and post construction.

While we submitted this application as a textual development plan at Planning Commission, we did provide this visual that you see here on screen to preview the concept plan. And while this does not represent graphic commitments of the zoning, our goal was to provide clarity as to where the project's access points, boundaries, stream buffers, and integrated open space would be located. So you can see here the two access points off of Patterson Road, a minimum 30-foot, undisturbed project boundary buffer in dark green. You can see the 100-foot stream buffer in dark blue, the integrated recreational open space in orange, the existing sewer easement in light green, And then the planned location for the commercial out parcel is highlighted by the white star.

Since Planning Commission, to provide an extra layer of certainty, MI decided to take the financial risk and submit the site plan for this project in advance of tonight's hearing, so that there is no doubt as to what the plan is for this site. As you can see, the site plan matches the concept that was previewed at Planning Commission. Providing a mix of housing types, only one stream crossing, integrated open space, and the commercial out parcel at the second access point. And this plan shows 150 homes. To address our consistency with Policy 50 of the Comprehensive Plan, because the site is not located within half a mile of a public park, we did want to also illustrate that this project is less than 700 feet.

From the Oak Grove Associates athletic fields. Overall, this request is consistent with 23 out of 26 applicable policies of the comprehensive plan by meeting UDO standards with 11 policies and exceeding those standards of consistency with 12.

In addition to the multiple changes to the project that we made at and after Planning Commission, we also voluntarily studied the project's impact to the Wake Forest Highway and Sharon Patterson Road intersection, because traffic has been the biggest concern that we have heard from the community for this case. Now, despite the anticipated impact of this project being less than 5%, our team explored several options to improve traffic flow at the intersection. We worked with city staff and DOT, and we are proud to have added a commitment for voluntary improvement that City Transportation and DOT agree will be the most impactful to traffic flow out of the options that we evaluated. So before concluding our presentation, I would like to invite Tim Syvers to come up and briefly explain what this improvement is, and then Juan P. Montes with MI Homes would like to come up and say a few words about this request and the reason MI is grateful to have the opportunity to make, make an investment here in Durham. Thank you.

Thank you, Marie. Tim Syvers with CUNY, 16 Consultant Place here in Durham., you can see on the screen our two options., we did, as mentioned, we did spend time reviewing, multiple ideas and narrowed this down to these two options., we met with City Transportation and DOT about both of these.

Option 1 would approximately double the length of the eastbound right turn lane, would allow— while it would allow more vehicles through this intersection, it didn't quite have the impact that we were looking for. So tonight, and in the pre— and working with staff, we have already committed to Option 2., and after meeting with Transportation and City of DOT, They both agreed that this option provides— which would provide a second lane through this intersection is more effective and impactful solution. So starting on the left side of your screen, the eastbound right turn lane, which is in front of Walgreens, will become a shared through and right turn lane. The through lane will be extended from the intersection approximately 100— 1,100 feet to the east.

The through lane will also be a right turn lane into the shopping center of Ravenstone as well as Arbor Edge Lane. This improvement will increase the flow of traffic through this intersection headed east towards Wake Forest by doubling the number of through lanes at the intersection. So we have heard the concerns of the neighbors and understand the concerns with this specific intersection and have provided this voluntary improvement here this evening. And now I'd like to hand it off to Juan P. Montes with MI Homes.

Good evening, Mayor Williams and members of the Durham City Council. My name is Juan P. Montes, and I'm with MI Homes, the developer for both this case and the Morgan Farm case, which you will hear momentarily. I want to take a moment and let you hear directly from MI our intentions with the Patterson project. As a Durham resident myself that lives off Sharon Road, just a few seconds from the Sharon-Patterson-Wake Forest Highway intersection, I deal with congestion here every day. And definitely share the public's main concern.

While it does bring me frustration to sit in traffic, it also fuels me with motivation as a land developer and as a home builder to do what I can do to improve the community I live in, as well as the communities we and my homes invest in. This is why we work closely with Durham and NCDOT to voluntarily commit to improve the intersection at its most congested point. We were not held to, have a TIA on this project, meaning this, this level of study is quite unprecedented. Despite Patterson's proposed, traffic impacts being less than 5%, not required to perform a TIA, In My Homes is willing to, contribute a $700,000 improvement to this intersection. I'm also very aware of Durham's urgency to supply affordable housing to its fast-growing population.

I work every day to— we work every day to find solutions, innovative techniques and strategies to help our younger generations purchase their first homes and our older generations to purchase their retirement homes. We're proposing a commitment of $285,000 to the dedicated housing fund, or 5% of the units at 80% AMI, as is Durham standard. A $285,000 contribution is approximately $1,900 per unit that can be invested into affordable housing projects, down payment assistance, and other mechanisms that the city has available to face the housing crisis. We believe this contribution will strengthen the city's ability to pivot whenever market, market conditions shift, which they inevitably will. In addition to the transportation improvements and affordable housing contributions, we are contributing $15,000 to Durham Public Schools, which is about 3 times the standard, to get us to a total of $1 million of voluntary investment into this great community.

In My Homes is no stranger to Durham and will be around for the foreseeable future, as we've already broken ground on large projects that also invest heavily into the community. As you've seen with our past and ongoing projects, the project— the Patterson project, and how— hope you will see the Morgan Farm project, we've left no stone unturned in our mission to be the best partner and investor of Durham and its residents that we can be. I thank you for your time tonight, and I hope you support the cases MI has presented in front of you tonight.

I just like to say thank you, and, the applicant team is available to answer any questions. Thank you. We have quite a few speakers here, for this one. We'll start online., first speaker I have is Mary Molina. Ms. Molina, can you hear me?

I'm here. Can you hear me? Oh, there you go. Welcome. You have 2 minutes. Okay, thank you. My name is Mary Molina. My address is on file., this Patterson Hall proposal represents exactly the kind of reckless leapfrog development that our comprehensive plan was designed to stop. Council Member Rist, when you ran for your at-large seat, you campaigned on a platform of widely shared prosperity and a healthier environment. This project contradicts those very promises.

It ignores our urban growth boundary, it overburdens our failing fire services, and it threatens the Falls Lake watershed. Ground zero of our city's drinking water. As we look ahead to the 2027 election cycle, we're watching to see if our representatives will prioritize the safety of our rural corridors over the profits of developers. Council Member Rist, we haven't forgotten the principles you said you stood for to get here. We need you to help.

We need you to vote to hold the line to protect our water and protect our safety. Don't let more sprawl dictate Durham's future. Vote no on Patterson Hall. Thank you. Next, I have, Geraldine Larson.

I'm here. Welcome. You have 2 minutes. Thank you, and thank you all for your thoughtful consideration. We've been listening all evening to— as you go over these proposals.

We are, longtime 50-year residents on Patterson Road, and we are very concerned about progress— the desires of the developers preceding the repairs that have been needed for years to the intersection and to the infrastructure in, in this section of Durham., I— it sounds like there's a— there's an idea that we should rely on the developers perhaps for improvements, but we feel like this should be done in coordination with city and county governments before we allow a lot of explosive development. So much is happening in our area. We're so close to Highway 98. I appreciate the proposal and thought that's gone into the road improvements, but there are more intersections than just 98 and Sharon Road and Patterson.

There's also Stallings Road coming right in. I'm not sure all the feeder roads are considered in that plan, and it's, it's where it's very worrisome to us for safety. And we're 30-year, my husband and I are 30-year retired, educators in the Durham Public Schools, and we value quality, we valued, we value change, we value improvements, but they need to be aligned. They need to be aligned in the right order.

Thank you. Ray Larson stepping in. We've lived here for like 55 years and it's a wonderful community with tremendous traditions of rural farming and nature. And this intrusion is going to ruin a long tradition of things that we've had there that mean a lot to us. And I hope you consider that before you develop unnecessarily when we have plenty of growth in other areas.

Thank you very much, and we appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this, this part of Durham, which is not only special to us, but we think special. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next, I have Rebecca Freeman.

Hello, I'm Rebecca Freeman. Welcome, you have 2 minutes. Okay, thank you very much., thank you, Mayor and, council members. I appreciate being able to speak on this tonight.

I wanted just to focus on Policy 116, 171, and 116, which focuses around the 15-minute community and access to shopping areas. I think that the upgrades that the, is committed now to Patterson Road is really a step forward. But however, it does nothing to protect pedestrians and to move traffic along like needs to be done to get through that intersection. There are— pedestrian crosswalk upgrade with a pedestrian signal at the intersection would be vital to making this safety safer for pedestrians as well as improving the sidewalk on the opposite side of the north side, I think north side, towards Highway 70, then we would be required to, for people to safely navigate that whole area. There are 5 lanes to cross in C-98, and that's a busy, busy thoroughfare carrying people from past, on the other side of Falls Lake and Wake Forest area all the way into Durham.

There are no other good ways to get on the other side of Falls Lake, except NC 98 is a major thoroughfare, lots of traffic there all day long, and especially in the morning and the evening. And it's just a very difficult intersection to navigate safely. There are lots of accidents there, and pedestrians would be extremely in putting their lives in danger and walking through that, actually trying to access the shopping area in the pedestrian area as well. So I appreciate that there's a step forward, but it's not enough. To make sure that the people in this area can navigate to the 15-minute community style that the city wants us to get toward.

And it has to be more than just the want to do it. It's got to make, make sure that pedestrians and traffic— traffic is safe, pedestrians are safe as well. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Next, Thomas Freeman.

Yes, good evening. Pass the phone over. There we go. Yes, welcome. You have 2 minutes. All right, I hope you can hear me. I was signed up to speak, within a previous, hearing but was not given the opportunity to speak. I wish you got— needed— you need to look into that, Mr. Mayor. I hold you personally responsible for that. Yes, sir.

Right ahead to blasting. We're— I'm looking for a request for a commitment to no blasting. Blasting creates lots of problems, and I guarantee you, if you ask the proponent if there will be blasting, they will not be able to answer you. I suggest they look around at their dozens of projects that have been built. Look at the USGS topo, soils maps, and they will know that yes, blasting is a requirement to get to the— to a mass graded high density site.

Blasting has caused well damages. We are currently in a USGS D3 extreme drought condition. There's 270,000 people in Durham County that's subject to this drought because we are on well water. We don't have the luxury to turn on the spigot and have the city of— city of Durham's water come through our pipes. They're actually— I'm tired of being held hostage to that.

I'd also like to talk about the commitment to undisturbed buffers. Undisturbed buffers are a requirement. Any otherwise, clear, other uses may be, may occur within that buffer unless it is designated as undisturbed. That's all I have this evening. Good night. Good night. Thank you. Next, I have Chaz Clayton.

Welcome. Yeah, you have 2 minutes. Welcome. All right, thank you, sir. Yes, again, my name is Chaz Clayton. My address should be on file., I am a farmer in this location, and, I have a lot of concerns regarding this., we have a— we have bad traffic issues as it is. The roads are not maintained. As enough.

You have the intersection of 98 and it is always backed up past this location where they're talking about the development Friday afternoon. So anybody's more than welcome to go get in that traffic. With me traveling with equipment every day, I have people potentially try to run me off the road, flick me off. The settlement in this area for farmers is bad enough. It's going to cause it to be worse.

And we put thousands of dollars in it every year just trying to make ends meet. I have kids, I have a wife, I have a family. So when you lay your head down at night or you pick up your fork to eat some food, please think of the farmer that helps put that on your plate and how I'm having to try to make ends meet and survive. Thank you. Thank you so much. Kate Ham— ahem.

I'm sorry, that's item number 23. All right, we're in person at this point. All right, I'm gonna call up a few names, then 5 at a time. You can queue to my right, your left. Mike Rowe, Coco Rowe, Andy Lowe, Donna Stanback, and Gary McClain.

Welcome. You have 2 minutes. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight. My name is Mike Rowe.

I live at 5602 Dude Ranch Road. I'm a resident close to the area of this development. I'm not going to take a lot of time. I just want to primarily support— voice my support for the comments that have already been made in this matter, and also just wanted to emphasize again that The Planning Commission did review this project and did unanimously vote not to approve, and I hope that the council will take that into consideration, when making your decision tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. You have 2 minutes. Thank you. Hi, my name is Coco Rowe and I'm 15 and I live on 5602 Dude Ranch Road, just up the road from the project, and I have some concerns I'd like to voice. Destroying this forest will be detrimental. It will take away habitat from the wildlife and pollute Falls Lake. I've lived here my entire life. I grew up playing in these woods. This isn't just land, it's a home.

A home for the animals, a home to me. I do not want to grow up in a place where nature is scarce, where it has become an afterthought. Please do not take this away from me and from everyone who will come after me. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. You have 2 minutes.

Hello, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, rest of the City Council. Good evening., I'm here tonight to to actually speak in favor of this project. I've been following Durham City Council for a few months now and keep a close eye on what comes through here, what gets approved, et cetera. Thank you.

And this is a pretty significant amount of proffers. I've actually been stuck at that intersection before. I don't live in this part of Durham. I live near downtown, but I've driven my way out there to go— there's various things out there to go and see. And I've been stuck in front of that Walgreens.

So if this does get approved, I will look forward to that intersection being a little better. So I appreciate that from the developer. And furthermore, this level of proffer is something that this council and commentators even tonight and other meetings have talked at length about wanting to see. I mean, this is a significant infrastructure improvement being done by a developer right now before the— this should be the state, right? We can all agree this should be the state doing this, but it's not.

It's gonna be MIHOMES if we approve this here tonight. And approving homes that are in basically a suburban area. This is not that rural area anymore. This area has grown. Durham is growing.

Raleigh's growing. They're growing together here at 98 in Southeast Durham. So I do hope you all approve this here tonight. I would love to get past that Walgreens a little quicker, as would just about everybody who lives over there, drives through, really commutes through that area, which is a source of a lot of the traffic. So thank you. Gary. Good evening. My name, Good evening, Mayor Williams, and also City Council. My name is Gary McClain. My address is on file.

I've been here numerous times. I want to talk about the blasting and the— we're afraid of the water. We know it'll be blasting in this area where they're going to develop, and I have a well, and I know that it disrupts the underground aquifers, and wells are going dry, homes are getting destroyed, and stuff like that. The traffic is another thing. It's just a deadlock out there at this intersection.

I live about 2 miles from it and I go down Patterson Road every day. Stallings Road, people are coming from Creedmoor and Oxford and everything over to RTP and they're coming down Patterson Road and that's a 2-lane secondary road but it's like I-85. I mean, I don't— God be with the farmers that's out there on the roads with the tractors. And it's just, I don't know what's up with y'all's minds because you just keep approving these developments and everything. And I mean, we're in a drought right now and it's mid-April, early spring, and we're already— I think we have 60 days worth of water before we go into restrictions.

And what are we going to do? How are we going to sell 1,547 homes right now? Ready to be rented and ready to be bought and everything. How are we going to sell it if we don't have water out there? You know, I mean, it's just— it doesn't make sense to me.

We just keep building and building and building and we don't have an unlimited amount of water. And y'all need to think about it, you know, because that's something we've got to have to survive. We can get by a few days without food, but if you don't have water, you ain't going to have— you ain't going to need sewage and you ain't going to need a whole lot of anything else. Thank you.

Thank you., next I have Donna Stanback, Tammy Sawaya, Pam Williams, Tina Motley, Pearson, Pam Andrews.

Wanda Allen.

I'm here. I need to see— call. I'll be right back.

Hi, my name is Tina Motley Pearson and my address is on file. I would first like to highlight that multiple required policies have not been met for the Patterson Hall project. Notably, the Planning Commission voted 9 to 0 against this development.

Policy 119 has not been satisfied as it requires adequate levels of service for emergency response, police, and overall community safety. This site is bordered by Stallings Road on one side and Patterson Road on the other. You can see that in the, the map there. It has been suggested that Patterson Road does not require fire service, but this is misleading and cherry-picking data. Only a small area qualifies due to its location to the critical watershed.

Most of Patterson Road lies outside the urban growth area. The selective use of data raises a fundamental concern. How can one side of the development require fire service while the other side does not? Both the east and west sides clearly require adequate fire protection. Additionally, Policy 122 identifies future growth areas where infrastructure and service upgrades are necessary.

Development in these areas require corresponding public infrastructure. While the highlighted areas show a clear need for fire service, there are also documented concerns regarding sewer capacity. This is not a gray area. The policies have not been met. The infrastructure is not in place. The risks are real. Approval of this project would be premature and irresponsible. Thank you so much. Thank you., Ms. Andrews. Would— yeah, yeah, okay. I was like, wait, maybe you're not next.

Good evening, Pamela Andrews. All right, got to go fast with this. There are two City of Durham fire stations in Southeast Durham, Station 8 and Station 17, along with the county-funded Redwood Volunteer Fire Station. These units will respond to calls to over 68 new developments in our area. Next.

January 2026, the fire equipment got relocated Station 17 lost its ladder truck along with the 3 firefighters that manned that ladder truck. No replacement vehicle was put there. We have an engine truck there, a tanker truck there, 4 firefighters instead of 7. We lost 3. Got it?

Station 8 had a vehicle swap but kept the same number of firefighters, 3. So the net loss, 3 firefighters and a ladder truck. Next. Station 8 is the primary station for this parcel. It has a quint truck, a multifunctional truck now with only 3 total firefighters, 2 bays, no room for EMS.

Next. The national response time is 6 minutes and 30 seconds for fire and EMS per the national code. At 11:29 PM, when most of the roads are void of traffic, a structure fire took place on January 27th, 2026, at 629 Patterson Road, adjacent to this property. The chart shows the actual response times. How many of those were within the 6 minutes and 30 seconds target time?

Two. Redwood Volunteer Fire Station and Quint 8. All the others were not within the federal or the national response time. Numerous units are needed to put out a structure fire, not just 8 and 17. Nine fire trucks were present to put out this fire.

Two tanker trucks never made it there. The tanker trucks are needed because this is county and we don't have fire hydrants in the county. Total time of the fire call, 2 hours and 12 minutes. In the 2022 audit, the Durham response time, it was stated in a fire there is one thing that matters more than any other thing— response times. A few minutes could be the difference between preserving life and property and someone dying. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Tammy Sway, my address is on file. I want to go and expand on what, Pam was just talking about, firing EMS. We don't have infrastructure here. Just tonight on social media, a former Planning Commission personnel noted that he had a cardiac incident in October He is near Leesville Road and Station 17 responded. Those EMTs that responded are now in Station 8.

If he— if EMS or nobody was available to respond, the outcome could have been different. And that's one of your fellow planning commissioners. EMS, we talked about how it's in the county. The county runs it. It has never been evaluated. It's still not being evaluated here. So some of the recent posts that I want to make you aware of. There was a carnival here in Durham. There was a person having multiple seizures at a carnival at 9:50. No EMS available.

Asking Person, Wake County, and Granville County to respond. Also at the carnival, a 10-year-old was having a heat stroke. The police was in— was with this child. They were asking for EMS to help. There was no EMS there.

Police, as you know, we are short on police, and there's a 12-minute drive to get there. And coming from that way, there's still no infrastructure or transportation, plans to widen that so that, the police could get to Patterson, Road. Sewer capacity, we know that the lift station, the little Creek is close to capacity. PRD has been tracking approval dwellings, so there's almost 3,500 approved dwellings not permitted yet, and you're going to be adding more. Why?

Back to the development and growth. Why do we need it? This is the future growth area. We don't need it now. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Pam Williams, and I'm going to go through these slides pretty fast because you've already heard about all the congestion in the area. Here on Stallons Road, which is this road right here, 1,200— whoops, right there, right there— 1,200 linear feet of cars was backed up on this during the week, and it's like that almost every day. Think about 1,200 cars on a single-lane road trying to get through this congestion. Here again is 98 and the congestion.

98, 98. Here's Stallings and Patterson Road and the congestion and the big trucks coming through trying to make those turns. Here I want to bring to everyone's attention for at the City Council, those especially who's on the TPO board, and if you have any influence This is a project that has been proposed since 2018 in the corridor study that was done by CAMPO and Durham MPO. Also in 2022, a traffic forecast was done on the same project. And I have highlighted the project in yellow so you could see what they proposed for the realignment.

And this is needed. It's just not us here in the community saying it's needed. NCDOT is saying it's need at CAMPO and the MPO or the TPO now. Say, here is Patterson Hall. As you can see, this comes across on that.

So traffic congestion, the pro— this project has regional impact, and additional peak flow traffic has, impacts not measured here. So, You just— we just want the, the city, the county to get in and understand that this is a problem in this area. We need help from our city officials and our county officials to get a project like this done to improve this horrible intersection, traffic congestion, and crashes.

Thank you. Thank you. Miss Steinbach. Good evening, I'm Donna Steinbach, address is on file. The— this proposed site is less than 1 mile from several, volunteer ag districts and present use value farms, and, the— they're highlighted in red.

There are many small farms that are not shown. The, the planning staff consistency review did not reflect the land use conflicts and the rural impacts or the non-contiguous status. The density is significantly higher than surrounding areas. All around, up and down, Patterson Road is single-family homes and, and, and farms. There are not any dense developments.

The densest development that's nearby is 1.53, units per acre, while this is proposed to be 4.7. So, per the Planning Commissioner, co-chair Cameron, this location continues to face documented persistent changes including well water disruption to the existing company residents and increase in unsafe traffic for agricultural operations, general traffic congestion that impedes emergency response times and environmental, degradation., there are no townhouses either on, on Stallings Road, so this proposal would not maintain its rural character. So the comprehensive Plan Policy 120 is not met. Policy 47 is not met since this policy does not satisfy through size and form respect the existing neighborhood character.

It does not., yes, I— the, of course, major concern, this is non-contiguous. And, thank you. Policy 165 is not met because it's not needed, it's not a benefit to the residents. Thank you, thank you. Real quick, before you start, just— I want to go ahead and call the last because I just have a couple minutes. So after Miss Allen, I have Vicki King, Astrid Cook, Pablo Friedman, and Talmage Layton.

Those are the folks, and then that, that rounds us up. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Allen. Hi, I'm Wanda Allen. My, address is on file.

I'd like for you to look at this slide. This site includes multiple stream crossings that drain directly into Little Lick Creek and to Falls Lake Raleigh's drinking water. Both are already impaired water listed for sediment and water pollution. Yet this proposal relies on minimum stormwater standards that are already failing in the areas like this, especially with steep slopes and highly unstable trassic soil. The results are predictable: more settlement, more pollution, more stress on already impaired water sources.

Look at this slide. It's basically saying over 60% of this site has steep slopes. To build here, the land must be heavily graded and cleared, disturbing large areas of fragile soil. Get it, you guys? Disturbed plastic soil, you get runoff, sediment pollution every time. We've seen it across Southeast Durham. Look at this one. Falls Lake impact. The sediment is already reducing Falls Lake water storage. That means weaker flood controls, less reliable, less reliable water supply.

Simply put, you cannot manage water and increasing sediment at the same time. Or if the lake is filled with sediment, you can't fill it with water. As we have seen in many of these photos, best management practices are not working, you guys. They are not working. Approving this project or proposed will increase sediment and pollution into an already stressed water supply. Thank you.

Thank you. Vicki King.

Hi, my name is Vicki King. My address is on file. I'm here once again to ask, do not pass this development. You must, and I repeat, you must have the appropriate number of fire apparatus to make sure that the ISO ratings are covered ISO ratings are very important when you're having to pay for your homeowner's insurance. Keep all that in mind.

The traffic is a nightmare. It's already been covered. The developer has made a thoughtful effort into improving that intersection, but it's not— I'm not sure it's going to do any good. It's my understanding that Oak Grove Athletic Association was a private park. It's been a private park all my life. It's not open to the general public. I think you have to be a member to use that park. But my questions and the questions of the citizens of Durham still stand.

What's Durham going to do when you run out of water? What's Durham going to do when 911 doesn't answer? Where you going to put all that crap that you're letting the pumps pump back into the sewer system? Thank you.

Hi, hi, my name is Astrid Cook and, my address is on record and I'm speaking on behalf of the Durham Durham County Environmental Affairs Board Land Use and Planning Subcommittee. I'll lead with our proffers., in short, we do not support this proposal as is, but would with the following textual commitments: preservation of tree coverage at a minimum of 35% canopy across the site, commitment to all preserved tree coverage to be contiguous to avoid fragmentation, and maintain ecological function. Stream buffers and wetlands on site shall remain fully undisturbed with no crossings except where necessary and no sewer crossings. Incorporation of distributed low-impact development strategies including infiltration, bioretention, and dispersion to minimize concentrated discharge into Little Lick Creek and its tributaries.

These strategies shall be supported by construction practices that minimize subsurface disturbance sediment mobilization, including a prohibition on blasting across the site, implementation of turbidity monitoring during and after construction to assess impacts to Little Lake Creek with results made available to the city, commitment to stormwater containment and control during construction, including management of runoff from large storm events prior to final infrastructure installation, commitment to limiting impervious surface and building envelope to additional setback of 100 feet from the stream buffers, and a site-specific erosion and sedimentation control, control strategy prepared by a qualified professional that explicitly addresses the behavior of Triassic Basin soils, including phased grading, rapid soil stabilization, and redundant control measures. Oh, I have a little bit more time., the proposed level of tree preservation is an area of concern. While the inclusion of tree preservation and replacement is noted and appreciated, the overall canopy coverage remains lower than Durham Oh, stated goal, 55%. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. All right, good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, members of City Council, City Manager, those in the audience, and the millions of viewers online who care care about good governance., I'm here tonight to speak against the proposal for— that's before you tonight. And I want to go back to 2 meetings ago. 2 meetings ago, the expectation from— sorry, one moment. Madam Clerk, can you please— thank you.

We good? All right, all right., 2 meetings ago, the expectation from developers was a proffer of $500 per net student to the school system. That was the expectation. Okay, the lawyer representing the applicant at the last meeting sort of said, okay, I'm going to bump it up $100 to $600.

That's good. I believe in public goods and all. I know all of you do as well. By the end of that meeting, thanks to the comments and advocacy of Council Member Kopac, it went up to $1,000, which is great for the public good, right? And now at the same meeting— same, or sorry, tonight's meeting, same lawyer, new app, new proposal— it's now ballooned per net people $1,600.

$66 according to my math. It's a little bit higher than what, she said earlier, which is great for public schools. But we talk about the expectation that should now be the ex— the floor. Okay, the proposal after this one, the perp— and I know, I know they're going to talk about what they're going to do, but if you divide the $50,000 proffer by the net 14 students, you're looking at a net proffer of $3,000 per student. So in the span of a couple meetings Here in this governing body, we've gone from $500 to $3,000 to applicants.

That needs to be the expectation for when we talk about new developments, what we're going to approve, right? And I hope that becomes the floor that the applicant tonight agrees to, because the one right after it is offering $3,000 per net student. And I know all of you care about public schools up on there, and so I would hope you do everything that you can for our public schools. Thank you very much.

Thank you., good, finish it out. Okay, thank you. Good evening, my name is Talbot Layton., I farm in this area, and over the years I have had 5 farms on Patterson Road And, it is really hard to get equipment up the road with the kind of traffic y'all are talking about providing for us up there.

Also, Sharon Road is across the intersection 98 from Patterson. Had two farms over there that I tended up until this year, and, we were getting about 200 round bales a year off of them. Off of one of them had about 1,000 bales of square bales. Well, 200 round bales would bring in $50 apiece. So we were getting about $6,000 out of those, that farm.

And we got about 1,000 square bales off of it that sold for $7 a bale, which is $7,000 for that one. But Anyway, the— what y'all are doing to the rural area out here is tragic. Also, I have in my possession at home two studies that were done, one in Durham and one in Wake County, and those studies showed what was taken in by the city for three different types of land in the city. One was commercial, one was residential, and one was rural farmland. The rural farmland, for every dollar in taxes we paid, the county made about 40 cents a dollar for each dollar we paid on taxes.

The development land cost the county in services about $1.40 a dollar for taxes, and the commercial property made about 30 cents per dollar. And I don't see how we can continue to do this without the county going broke with the way we're, we're doing development land if it's costing you a half a dollar for every dollar you're taking in. So I appreciate y'all's time, and I saved a little bit of time for my past thing, and I appreciate it. Thank y'all for out for what you do.

Mr. Mayor, do you want to take back over? You want me to keep going? All right, thank you. So those are all of the speakers that we have signed up for this, and, we'll just— the applicant would like to respond.

Yes, just briefly., we would like to address some of the comments made about the future growth area, the transportation improvement, and then the consistency with the surrounding area and the city's plans., the future growth areas— it sounds like there is some misunderstanding of what those are and how they apply to this site. So, to be clear, the future growth areas are located within the urban growth boundaries. And according to the Comprehensive Plan, are areas that are appropriate for development once certain identified infrastructure is upgraded to serve new development.

So the Comprehensive Plan says that this could be provided by City Planning, funded by a CIP, or by private investment. And this is why Policy 166 of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the future growth areas to be evaluated for updates. Either to be added or to be removed every other year based on public investments, housing supply, and population growth. And so all of that is to say that it is not a static designation, and based on private investment, the designation can be removed and should be removed according to the comprehensive plan. To be clear, sewer— the only identified infrastructure needed for growth for this future growth area is sewer.

Not fire. And this project will again build a lift station and connect to gravity sewer in Stallings Road, and will provide an opportunity for other projects to connect consistent with Policy 122. There are 5 out of 8 of the future growth areas that were shown on screen earlier that identify fire, and again, this is just not one of them. So that is, incorrect to say that that is an identified one for this for this area. Staff has also found this request is consistent with Policy 119 of the Comprehensive Plan, which does call for new developments to be within established levels of service for emergency services.

Now, as it relates to the transportation improvement, we would, defer to staff, but it is our understanding that there are no planned projects to address issues at this intersection currently. And so without private investment, improvements will not occur. The realignment of Stallings Road that was mentioned is no longer on the plans because it is our understanding that it is not funded. Again, this project is only anticipated to impact the intersection less than 5%, and DOT has confirmed that this would improve the traffic flows at the intersection. We recognize that this will not improve everything.

But this will improve the operation of the intersection as it exists currently. And then finally, just to address consistency with the surrounding area and the city's plans, this project is within close proximity to existing food and retail that exists right at that intersection that we are discussing. It is again adjacent to city limits. The city's place type map calls for the site to be a mixed-use neighborhood. And it was mentioned that there is no density that is comparable.

But if you look at Attachment A of the staff report, you can clearly see that there is PDR 10.602 just off of Wake Forest Highway, and that project is currently under construction. So it is not true to say that this is higher than any of the other density in the surrounding area. And finally, I would just note that we are again providing that 30-foot buffer around the entire project, which will help keep the character of the surrounding area. So thank you again for your time, and our team is available to answer questions.

Thank you. Those are all the speakers that I have for this case, so therefore I will declare the public hearing closed and back before the council All right, Council Member Burris kicking us off. I have a question for the applicant.

Did I forget my question? Okay, so, based on what you discussed tonight, you have offered proffers around affordable housing as either 5% at 80% AMI or the $285,000 for the dedicated housing fund. So are you basically asking for council to provide guidance on which of those offers, or like, how would we plan to move through that or work through that? So the, the reason that we, put the commitment as it is, is essentially to, ensure that the project is ultimately, able to deliver the units that have been committed to. So because we have committed to the $700,000 transportation improvement, we have, committed to the increased amount to Durham Public Schools Schools, the total investment here is $1 million when the density of this project is only 150 units.

And so we have put in that flexibility of the donation or the 5% to make sure that this project ultimately pencils. Well, I think that wasn't my question., I was asking, like, are you asking Council to provide directive on which opportunity— like, which way to go? If there is directive that Council wants to provide, we will certainly take that feedback. Yes.

Okay, and then do you have like what the price point for townhomes would be? So the price points, for the homes would, be consistent, with the surrounding area. I think townhomes in this area right now are around high $300s to low $400s, and then the single-family homes are around mid-$400s to low $500s. Okay, thank you so much., I won't be long, I don't have any additional questions for you, so that's fine.

For this, I'll be brief in my remarks. No, at this point, our neighbors in this portion of Durham have experienced an insane amount of growth. And at some point, someone's got to be the adult in the room and acknowledge like that this corridor is terrible, especially when going to the distillery off of Stall— I'm going to say Stallings because that's how I pronounce it more so. Just thinking about the traffic incidents and Just that, I don't know, I'm just kind of curious about where we're headed with this abundance. Thinking about just, yeah, I'm curious about that.

I think that we have to be good neighbors, and I know that a lot of times in Durham, we try to encourage folks to like, you know, shop local or go to farmers market, but then we mistreat the actual farmers that are actually delivering the food to our table. So I just want to make sure that I know someone talked about earlier, you know, I want to get through that light a little faster, but it's like, Also, while that may be a benefit for you and you don't live in that neighborhood, we do have a very real issue with EMS services, with fire being able to get to these places. So it's like, are we setting our new neighbors up for failure by not having the infrastructure to move forward? And also based on some of the issues I've observed, even when I ran in 2023, with the blasting in the wells, and it's kind of hard to get accountability for. I know I had someone who had their septic tank blown up and they didn't get anything.

So I feel like if we want to be welcoming, we gotta take care of the people who currently live here. And I have not been convinced that we— and it's not to the developer, more so I think there's a city we could do a lot better with ensuring that our residents have access to critical services. I would hate for someone to lose their life because the EMS couldn't get down. I know this would be true because I was in Cornwallis the other week and we called for EMS. It took 30 minutes for missed to get there.

This person passed out sitting on the ground. So these are very real stories, and people are not coming to council to fabricate stories about their experiences. So at some point, we have to acknowledge the lived experiences of others and put our own wants and desires aside to make sure that we are being good stewards for all of our residents here in Durham. And I have not been convinced that we have done this thus far. I get it, folks want to build more housing.

You think that it makes it easier for people to assess the house— accessible for housing. It's not. I mean, it's just the world we in. So thank you so much for all tonight. And I'm sorry to be brash, but I just don't see how this is going to add any benefit to the public good for these neighbors who are constantly going through the ebbs and flows of growth and who constantly come and uplift these things.

And it's like they're not making this stuff up. So I want to make sure we all hear this and think about it. It may not be your neighborhood today, but it could be very soon. So thank you.

Who's next?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor., yeah, another case, interesting case, in many ways a lot of parallels to the case we just had before us., I— there's a lot to recommend this. I'm, I'm I'm personally unconcerned by the increased density in that area. We want density around the city, so more density in that area to me is not a bad thing.

It's, it's zoned for the place to have map is mixed-use neighborhood. I think the roadway improvements are significant in that part of 98. I appreciate the affordable housing proffer, and I think what you've done on the stormwater is actually given us 100-year storm treatment, which is very needed in that area. I mean, you meet 23 of the 27 comprehensive plan policy. So that's also strong.

At the same time, I do hear the concerns of residents about this being in a future growth area, and I think we ought to make sure that we have all the infrastructure we need for those areas. I'm a little bit concerned about this in this case. I do hear the Planning Commission— I took their recommendations in the last vote, they voted against this 9-0. That also weighs on me as well. I will also say, I know the Preservable Durham folks in the last case mention that or suggest that Panther Creek was on the 303 impaired list.

It's not, but you're correct that Little Lake Creek is on the 303 impaired list, and that concerns me as well. So I am unconvinced in this case and, still thinking about it. Thank you.

Are you willing to commit to no blasting? I think that we're hopeful that blasting will not be required, but we cannot guarantee that blasting will not be required, especially when we have committed to the 100-year storm for the pre- and post-construction, which does require the erosion control sediment basins to be much deeper and larger than they would ordinarily. Can you commit to no blasting except for the 100-year storm development? No, I do not think that would be possible.

You heard the ask from the Environmental Affairs Board. Did you note those?, well, I would note that those requests— there were, I think, 6 or so— none of those were provided to us, in advance here hearing them tonight., that was the first time, we had heard them. So, we would also— I believe it was mentioned earlier, there was a request to have that included in the case packet, we would also ask if the applicant could be provided with those as well so we could appropriately evaluate those requests in advance.

If the goal is for us to be able to accommodate them or consider them, from what it sounded like, the main issues were about disturbance of the stream buffer, which we have already committed to limited disturbance. And then it also sounded like The main concerns were about the erosion control measures as well, which again we've committed above and beyond, including for the 100-year storm for the erosion and sediment control basins., so the first one was the preservation of tree coverage at a minimum of 35% canopy across the site, and then the second one is contiguous in that tree coverage to avoid fragmentation and maintain ecological function. You all able to do that? So We cannot do 35%.

We have committed to an increase of 22%, and I know it was asked for the prior case what that would amount to. And for our case, we, we did look at it, and that additional tree save accounts for about 3/4 of an acre. And can it be contiguous? So looking at our site plan, And concept as it stands currently, all of the areas in dark green, you can see that is where our planned tree preservation and open space will be located. So in many places it is contiguous, but we can't guarantee that it is contiguous in all areas.

As you can see, there's roads, there's, the access points, and then there are other features., but a lot of it is contiguous, and this is again consistent with the site plan that has been filed.

Are you willing to do implementation of turbidity monitoring? We've seen this in other cases and the results have come to the city. I know that there are multiple changes that have been made, to the code recently, to the UDO specifically as it relates to the erosion control plan And I'm not sure if what the plans are for turbidity, but we will follow what is required by the UDO in terms of the erosion control. And so if that is not one of them, then no, that's not an additional commitment that we can make. You're unwilling to measure the turbidity or allow anyone on to measure during development?

I'll have Tim with Kennedy explain.

Tim Simons with Community. So the additional feature— additional measures that we're adding are in itself measuring, because we are holding more of that stormwater back during the construction. Measuring each drop of rainfall that hits the site for a 2 to 3 year period during construction is very difficult, but the improvements that we have provided for the original control measures provide an increased amount above and beyond what the storm— what the requirements have in the ordinance now, which were recently increased 2 to 3 years ago from the original requirements. And will those be made available to the city? They're already commitments.

The— but the— whatever readings that y'all do as part of that— I'm sorry, can you move whatever readings that you do as part of that, will the results of that be available to the city?, the county does those inspections, so they are county-held inspections, so they are available, yes. Okay. The county— the city does not, control erosion control, the county does. So those are all county inspections.

They are not, through us, through the developer. Okay., I have a stream crossing question. So y'all have a max maximum of 2 stream crossing roads and then 4 for utilities. Is there no way to combine those? Why, why do we have to have 6? Oh, Tim coming back up.

Yeah, we can, we can minimize those. We can cut both of those in half based on our plan now. So we could do a maximum of 1 stream crossing, which you're seeing seeing the road to the, if you will, bottom left of the corner is curved. Are you guys seeing what I'm seeing on the screen? And now we are.

Okay, so you can see how we're designing around, around the edge of the stream buffers and wetlands there. So that was during the initial design, that was our second stream crossing, but the stream, it starts a little further. So we can eliminate one stream crossing, so we can change that to one stream crossing and 3 utilities. So we'll cut the— what was the initial? 4.

4. So we can go to half, 1 and 2. 1 stream crossing, 2 utility. And they do have to be separate, the utilities and the, and the roadway crossing? Yes, due to the storm water and how it flows to the stream. Yes. Okay, those are my questions for now. Thank you. Council Member Baker. Kopac.

I'm not sure you'll be very surprised by my comments here., appreciate you for coming in and presenting and working through those, those commitments., again, I'm not interested in kind of what I see as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I think we need a paradigm shift in the way that we Plan and develop. I'm a professional planner, not because I hate planning and development, but because I actually love planning and development.

I get excited when I think about the design of, of where we live in the places that we live in the cities that we build and the way that we grow and the streets and the sidewalks and the trees and the buildings when they rise out of the ground. Those are all things that I think are incredibly exciting. I love those things. And I think about places that have lots of natural features. They're not encumbrances, they're features.

They're assets to a site. And when you design and lay out a development, those should be lifted up as special places on the site. I just don't think that that is a practice. Practice that, that we lead here in this city. And I don't think that because the evidence shows that we, we don't, we don't use those practices when we're laying out sites and when we're thinking about the way that the city is growing.

And those are having real-world impacts on people who live here today, people who are moving to Durham, and the way that we grow. I, I don't think this hits the mark. I don't think that I've seen anything that hits the mark recently or very often., and I'm always looking for ways to get to yes. I know that sounds surprising, but I'm always looking for ways to get to yes on, on cases.

And a reminder, we're not actually approving development. We're approving, you know, annexation and rezonings that can sit there for a very long time or can be changed in the future., so I would also just remind us that, that there are tens of thousands, if not more, but likely tens of thousands of units of capacity within city limits today that we will— we won't see, that we don't need to see. But there is lots of capacity to, to grow within city limits. I just think that we are in an era and a place and a time where it's important that we we focus inward, where we, we, you know, I would be open to an exceptionally planned and designed master development, but we, we just aren't seeing those in front of us.

We need a paradigm shift., happy Earth Day. Let's support our wild animals and the habitat that they live in. Let's support our young people who come and speak up. Let's support future generations so that they have the ability to make choices on land and not just, not just us. Let's support our environmentalists. Let's support our farmers who come and speak to us as well. Let's think about the environment. Let's think about planet Earth and let's think about future generations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a few questions for staff., I think it will probably relate to planning, but may involve other, other staff teams. So first of all, I just want to be clear. Are there policies regarding the UGB or future growth areas that have not been met by this application?

There was reference to that, and I just want to make sure I fully understand that, that point. Staff has not determined that. Determined that there are any that have not been met., interpretation by others are— is certainly valid and, and allowed, but staff has not determined that.

No. Second, it's clear that we have an impairment issue with Little Creek and other waterways in Durham, and so that's part of the, the balance that we try and strike in meeting our various needs as a community. I'm curious what you see is the most significant impacts on our water in the rural parts of Durham? I don't know that I would say that. I mean, there's lots— there's lots of issues, right?

There are issues with erosion control. There are issues with impaired streams in terms of sediments. And then, of course, you have pollutants from nonpoint sources such as runoff from our roadways and so forth. So there are a number of pollutants and sedimentation that can get into our streams. I'm not enough of an expert on water resources to be able to say, say, rank them or provide a prioritization.

But those are major issues that we deal with. Because like a couple other issues that I struggle with in thinking about managing water resources are discharge from septic. And so thinking about the benefits of bringing on, you know, more homes into our, our water system. I know that's a major driver of environmental degradation, as well as agricultural lands and runoff., and so thinking about how we can support our farmers as well when we look at degradation of our waterways, like housing and development is one thing, but in our rural areas, septic systems and, and agricultural lands are also big contributors.

What are the plans for water extension in this area? Are there any?, and why is this not part of the comp plan or future growth areas? Just— why is just sewer included? So sewer was identified as the main need for this entire area. I can't speak to why not water as well, but usually those two go hand in hand. We get very few, if any, requests for sewer and not also water. So I think the assumption would be that the water would follow as well.

We've heard a number of requests, you know, great suggestions from the Environmental Affairs Board. Do we have a sense of how much of that has been incorporated into the LDC and will apply as the base code for future developments? I have not had a chance to look at the requests or recommendations from EAB and compare them to the LDC. We just got those this morning. All right, sorry, I'm pulling my notes back up. My computer went out.

My next question is, do we know the price of a current home or a townhome for sale in Durham at 80% AMI? The price, I, I do not have that at my fingertips. We could get that and get that to you. We would work with housing and, the housing department., they keep those, those numbers. I can give you an estimate, but how much it's actually selling for, no, I do not know off the top of my head.

Yeah, I'd be curious because I've heard that we're getting to the point where new market rate townhome development, you know, is it about 80% AMI And so I'm curious to see how the, the, you know, what was said by the applicant compares with that. So the, in the staff report, I just need to scroll to that section of the staff report. It does give an estimated housing cost for sale and rental, but we, that would be for Durham as a whole. There's nothing, say, down to this neighborhood level that we have access to.

In terms of blasting, if there is damage, is there compensation? And I, I ask in part— there's blasting happening 100 feet from my house, and there was a survey done, and I thought we were told that if there was damage, that there would be, support for, for any repairs. So I'm not asking just from a personal standpoint, but I I do share that, you know, this is an issue that is happening across our city.

So blasting companies are required to be insured and be able to handle— to address claims against them. That is not something that local government is involved in. That is a private civil matter between the blasting company and any affected property owners.

Yeah, I mean, this is a difficult case. There's a lot of impressive profits that we look for in these sorts of cases. I think that the bar has to be set even higher for our future growth areas beyond just, you know, other annexations and rezoning. So that's something I'm trying to take into consideration and weighing, you know, both the benefits and the drawbacks, the harms from it. Development like this.

I definitely hear the concern about fire and, and about EMS, and I think that's something we have to commit ourselves as a council, to, to better understanding and, and making sure we have plans in place as we try and find the sequencing, which is not always going to be as we like between providing housing and providing services. But we have to do our best to, to balance those if we're going to grow in a way that's not just about a downtown, but, you know, a city with different hubs we're going to have housing and commercial in different parts of the city and county. So we have to decide how we're best going to do that. You know, and the housing piece is important to me, and I'm going to have a question for the applicant., you know, there's a great Pew Research study with a meta-analysis from, cities across the US showing that the number one benefit from building homes in high-demand areas and, and other parts of the city is reduced rents in low-income neighborhoods.

And, you know, as a city, we we have to be able to balance and do both fighting for strong tenant protections, addressing landlords who charge excessive fees, take actions that are not in the benefit of our residents, you know, and also housing is what helps address folks from being pushed out. And that's part of the reason why we've seen rents stabilize in Durham where they have not in other parts of the country that have not taken the steps Durham has taken around the provision of housing for for our residents. And so that's something that I take seriously, too, not wanting to displace our folks. And that means a shared responsibility for the housing that we provide. It's something that once again is happening in my neighborhood, like happening in places all around the city.

So, but in thinking about the balance, you know, I also want to keep in mind the impacts of places like Southeast Durham that have seen dramatic impacts from growth. And the higher standard I want to see from future growth areas to try and help to manage that as we try and help make sure that we are providing places for people to live, minimizing the cost of housing, and addressing critical needs of our water and safety as we grow. And so I'll be taking that in consideration as I, as I weigh this one.

I don't have any questions. If you want to sit down, I'm going to be brief. I think y'all have heard my thoughts on this on the last one as well. I, I want to add one thing to this conversation, which is that we talk about— we've had several people come up here and talk about farmland and what it means and the value that it adds. And we, we get these metrics in our packets that's like, what is the cost versus the benefit of annexing the land?

And I hear that we're talking about getting that information from EMS, and I do think that that's important, but also the metrics that we're using are not accurate. And so that's something that we need to be really upfront about. They're dated, they're not consistent across departments, and they're not taking into account all of the impacts. When we talk about the value of farmland, we're not talking about the fact that now we're having to pay so much extra to get rid of the wonderful waste that we're composting. We in Durham are doing a great job of composting the waste, but we can't get rid of it now because we used to put it— give it to farmers, and now we're having to pay extra extra to cart it out further and further because we don't have the farmland to take the waste that we're now turning into compost.

These are costs that we're not talking about, and they're important, and they are cascading. We also are talking here about, like, rent stabilization and about affordability, and we're destroying the environment and thinking that this is creating affordability is just like mind-boggling to me. Something is not affordable if you need two cars and an HOA to access it, and in 20 years you're not going to be able to get insurance. It's not affordable. That's not affordable, and we need to stop talking about it like it is.

So it's going to be a no for me on this case. I do appreciate the extra proffers and the interest on, on the infrastructure development. This is also a 0 to 9 recommendation from the Planning Commission. These are volunteers that spend their hours, that are experts that we have all appointed to sit on this board to advise us. It's not binding, but they are advisory council, and they voted 0 to 9 on recommendation on this.

So I will be voting along with those— with the commissioners on this case. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate all my colleagues' comments. I will also be voting no on this. I think I think at this point I've only voted yes on anything that was either outside of the urban growth boundary or future growth boundary, and it was just a small portion of the site., it was a large site, just one little piece of it was outside the future growth boundary— or sorry, in the future growth boundary.

And so I felt like weighing, the pros and cons, it made sense to me, because it wasn't the whole site., I will say that I, you know, We all— I'm the longest serving member on this council. I've been in the seat since 2018. That's not a small amount of time. I'm in my 9th budget.

And different council members have approached these kinds of decisions and cases along the way in very different ways. Everyone has to make their own decision. Everyone has to do a calculus. Some people listen to Planning Commission, others don't. Some people use Planning Commission.

To bolster their opinion or don't. The previous case had, had been overwhelmingly approved by Planning Commission. So I just want to share that, that is, it's an important piece of the puzzle, but it is one piece of the puzzle. And so I just don't want residents to think that it's carte blanche, that we just listen to our planning commissioners. We definitely— the better comments they provide, the more, the more I listen to them.

When, when folks don't actually put in a lot of comments for us, I'm not going to go watch the meeting. Their meetings last 3 hours. Our own meetings last however long they last, and we have 6 to 8 to 9 committees that we all support. So we're in a lot of meetings.

So I won't be supporting this case tonight. I do appreciate all of the proffers. They're— it's a, you know, they're good proffers., but when I think about that piece of it, it does give me pause. And I do— I would like a timeline on the EMS question at some point.

Not if staff could reach out to us when we talk to our county colleagues. I would like to understand when we're going to start getting that piece of the equation, because we don't have any control over that. We can do fire and police response, but we can't get that piece, which I think is important. As we make our decisions up here. That's all.

Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for your comments. We're almost at the point of another break, but I think this has been rich discussion., first up, I, I sort of look at this subjectively, you know, and then I, I think about all the things that, you know, I, I take to what the Planning Commission say very seriously.

I also understand that cases evolve after that sometimes based on the interaction with the Planning Commission, and I can appreciate that., few questions for staff. And so The— and I'm just going to ask you very basic questions because there were some comments made that I— sometimes it gets really exhausting trying to clarify some misleading comments. I don't want folks to be misled. So the comprehensive plan was put together and voted on by members of the community.

That community members played a part in establishing that? Absolutely. We took so much input from members of the community in the development of the comprehensive plan. Absolutely. Okay. The— how did we come about with the water, the erosion and tree preservation policy?

So that would have been based on a significant amount of input that we received, and staff has already looked to address some of the erosion control issues that were brought up during the comprehensive planning process. And we, amended the UDO, I believe, in 2024 to try to get at some of those things that came up in the conference plan. Okay.

How— so this is an area where I keep hearing that we need more infrastructure, and I also hear we need, you know, resources, but it seems like those things are being used, those terms are being used interchangeably. How do we define infrastructure?

Infrastructure is basically whatever is the physical things that you need for development. Could be roads, water, sewer, utility, water and sewer, trails and greenways, power lines, a variety of different, physical— I can't think of the right word— but physical things that you need for the basic, things you need in life, things they basically do need in development. And how would you define resources?

Such as, such as, there's a— I mean, there's resources, very broad term. So, when it comes to what we're talking about tonight, building, zoning, annexations, with resources, is it fair to say resources are police, fire, those could be. It could also be environmental resources. People have spoken quite a bit about the need to preserve and environmental resources. It could be financial resources, the financial resources needed to be able to provide the police, fire, and other things that are needed in a city.

How are we paying for those resources and infrastructure? Infrastructure, so if it's the city, it's either through general obligation bonds, whether, or It could be simply from the, current tax revenues. You're now getting into financial questions that I am certainly not an expert on, or it could be from the private development community addressing needs, for the development and for the city as a whole. So it's either going to be through our tax base or through the builder? Generally our tax base, or potentially from, say, state or federal resources.

As well. And any indication, you may or may not know this, any indication that the state or federal are going to step in anytime soon?, not that I'm aware of. So it comes back to either us here or the private developer. On the topics that we're discussing this evening, most likely we're talking about city or county resources or from the private sector.

Any idea of a timeline if it's on us? No, I would need to direct that question to City Manager's office or the Finance Department. All right. And I don't ask those questions in a condescending way. I just want to be very clear about how we generate resources, how we generate, how we pay for these things, you know.

And that, and again, it goes back to me a chicken and egg matter, you know, and I'm not going to play to anyone's emotions. I'm not going to do that. But I do want to be very clear on how government works and how our constraints are. This isn't a lecture, but, you know, I think it is dangerous to pretend that everyone, every case that comes before us is supposed to go get together in the perfect world That would be great, but I'm not going to pretend that every applicant is going to get together and just do it all for us. I'm not going to pretend that.

That would be nice. But as of right now, in this case, I actually do have some concerns with. But as of right now, when I look at these cases and when they come before us, I'm thinking about how do we get to what you're asking for? While as uncomfortable as it may be, And I know that the voices that I hear in the room are representative of many voices around the community, you know, but I think about the constraints that we have with the state government that's just absent and a federal government who truly doesn't care. So it comes back on us here locally and it's like, all right, so we got to get the tax base to pay for this.

But at the same time, we're restricting the tax base from paying for it. So if you do have a builder or a developer to come in and say, all right, we're going to put this in place, you know, and I've seen cases come through where they said, look, we're going to put a lift station here, we're going to put transportation improvements here, we're going to put infrastructure here, we're going to bring— we're going to build a tax base. We're going to bring more roofs here, more units. We're going to expand the tax base so we can pay for the resources. But we're going to put the infrastructure in.

And so I think about it that way. And then I look at the comprehensive plan. Does it meet it, at least most of it? Does it follow the UDO that we also, as residents of this community, established? And, you know, I think it'll be disingenuous if I just played to your emotion on it and just went and just, just told you what you wanted to hear.

I'd rather just be honest with you and be able to sleep at night rather than just say whatever. But at the same time, that's just me. I also don't want to portray to you all, colleagues, that you are doing these things, but I know what emails I get, and I, and I just want to make sure that I clearly explain to everyone my way of thinking when it comes to these things. So, I look forward to us having a vote, and I thank you all for your, your comments.

All right, ready? All right, I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing Patterson Hall into the City of Durham and to authorize the City Manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with MI Homes Incorporated. So moved. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote. Motion fails unanimously. Thank you. I'll also entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance— oh, actually, I don't need to do this, the consistency statement, right? No. I don't need to do that one. Okay, good. All right, we're done with that one. Colleagues, let's take a, let's take a 5-minute break and then we'll get to the, to the next one.

Okay, all right, all right, let's, get started, guys.

All right, welcome back everyone.

23 Morgan Farm.

All right, ready for the staff report? Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and honorable council members, it's Aaron Kane again with the Planning Department. A request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning map change has been received from Laura Holloman of McAdams for one portion of a parcel of land totaling 218.517 acres and its adjacent right-of-way located at 8422 Farrington Mill Road. This annexation petition is for a continuous expansion of the primary corporate limits to connect to city water and sewer. As part of this annexation petition, the applicant is not seeking a change in the underlying zoning district of rural residential.

The properties are currently designated mixed-use neighborhood and recreation and open space on the place type map. The proposed rural residential zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type. If the proposed zoning is approved, there will be no change to the place type designation. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you very much. You've heard the staff report. Colleagues, are there any questions or comments for staff. Great. So at this time, I'll declare the public hearing open.

Welcome. How much time do you think you need?, I think given the interest in this case, 14 minutes for myself as well as our landscape architect total should be plenty. All right, 15 minutes.

Good evening, Mayor Williams and members of council. I'm Jamie Schwader with Parker Poe. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, MI Homes, and I'm joined by our full team of representatives from McAdams and Kimley Horn who are here to answer your questions. A different request on this land was denied by the council a year ago. We listened to council's concerns and that of the community, and what you have before you tonight is a different case, one that strikes the best balance possible between the city's need for housing as the city grows and its desire for land preservation at the same time.

The case before you responds to the concerns of the council and the community expressed last, last April. And provides more certainty now than it has before because MI regrouped. They listened to the community and they brought forth a case that hits each of the areas that were brought as a major concern. Given its significant investments in Durham and its desire to provide the shortfall of housing and fill the gap that the city needs, MI regrouped and filed just an annexation and required translational zoning. I'll go through the history of that because we did start with a zoning case, and due to the concerns of density that were brought by the neighbors, we reduced our density to just the buy right allowance.

We can only build what we can, can with the translational zoning that we could otherwise build in the county. That was a choice in response to the neighbors who were concerned that our density would exceed what they have, which is exactly the same as the Montclair neighborhood, as well as the Chapel Hood— what the neighborhood which is 2.0. So we actually have a density that's less than some of the other, Downing Creek and other, neighborhoods that are close by. At the same time, we increased our open space to 3 times what the case was originally filed in 2022. We remove the inconsistency that the council struggled with last April due to the UDO traffic improvements, that only applies to graphic development plans.

In a zoning case, that does not apply here tonight. We committed to traffic improvements. So to Despite lowering our density, we committed to the same traffic improvements that were before you, in April, even though we have the same, buy right trips as we would have in the county. And we also took the unusual step of filing the conservation subdivision with a commitment for 100 acres of open space in response to concerns that there was a lack of certainty. And we've done that.

It's pending with the, with the city, planning review staff, and we'll go through that, those normal channels. In addition, we met with neighborhood groups and conservation groups and incorporated key environmental site strategies that we'll go through tonight with Sean VanderSlyce explaining in detail an unprecedented level of environmental commitments and wildlife corridors on this Earth Day that Commissioner— Council Member Baker has already spoken to. And at the same time, we kept the prior commitments of that zoning case. We are filing a UEA, which has the sewer extension completion that will complete the needs in this future growth area. We are preserving a historic home and have the support of Preservation Durham.

We're committing to $1 million in affordable housing contribution. I'll talk about how unprecedented that is and why that's important to fill a public need in the city, as well as a $50,000 contribution to schools and to fire and EMS services based on concerns that we've heard in the community. And so what you have before you tonight is a simplified review based on what we heard from council and the community over the past 3 years. It's an annexation and translational zoning, as well as a utility extension agreement, and that is what has the binding tools. Even though we don't have the graphic development plan, we've picked up on other tools to provide that certainty.

So I'll go through each of those. The annexation is consistent with Policy 165 of the Comprehensive Plan. It's contiguous with the city limits. It does not create a donut hole, and it's not a satellite issue. It's within the urban growth boundary and within the future growth area.

Because sewer is the only infrastructure that's identified by Policy 122. And if any of you remember Miss Quinn, she and her family have been waiting on sewer in this area for years. She was before you last April. She was here tonight, but because of this late hour and her health conditions, she was not able to stay. My understanding is that she emailed and sent letters earlier in the week, and she regrets not being able to be here tonight.

But that sewer is something that she recognizes that she participated in, in that community review of what was needed here, and with this project and the UEA commitments, we'll be providing that infrastructure not only for our site but for sites like Miss Quinn's and those neighbor— neighbors who've been waiting on it for so long. Without this annexation, that becomes a burden of the city and the taxpayers to fund that sewer., and that— so that's that project that furthers the objective of the FGA policy, and the UEA will address that sewer infrastructure. As far as the translational zoning, because we have dropped the zoning down to what we can do by right, there is no change in the zoning of what we could do today in the county versus what we're asking to do in the city. It's no change in development tier, the place type map, the zoning district, or the overlay.

We could do 317 single-family homes with no open space in the county. We can do that in the city. We can do 347— excuse me, 437 single-family homes with 50% open space if we opt to do the conservation subdivision, which we have done and shown that commitment by filing a very expensive application with the city that's pending today. And so that's, that's no change in terms of what we can do from the county to the city jurisdiction. As a result, the staff finds this consistent with the UDO and generally consistent with the place type map designations, because what we're doing is preserving as much of that open space designation as possible.

You'll see that in Attachment C in your staff report, and are overlaying that with some mix of, of residential neighborhood. Now, the mixed-use neighborhood would otherwise want more density, more development here, but because your constituents have asked us not to do that, they've asked us to match the density out there, we've provided the right amount of the blend of that residential neighborhood with the recreation open space, and we've overlaid as much as a placetype map designation for open space as we could with the Natural Heritage Area program that we'll be talking about in just a minute., third, the UAA proffers that I spoke about are listed on your screen. The developer is, is offering a one-time contribution of $1 million to the city's dedicated housing fund, for the Durham down payment assistance program. This is unprecedented in the city.

You've not seen a commitment like this, and the reason why it's here before you is that we were serious about trying to provide relief to citizens, citizens who need it in an innovative way. We recognize this case is innovative and it requires different tools, and this is an important part of them. In addition, we're making that $50,000 contribution to Durham Public Schools and $50,000 to respond to the concerns we heard about emergency services in the area. In addition to those changes, I wanted to highlight what this team has done differently from 2022 to respond to council and community concerns. This shows how we've reduced the density at the same time we've increased open space.

So your first application which was called Sheffield Farms, filed back in November of 2022, had 950 units and 35 acres of open space. That wound its way to council and reduced down to 702 units and increased some of the mix of, of, of product, but was ultimately denied in April of 2025. We then filed a further reduced density, and based on those concerns we heard with that zoning application, We withdrew the application and dropped straight down to only what we can do by right, that maximum of 300 or 437 single-family homes and over 100 acres of open space with the conservation subdivision option. Now we know we've heard from the community members that doubt of whether that conservation subdivision would be filed, whether we'd pursue that, whether it would be protecting the most important hardwoods. And so we've taken two really important steps, and I'll go through those in just a minute to show how we've committed to those areas.

The TIA is important because, as I mentioned, even though we're going forward with that buy-right density— so the same amount of homes that we could put on the site today means the same amount of cars that we can put on the roads today without this annexation. But despite that, we've committed to the TIA improvements that you saw in the last case, which basically means $1 million of improvements in turn lanes as well as signal, signal timing that will help to alleviate some of the concerns you may hear tonight from constituents. That will come with or without the annexation because we're allowed to put that same amount of cars on the road. What we want to do tonight is be able to provide more certainty and more public interest benefits by allowing the annexation that allows us to carry forward not only these TIA improvements but the UEA improvements I spoke to about earlier. And here's where it's really important, I think, to recognize the unusual and unprecedented, step that MIHOMES has taken.

We've not only talked about filing the conservation subdivision, we've actually filed it. It's with the planning department. It preserves 109 acres of open space, including 31 acres of hardwood forest, 22 acres of wildlife corridors, and 14 acres of vegetated areas. We sent this around earlier last week to, to note that it had been filed to make sure that all council knew it was on file and on record, and it's here on your screen tonight. The open space overlaps with 60% of the North Carolina Heritage Program areas otherwise eligible for eligible for timbering now.

The reason that's important is because the director of the North Carolina Heritage Program, Misty Copeland, has written you a letter that she sent over last week in support of this approach, in support of conservation subdivision as the only protection that this North Carolina Heritage Program has, in order to protect these trees. And it can sound tempting that this program's in place and that it's part of the open space place type map, But the reality is there is no protection for those hardwoods today, absent this annexation and this project going forward. In fact, they're subject to a forestry plan, which we've supplied a lot of information to you last week, highlighting how this property has been held for years and in conservation and will be subject to timbering according to the state program should this not be able to go forward. That's just a reality of how this has been able to be preserved for almost a century, and it will no longer be able to be preserved should the annexation not be adopted. But what's important about that is that although the annexation is before you, and that's really the decision before you tonight, these filed documents show exactly how much of that area is being preserved, and it overlaps substantially with that program.

In addition, that— in addition to filing the conservation subdivision was not just a filing, it's a It's a very expensive fee that you have to pay, so it's showing that good faith commitment to carry that forward. We heard concerns about what if they don't pursue their conservation subdivision, what if it's somebody else other than MI Homes? And so we took the unprecedented step of recording open space covenants against the property today. They exist today. They will become effective if the annexation is approved.

And what it requires is not only the future property owners being MI or the the current owner. Any future property owner has to respect the open space configuration shown on the open space plan that was with our filed conservation subdivision. Now, of course, Your Excellent Staff is going to have to have discretion on going through their entire review of the conservation subdivision. But what it says is essentially that exhibit that you see on your screen with the recorded document on your screen is a required element binding and legally binding on the land, just like a a zoning condition would be that requires us to preserve at least 100 acres and complies with your UDO maintenance requirements in 6.2 and 4. So in addition to addressing the density, the open space certainty, the environmental protection, and the transportation commitments here, this by-right zoning means that we are committing to the same things that would have otherwise been in a higher density case.

And we've already worked with the, the various decision makers to say that we're going through the process. The Army Corps will review this when it's time. They've confirmed that in writing. Without the infrastructure, without the annexation, I think it's important to note that people like Miss Quinn will be relying on capital improvement projects from the city. No sewer extensions for the Quinns are otherwise scheduled in the difficult budget decisions you're going to have to be making in the next 2 months.

Historic preservation is also a component. Preserve Durham— excuse me, Preservation Durham has confirmed in writing that they will take ownership of the 2-acre parcel that, that was previously committed, and that's also been in your packet. So in addition to the prior commitments now in the UEA, the Utility Extension Agreement, having those binding elements that the zoning case otherwise had, we have the conservation subdivision plan filed, we have the recorded open space covenants file protecting this North Carolina, natural heritage area in a way that it doesn't otherwise have protections today. Means that this is the most certainty possible at this stage to provide more environmental protection and certainty than the council and the community would otherwise have by right, with the same amount of housing and traffic as the county would have by right. It's tempting in the face of opposition to feel that a no is kind of a, a good thing and serving the community.

But in this case, a no would actually not protect the very trees that the community has really focused on, the hardwoods that are part of this North Carolina Heritage Program. It would not provide the sewer extensions or the traffic extensions that have been so important to this community. And so we ask that you give these trees the protection they do not have today and do the right thing and to vote yes on this annexation. I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for Sean VanderSlyce to come up and explain the innovative techniques we've used in the conservation subdivision open space plan. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Williams and council members., I'll be brief here, but from a— I'm a landscape architect and land planner with McAdams. Sorry, you're a bit taller than she is.

So from a community design, and place-making perspective, a conservation subdivision for this development provides the best avenue forward for Morgan Farm. So per the UDO, it not only encourages but requires the conservation and preservation of environmental features. And as we all know, there's no shortage of those at this site., per the UDO, our plan preserves over 50% of the 218 acres. 40% of that is floodplain riparian buffers, wetland, wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, wildlife corridors, forest areas greater than 1 acre in size.

Our plan also includes secondary areas that would include also, stormwater control measures that are designed as constructed wetlands. As seen in this final, graphic here, MI has entrusted our team to develop, an ecologically focused programming elements that will further emphasize the significance of the project for the Durham community., the elements you're seeing here are not code required, but are crucial components to the cohesive plan centered on ecosystem services and environmental design. So internal trail networks connect residents with nature while untouched wildlife corridors remain permanently protected to encourage existing ecologies to continue to thrive. Where wildlife needs to cross vehicular routes, for instance, added space and signage will be provided.

How much more time do you need?, minute and a half., add 2 minutes, please. Thank you., preservation of historical structures and the voluntary implementation of environmental education program will further set this development apart from the rest in Durham.

I want to end by just making sure to mention how much the input of staff, Council, and the citizens of Durham has impacted the way we've approached this project, as well as the way that I've designed it for MI and worked with them to improve the project and the submission tonight. The efforts that I detailed in terms of open space and ecologically focused protections are not what would be considered the easy way forward for a nationally recognized home builder, but we feel this approach certainly constitutes the best path forward. It's our hope that Morgan Farm can serve as an example of ecologically sensitive and innovative design in the residential market where it is desperately, desperately needed. We have before us the ability to flip the narrative where the need and desire for conservation of our landscapes works as a valuable tool in addressing the unwavering need for places for our citizens to live. This is not unplanned, uncontrolled urban sprawl, because in this case, conservation is the control.

The overarching goal here as a designer was not to design a neighborhood that simply exists in the woods, but rather to build a community that coexists with nature in ways that innovative, timeless, unprecedented. And with that, I'll end my time, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. Right, I'll start with my online speakers.

All right, Kate Haim, can you hear me? All right, Malora McCall, you have the presentation. Viv.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes, welcome, Melora. Just one moment. Sure, this is her presentation. Okay, are you— is it, Vivian, is it multiple slides or is it just one? I do not know. It's just one. It's just this one. Can you see it okay? All right, we can see it now.

Welcome, you have 2 minutes. Great., Morgan Farms first submitted a new TIA and a PDR 2.5 rezoning that was quite similar to what's before you tonight, a proposal for 560 mixed residential units and included a 5% affordable housing commitment. The primary win now is the 50% open space requirement, but the ability to provide open space was never the real question. It was always what the applicant was willing to pencil in.

This version increases open spaces but removes affordable housing, lacks housing diversity, and avoids real enforceable protections to run with the land for historic sites, corridors, habits, steep slopes, and stream buffers beyond the minimum UDO. In many ways, this appears less like a fundamentally new proposal and more like a rebranding effort tagged as conservation instead of a cluster design. And that matters because what is lost in that shift is leverage. Council's leverage is the ability to evaluate a major land use change for a large and sensitive site through transparency, scrutiny, and enforceable commitments that protect the public interest. Instead, this approach, approach moves many of those issues into an administrative process where the role is no longer to secure broader public benefits.

And the current ordinances with waivers and NPAs are not robust enough for sites like this. Section 624 removed Shell to shift from clear requirements to suggested features. Much of what's being discussed tonight could change later and still remain compliant. The applicant told neighbors they would not pursue subdivision without annexation, and that reveals where true leverage still sits. If development of this site is only reasonable with utilities, then Council has every reason to use legislative authority granted to it.

That means asking whether this is the right project in the right place under the right terms. It means durable protections beyond promises or good intentions, and it means ensuring that public value, not just private feasibility, is what drives the decision. Tonight's not simply about whether something can be built, but whether Durham will use its leverage wisely and not succumb to pressure from developers. Thank you. Thank you. Katie Ross.

Hello, can you hear me? Hey there, yes, welcome. You have 2 minutes. Okay, Katie Ross, Bahama. Yes, I'm going to follow up, Melora, by talking about conservation subdivision.

I know quite a bit about this because I've been involved from the beginning in the Mason Farms, case, which was just resolved in favor of the neighbors by the Court of Appeals. Oh, some of you were taken on tours of some of the worst subdivisions in Southeast Durham by PRD., electeds, I recall, were quite shocked at what they saw, and they were stunned when they realized and were told that the worst of those subdivisions with the worst environmental destruction were conservation subdivisions. How could that happen? Well, it turned out through the— we learned through this lawsuit that was Robin Barefoot's lawsuit that for years the planning department had been approving 15, they said, conservation subdivisions without any regard for the 12 purposes of the statute, of the ordinance, the 12 conservation-oriented purposes, and the Planning Department was interpreting those as totally optional.

They were not enforcing them. So we have now learned that that was wrong, and the court said that, that those 12 purposes were mandatory. But the Planning Department came and brought you, and you guys passed an amendment to the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance that removed the language that made those purposes mandatory. So now you have the same statute that allowed those horrible subdivisions, and it doesn't even have the purposes enforceable at all. So what I'm trying to say is, do not be fooled, by the name that this is a conservation subdivision.

Conservation is only as good as the enforcement, and, and they cannot be enforced. Thank you. Thank you. And lastly, I have Elizabeth Miller. Elizabeth, can you hear me? Hi, welcome. You have 2 minutes. Thank you., so the constraints on this site are not hypothetical.

They were established during the prior Sheffield proposal, and they have not changed. The environmental sensitivities, access limitations, and infrastructure challenges remain., by definition, this conservation subdivision should have 50% open space, and 80% of that has to come from a primary list defined by the UDO. The staff report tonight says there are no wildlife corridors on site. The applicant has 22 acres of wildlife corridor as part of the 80%.

So do we know if these are existing corridors, or are they self-identified theoretical corridors? The Durham Open Space report from 2025 notes that we should leave a 300-foot buffer undisturbed next to the protected wetlands just north of the Jordan Reservoir. Obviously, because that's going to be our future water source, it seems a bit foolish to spend millions of dollars to get water out of there, but then not ensure we have that 300-foot buffer in place to protect that source. So this conservation subdivision doesn't eliminate these constraints. It postpones the moment when the binding decisions are made.

Truly, the real problem is there are no mechanisms in place that make, sure that this is actually enforceable. Like, they have an application in, but when you annex today, that's irreversible. That application could be denied., so this isn't a question of trust, it's a question of good governance., and good governance requires that permanent actions be matched with permanent protections that secure the public benefit. So for those reasons, I respectfully urge you to deny the annexation. Thank you. Thank you so much.

All right. I'm going to call 5 names at a time. We can queue to my right, your left. Julie McClintock, Betsy Buchanan, Judy Tilson, Haley Saunders, and Barry Sanders.

Yes. No, I don't. Good evening, Mayor Williams and city councilors. Thank you for your patience. My name is Julie McClintock. My address is on record. I am here to oppose the MI annexation request and explain the drawbacks of using translational rezoning for the Morgan Farm project, despite the glowing report you heard earlier.

Translational rezoning was created as an administrative tool to maintain zoning continuity when small properties move from county to city. It was never intended to serve as a backdoor entitlement for large projects, which should undergo meaningful review. While the zoning label may remain residential rural We know that approving annexation would allow MI Homes to connect to city water and sewer and to achieve urban densities. For a very large parcel, this would result in hundreds of units being exempt from a full review. Here are two strong reasons not to annex this property.

First, approving annexation would allow translational rezoning to bypass the normal safeguards the council relies on including comprehensive impact analysis and mitigation measures. That is reasonable for a single home, but not for a multi-hundred-unit project with regional impacts. Second, if annexation were approved, proffers could disappear. The city would lose the ability to negotiate binding conservation and phasing conditions such as affordable housing, sidewalks, additional open space, we will lose the ability to see what we are getting, like buying a pig in a poke. This is not about opposing development.

It is about ensuring that this development is reviewed by staff, residents, and you through a transparent public process where we know what we are getting. It is about insisting on a thoughtful review of an application that will cause environmental harm and severe traffic congestion over a wide area. Please follow the lead of your Planning Commission and reject this request. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. You have 2 minutes.

I'm all right. Good evening, Mayor Williams, City Council members. My name is Betsy Buchanan and my name is on file— my address is on file. Morgan Farm, formerly Sheffield, was withdrawn— has withdrawn their proposed plan and original rezoning request and tonight only seek annexation. Last year, when the City Council denied Sheffield, one member in favor stated rather loudly, this land will be developed. And my question tonight to you is, why?

Why does every inch of Durham County have to be developed? And why would a developer seek annexation unless they plan to develop? Am I homes made not modifications to their site proposal prior to changing their rezoning request. However, none of these changes address the very real problems. If taken into the city, then their plan comes to light, but no plan can ever overcome the difficulties and obstacles that face building on that property.

Again, I say this is not about locals resisting development. This is about recognizing the fact trying to develop in this area. Morgan Farm would add about 1,000 cars daily through their 3 exits directly onto Farrington Mill, already stressed. Land along Farrington Mill is part of the watershed for Jordan Lake, a source of drinking water for Durham. The property has historical evidence that has raised unanswered questions and, if annexed, may never be answered.

Morgan Farm may not be a wildlife carda, but the animals don't know that. This area provides wildlife a safe haven, not disturbed by cars or guns. Providing sewer is a huge issue, especially since there is an also a timing issue with repair of the bridge near Stagecoach Road. Tonight you decide if Morgan Farm will be annexed into the city of Durham. Current proposed plans and proffers are not binding and your decision is irreversible. Please do the right thing and vote no for this request. Thank you.

I think I should say good morning. Thank you all for sharing so much. Good morning. My name is Judy Tilson, and I live just south of the proposed development site. My address is on record. I'm here to share concerns about the proposed annexation for Morgan Farm.

The character of this area is fundamentally rural. Despite its designation as a mixed-use neighborhood place type, and two areas on either side are designated as recreation and open space., the intent of a mixed-use neighborhood is to support communities where residents can meet most daily needs within a 15-minute walk or bike ride, including groceries, schools, parks, pharmacies, restaurants, libraries, and healthcare. Rural areas are highly car-dependent. The nearest public transit is approximately an hour's walk away, and essentially daily needs such as groceries and fuel are roughly 2 to 3 miles from the site.

You have in front of you the list of how far it is to Food Lion and Harris Teeter and Rotary, and they're all 2 to 3 miles away, and there are no sidewalks. Now, as a woman who's trying to get more exercise, I know exactly how far away that is, and that's a long distance for anybody to go., so I— annexation implies that the city will provide these services, and it simply cannot. And obviously we've heard tonight it doesn't. There's also no bus transportation that's convenient.

Please oppose this request, and thank you for staying up so late. Thank you.

Welcome.

Trickin' the millennial. I'm Haley Saunders. I now live in Chapel Hill, but my childhood home, my parents' home, is in the Downs neighborhood. I spent much of my life less than a half mile downstream from the bottom of this image. I ask that the council vote no on the annexation of Morgan Farm property.

My remarks concern the threats that this commercial request presents to our waterways. The first and most immediate threat comes from the new sewer main that annexation would require. The route of the sewer main, according to Sheffield, would follow on the southeastern side of Farrington Road. The sewer main would cross Little Creek southeast of the Little Creek Bridge. This Google Earth image shows how the bridge and the Army Corps levee already artificially constrain a braided marshy stream to a single channel.

It's important to put— In the context of the planned replacement of Little Creek Bridge, which you'll hear more about later, to accommodate the southeastern shift of the new bridge relative to the old bridge, this new sewer main would have to cross Little Creek and intrude on the protected Falls-Jordan Lake watershed. If this sewer line were buried, it would bring huge disturbances in downstream silting of the braided streambed of Little Creek within the critical protection zone of the lake, a District A lake. If the sewer line has to be moved around a bridge replacement, that multiplies the havoc.

If the sewer line crossed the creek above stream grade, it would be vulnerable to other kinds of damage and leakage. You'll hear more on this later. Sewer lines do not guarantee the protection of sensitive waterways, most certainly not in their construction phases, and not from corporate interests. If y'all sign off on the annexation, I won't get to publicly comment again. So on a personal note, I've been swimming, canoeing, swamping around in Little Creek, New Hope Creek, Jordan Lake, and the stream bed behind my house my whole life.

My family's current favorite activity is watching our dogs get the zoomies in the same stream bed my sister and I played in with rubber duckies as children. The most important times in my life are water-based activities very near this sewer proposal. I'm not done making memories on this protected watershed. Thank you. As Mr. Berry is coming up, I can ask Kate Haim— there she is— Elizabeth Bibby Moore, Betsy Field, John Cohen, and Tom Galloway to come up. Welcome.

Mayor, Good evening, Mayor, Chair Cook, Durham County Council members. I'm Barry Saunders. I live at 8110 Kennebec Drive, Durham County. On watershed protection, the Morgan Farm parcel is a mostly forested plateau overlooking the Morgan Creek floodplain, a mile and a half from the creek's connection to Jordan Lake. The critical watershed boundary runs close. That creek floodplain has been awash in Jordan backwaters several times these last decades. Decades. Much of the Morgan Farm west boundary has been floodwater shoreline.

In prior comments to this council, I showed deeply eroded basins of intermittent streams draining the west edge of the property. That's with mature forest around them. I showed coving of slopes from significant subsurface water movement. I described major slope along that west property edge. I also suggested the site surveyor may have undercounted areas of officially steep slope, 25% or more.

Today you weigh a sparse annexation proposal without many enforceable details about development that will follow. Late timing is strategic, but indulge just one look at their pinky promise conservation subdivision site plan, which we won't have a chance to address if you approve annexation. There's plenty of paving and building planned through sloped and eroded topography along ephemeral and intermittent streams and where subsurface water movement occurs as well. Turning so much existing forest into so much impervious surface would still bring a huge shift in how stormwater is delivered to Morgan Creek despite engineered containment. Retention ponds would not prevent significant increase in new toxins and new nutrients draining to a wetland and stream that are already nutrient sensitive.

Development here would still increase Durham's already significant contribution to the impairment and eutrophication of Northern Jordan Lake, a drinking water supply for many. The future expense of mitigating this impairment of a vital environmental resource is not shown on any cost-benefit analyses I've seen. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Welcome.

I see it now.

All right, good evening, City Council members, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem. My name is Kate Heim and I live on Kennebec Drive in the Downs neighborhood. Most importantly, on the environmental side, I think is the translational rezoning does not provide any security or transparency for whatever development happens on this site. As a sensitive area identified by the Durham Open Space Program and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, development here deserves intentional and transparent planning for review and approval of the City Council. The need for this oversight is reinforced by the most recently proposed plan distributed last week by Morgan Farms for a conservation subdivision, which does not adequately address the concerns.

This would not be enforceable even if it was adequate, but it's not. Submission of an application is not a commitment.

The— this plan violates the Durham Comprehensive Plan Policy 79 to protect Durham's most ecological sensitive areas from the impacts of development. Policy 81, protect the most environmental sensitive portions of the site. And Policy 83, existing habitat and wildlife movement corridors should be left largely undisturbed. Including that identified in the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. All of these policies are considered to have the greatest impact on development cases and should be weighed as such.

And these maps, you can see the identified areas of priority with the wildlife connectivity map showing the most of the parcel with a minimum of high priority and areas of higher and highest priority. Red circles show the largest area of highest priority, with the green double arrow added by me as a suggested wildlife corridor are most appropriate. The pink boxes are the Morgan Farms proposed wildlife corridors. This is the most recently proposed map received last week to— by the neighbors. You can see there is not a wildlife corridor in the highest priority area.

Animals would have to cross 2 roads, 1 alley, 3 rows of houses, likely with fenced yards, preventing access and/or endangering lives of animals attempting to go through here. The final graphic that was showed by the, the individual here tonight was not shared, so this does not reflect this. There are more responsible ways to do this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

But I want full screen. Is it Control L? Oh, my name is Elizabeth Moore and my address is on record. Few words tonight. Permanent conservation is possible for this property. The land is being looked at by local national conservation organizations for purchase for permanent conversation— permanent conservation protection.

And look, Durham and City Council would then have a public park or a nature preserve. What a good solution to this. Okay, now I have to go here. I want to be clear that my concern is not with annexation or development. Again, it's, is this appropriate for this location?

Why are you not advancing Comprehensive plan emphasizes context-sensitive development, appropriate transitions in density, and directing higher density housing to areas with adequate infrastructure. Here you see Orange, Durham, Chatham, and Wake County, and there's the confluence of 7 linked natural corridors. Do you see that dark green up in the upper left-hand corner? It's like a Y shape. And then it goes down south to the east to the head of, you guessed it, Jordan Lake.

And the red arrow shows you where this property is located. Now, two deers. Oh, hi, deer one. How do you get to the wildlife conservation trail? I don't know, deer, but I think you go 30 steps to the left and 30 steps to the right and then 2 miles down the road. If you run, you'll be safe. Well, this has to be a corridor following water and tree coverage. I'm going backwards, so I said my part. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Miller.

Good evening, Mayor Williams and Durham City Council. I'm Bette Field, address is on file. As noted in the rezoning report and shown here in the plat, the site hosts two historic buildings, the antebellum Hutchins Farm and a double log pen slave quarters. The Hutchins family and their slaves farmed cotton, tobacco, and other crops. In 2024, preservation Durham tour the site with the developer and found both buildings suitable for preservation.

Additionally, there is credible evidence for a burial ground for the enslaved. The NC Natural Heritage Program property assessment for Sheffield Farms references a possible old burial ground and non-native plants historically used in landscaping, such as periwinkle. Graves of the enslaved were often simply marked with stones or nothing, but periwinkle was the most common wildflower brought to gravesites by enslaved Americans. This perennial has guided researchers to many abandoned burial sites that would have otherwise gone undetected. When Planning Commissioners questioned the developer about grave sites, their response was basically, if anything turns up at site plan or build, we'll abide by the laws in place for disturbed burial sites.

Because the application has taken a certain circuitous approach by requesting annexation, they were not required to address or acknowledge any of this. Approving annexation without fully addressing the documented history of this property risks irreversible harm. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello again.

I have my AV specialist. She's everyone's AV specialist tonight. Okay, are we ready to go? Tell me. Well, you speak in the microphone. Hi, I'm John Cowan, the owner of www.bluesun.farm, the 112-acre I farm directly across Farrington Mill from the proposed project. My addresses include 8301 and 8303 Farrington Mill, and these are directly across from the proposed outlets for hundreds of cars per day. Now, these guys admit that 40% of the property is, is critical wetlands.

On my side of the road, we have hooded mergansers, buffleheads, kingfishers, osprey, and we are searching for bald eagle nests., the current plans for the Western Water Project pipeline, which I support, are to use the right-of-way along Farrington Mill, right where they say they're going to do all this construction and, and put in turn lanes., building hundreds of units directly north of the new water treatment plant is contradictory. Federal law limits timbering to renewable sectional timbering, not clear-cutting. I'm committed myself to run my horse, sheep, hay, and honey farm and ensure our vital and growing rural community continues forward forever.

This is not an unused area. We are an active and vital established community that this proposal would change forever. The area must be restricted to rural farming and single-family homes. It's not a simple fill-in of an urban area. This proposal is going from 0 to 1,000, destroying our natural resources forever.

This land is an ungainly finger of intrusion impacting all areas around it between large tracts of land committed to long-term preservation. Triangle Land Conservancy and other conservancy organizations are actively attempting to purchase competitively this property already. I've committed my land to the Voluntary Agriculture District for 10 years, joining at least 2 other VAD properties nearby. I have 17 people who work for the farm and several live there. Low-cost housing.

We raise honeybees and hay and produce sheep, a source of meat to underserved ethnic communities in North Carolina. We have a large equestrian resource center employing North Carolina State Ag program grads and students, supporting and teaching the people who will grow your food tomorrow. It's long. And as my, You Tom Galloway?, yep. All right, so, after Tom will be Holt Farley, Joe Segula, Eddie Williamson, Dana Young, and Larry Tatum.

Good evening, my name is Tom Galloway. My address is on file. Here are two maps. This map shows a 3-mile radius around Morgan Farm. Notice the major transportation corridors around the perimeter: 501 to the west, 54 and I-40 to the north, and 751 to the east.

Our local roads are in the center, including Farrington Mill Road. The yellow dot marks Morgan Farm, and the red line shows the proposed sewer route. Let's take a closer look. The green space in the center is primarily Army Corps protected land. Every local road passes through Army Corps land and is subject to strict constraints and regulations.

These roads have a finite capacity and they are already near it. This map also shows 17 housing developments, the red dots, totaling nearly 7,400 units that have been advanced since November of 2022. Notice they're located near the major highway corridors. There are no developments on our local roads except proposed Morgan Farm. Recall Britmore, the black X, was denied by this City Council on January 20th of this year.

Our primary highways are already congested and traffic is diverting onto our local roads. Farrington Mill is the main commuter bypass between Durham, Chatham, and Orange Counties. Traffic there increased 12.9% from August of '24 to August of '25 and will reach level of service F by 2028 due to ambient growth alone. The proposed sewer route, the red line, would cut our local road network in half. Farrington and Farrington Mill would be reduced to single lanes with flagmen for at least 9 months.

The sewer also crosses the Lower Little Creek Bridge, The red arrow, which is being replaced from 2029 to 2032. This is Army Corps land. These projects, as well as other infrastructure projects in this immediate area, will cause severe traffic disruption. I urge you to deny large housing developments on our local roads. Our infrastructure cannot absorb it. Please vote no. Thank you.

It's easier for me. Hello, Mayor Williams. Mayor Pro Tem Caballero and council members, my name is Hulk Farley and I live on Keffley Road. I'm here to discuss the traffic impact of Morgan Farm. I have previously sent each of you a detailed written analysis, traffic analysis, and I'll briefly summarize my findings.

Durham Planning uses a Florida DOT level of service handbook for road capacity. The handbook for the entry for the Farrington Mill Road type is highlighted here in yellow. Level of service D is typically used for maximum capacity. However, there's a footnote stating that once level of D service is reached, the service degrades to failing grade F at intersections. Bottom line, 14,200 vehicles per day represents gridlock on Farrington Mill Road.

Durham uses the ITE trip generation manual to estimate estimate traffic for housing projects. For a single-family unit, the manual estimates 10 vehicles per day. Morgan Farm will add up to 437 units, which will result in more than 4,000 additional vehicles per day on Farrington Mill Road.

Using 2025 NCDOT data, Farrington Mill Road traffic is growing at about 7% per year. Projecting forward, ambient growth alone pushes pushes the road into gridlock by 2028. When Morgan Farm traffic is added, phased through the build-out, total volumes reach about 165% of the gridlock capacity before the project is complete. This would push an already failing road network into severe and sustained congestion. The developer has described the new TIA, but that TIA has significant omissions assumptions and unrealistic assumptions.

But most importantly, it has not been reviewed or validated. So please use that carefully. I urge you to vote no.

Good morning, Mayor, Mayor Williams, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and council members. My name is Joe Segula. I live on Kepley Road as well. I want to follow up from, what Mr. Farley has stated to you and, and explain to you how Farrington Mill Road— oh, lost it.

Where is it? It's not showing.

There it goes. Okay, okay, sorry. I want to follow up and explain how Farrington Mill Road fits into the broader network and why traffic congestion in this area cannot realistically be be mitigated. Morgan Farms is indicated here in the middle of this map. As you can see, Farrington Mill Road, along with US 15-501 and Route 751, have become major conduit into Durham from the southwest.

But as you can see here, all Farrington Mill Road traffic is forced into just 3 roads: Barbee Chapel Road, Farrington Road, and Stagecoach road. There are no alternative roads. These three roads are already heavily commuter roads, which if you've traveled any of them you would probably know that, and continued nearby residential development keeps adding traffic to this already constrained system. Now look at the blue areas on the map and you'll see this is the Army Corps of Engineers critical flood control As you can see, these three key intersections fed directly from Farrington Mill Road are constrained by the Army Corps flood control lands. Congestion is already severe, with backups often over a half a mile on these roads.

And for more than 30 years, the Corps has not released land for any expansion, and multiple regional studies with NCDOT have concluded approvals are not feasible. This means there is no realistic way to increase capacity at any of these locations. So adding Morgan Farms traffic would make an already overburdened system significantly worse. Thank you for your attention. Good morning.

While she's doing that, thank you, thank you for your patience. Thank you.

I've changed everything I wanted to say tonight. Hey, my GPS brought me brought me from Montclair— my name's Eddie Williamson— brought me from Montclair up Hope Valley Road. 47 years ago, my wife and I bought a house, our first house, on Hope Valley Road. I brought my son home, who is now the father of my two grandkids that are at Jordan High School. As I passed by, obviously there was some really good moments.

Of memory. I got here and I felt like I needed to say that. My wife and I have moved around a lot as I was a football coach. We moved back, we started our life here in Durham. We chose to come back here and end our life in Durham chasing our grandkids.

Now, if you will, just look at the pictures on the wall. I came home from Chapel Hill, Falk Fordham Boulevard one afternoon, later than I normally like to leave the gym. It took me 14 and a half minutes when I made the turn off of 54 onto Barbee Chapel to go 1.5 miles to my home in Montclair. I thought, well, there must be a wreck. There was no wreck.

Then I thought maybe road construction for some of the development that is opening up at the west end of Barbee Chapel. That wasn't the problem either. What could cause it? And then I realized it's just a crowded, crowded area. There are more cars feeding into that place than anyplace else. And the real problem that I would have is if I wanted to bring a carton of ice cream home from Harris Teeter, it would melt before I got home. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Make it full screen. Good morning, council members. My name is Dana Young and my address is on file, but I live off of Farrington Mill Road. This is a picture of Farrington Mill Road. To the right is where the proposed Morgan Farm development site begins, and on the left is where the WIT pipeline is going to be coming up from, from Chatham County up Farrington Mill Road. Farrington Mill Road is, as you can see, a very narrow rural road in poor condition.

It has no shoulders, a 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, and is already operating at a level of service D. And this is also the, as you heard, the primary commuting route between Chatham, Orange, and Durham Counties.

These are fully funded, high-priority infrastructure projects that are scheduled from 2027 through 2032 that all impact Farrington Mill Road, Farrington Road, and Stagecoach Road. And the Highway 54 widening may not be in the direct network, but it's also going to be widened and impact this local network. All of these projects overlap. The Western Intake Partnership will run up Farrington Mill Road to a new water treatment facility being built. A sewer main is being relocated out of a floodplain up Farrington Road to a sewer treatment plant, and the Lower Little Creek Bridge, already severely degraded, will be replaced requiring long-term lane closures.

Even without these projects, traffic is projected to drop to the level of Service F within the next 2 years, and that estimate does not include Morgan Farm, which proposes a 3-mile sewer line and a lift station along Farrington Mill and large— a large multi-unit development with 3 points of access, all on Farrington Mill Road as well, which is already strained.

This map shows how all these projects converge on the same small network of two-lane roads. It looks crowded because it is, and it will be. So the question is simple: why approve a major development, one that hasn't gone through standard rezoning and vetting, right in the middle of overlapping critical infrastructure work? Durham's priorities should be clear: safe roads and bridges, reliable drinking water, environmental protection, and the quality of life of existing residents. Adding Morgan Farm into this mix increases risk, compounds congestion, and threatens to delay or disrupt essential projects.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, I have Larry Tienem., are you Lynn Castiglione? Castiglione. Castiglione. All right, so, after Larry, I have Linda Castiglione. Annette Rice, Judy Jones, Naomi Eckhouse, and Whitney Harris. Welcome. Good morning, Mayor Williams, Council Mayor Pro Tem and City Council members. Thank you for staying awake this long. My name is Larry Keenum and my address is on file. I am here to oppose annexation.

I would like to talk to you about a very important 107 feet, about a mile and a half from the site you are deliberating on tonight and located along their proposed sewer force main. Traffic studies have been done in the past. However, these numbers that have been generated do not account for the increase, increase in construction or heavy equipment that now passes over the bridge and through this area. On these two-lane country roads. The Little Creek Bridge was constructed in 1979.

It was buttressed, buttressed in 2006 with riprap, and it was last inspection found, on public records was June of 2023, and at that time it was structurally deficient, meaning meeting minimum tolerable limits. NCDOT will be replacing this bridge in 2029 to 2032. In the meantime, we have been assured that they will continue to limp it along until the replacement is complete. Weight limits are a likely step to make sure it remains safe. Heavy construction traffic will speed up the deterioration of this bridge.

The images that you see here are the current, images, of the structure. And remember that these images are talking about the destruction that's going on along with erosion. They've placed sandbags to help stop erosion, which isn't working. And I urge you to deny this request. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next.

Greetings, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and City Council members. My name is Linda Costagliola, and my address is on file. Morgan Farm is in the same location as the rejected Sheffield Farms project, and while it is true the project has been scaled down, the sewer issue is still on the table. The developer must provide a sewer lift station and 3-mile-plus sewer main force at a projected cost of $10 million, all on his dime. That is the only requirement.

Sounds awesome, doesn't it? It's a win-win. Or is it? This slide shows the Morgan Farm home construction timeline. That big, beautiful sewer lift station and 3-mile-plus sewer main force— force main has to be installed before any home construction can begin. Fiscal year 2028, 55 homes to be completed.

Ah, but what about the Little Creek Bridge? At this point in our timeline, 2028, the developer has provided the sewer lift station and all it entails. Utility relocation begins April 2029, with new bridge construction beginning in August Guess who has to pay for the utility relocation costs? The city of Durham. The city of Durham will also be responsible for repairs, ruptures, maintenance for perpetuity— perpetuity, I'm tired.

Estimated cost: $5 million. The city of Durham will have to pay for the relocation of that sewer lift station and 3-mile sewer force main in order to replace the Little Creek Bridge. An active sewer line will have to be moved. So I ask you, will this $10 million sewer lift station and 3-mile+ sewer force main be the gift to Durham it is made out to be? Thank you. Thank you.

Do you need help with the AV? Could you come down here, Mayor, please, and give me a hand? Good morning, folks. Good morning. My name is Annette Rice. My address is on file, and my finger's getting sore. As you can see on this image here.

During the deliberations of the UGB for the new comprehensive plan, which is 2023, the Durham Planning Commission initially suggested the removal of this particular area from within the urban growth area simply because of the difficulty in supplying sewer to the site. If you look at this map, the red arrow there and the red pin there basically show you where the United States Army Corps of Engineers Jordan Lake project lands are with the red marking where the Morgan Farm site is. Here's a picture of the utility extension agreement image there showing you how it has to go up to the, the Southwestern Durham Water Treatment Facility. And this is that same line running through the Army Corps of Engineers properties. In 2013, the Corps of Engineers modified policies regarding non-recreational land use out grants.

Those include leases and utility easements. Any modifications made to the past out grants pre-2013 are now considered new applications subject to the full Army Corps review process. A non-recreational policy specifics per Chapter 17, ER 1130-2-550 Change 6 states that for the evaluation of a new out grant, there must be no viable alternative or a direct benefit to the federal government. Of course, there are some exceptions. However, the Army Corps of Engineers refuses to consider cost as a factor whenever they decide whether or not there is a viable alternative in existence.

So do you think that the Army Corps of Engineers is going to permit the, running of a sewer main through the— their property and through property that's also controlled by the NCDEQ? Furthermore, who asked the developer about coming down to the regular density? And on the STIP, there is limitations because of Army Corps of Engineers property. Why put sewer through there? Thank you. I'm not sure how to get this slide up yet. Need my tech advisor.

We have two Judys. I know there are a lot of us at Carolina Meadows. Okay, perfect. Hello, good morning. I'm Judy Jones and I live at Carolina Meadows.

My address is on file. I'm adjacent to this property. I am a retired high school biology teacher, and for my whole career I was helping students understand the interconnectedness of nature and how disturbing one part disturbed the whole. And I feel like this is just a perfect example of what disasters could happen. Jordan Lake is a reliable drinking water source for Durham and several other counties and municipalities, serving more than 700,000 customers.

And Durham recently committed to move forward with the Western Intake Partnership, taking on all the infrastructure expenses to pump raw water from Jordan Lake up Farrington Mill Road into a new treatment plant. As you know, the Corps of Engineers, as has been said before, owns the land around Jordan Lake and the reservoir and will not issue permits for road improvements or sewer incursions if it determines there is potential harm to water quality. That limits Durham's growth and makes it impractical to provide city services in an area protected by state water supply rules. These state rules and classifications are designed to protect water quality and guide future development. Mr. Shelton Sullivan, a Department of Environmental Quality staff member, verified during a call last year the following statement: The subject address, 8422 Farrington Mill Road, is located within a protected area of the water supply watershed.

The receiving water is classified as nutrient sensitive, and the area is subject to the Jordan Watershed riparian buffer And you can see from the map that the proposed development is already within a protected area and impinging upon a critical area. Please vote no. Thank you.

Thank goodness she's here. I'm a Neanderthal. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem, council members. My name is Naomi Eckhouse, I think, and I live just off Farrington Road.

My address is on file. I haven't been up this late since I met my husband and we talked till 4 o'clock in the morning. I'm asking you to please oppose the request to annex this property into the city of Durham. The consequences of such an annexation would pose an enormous consequence of such an annex to the city water supply if there were a water main sewer break, which would just— which would discharge raw sewage into our drinking water supply. While a sewer break is always harmful, in this case it is especially so because of the proximity to our watershed.

The risk to the health of thousands of people outweighs any benefit. Could a sewer break really happen? Absolutely. The image before you is the catastrophe that happened in 2013 in Durham when a tree fell and broke the sewer main south of Duke University. Nearly half a million gallons of pure sewage was discharged into Sandy Creek, which feeds Jordan Lake, the main source of our drinking water.

More recently, in 2025, Tropical Storm Chantelle's floodwaters caused a sewer break, and 819,000 gallons of untreated water— wastewater— flowed into Morgan Creek and onto Jordan Lake. Additional flooding occurred caused a total of over 3 million gallons of wastewater filled with sewage to flow into our regional drinking water supply. That's the equivalent of 5 Olympic-sized swimming pools. We asked the City of Durham to keep additional sewer lines out of this water-critical area near Jordan Lake, which currently supplies over 3/4 of a million people with clean drinking water and to protect the future water supply for Durham. Allowing annexation is simply not worth the risk.

Please deny this request, just as the Planning Commission has. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Well, I don't know about y'all, but I'm excited because we live in a country where we get to speak with our elected officials. So for no matter what happens tonight, that's worth celebrating in my opinion. Good evening, good morning, depends on how you're feeling, right? My name is Whitney Harris, my address is on record, and I live in South Durham as a proud Durham resident. I'm here today to personally ask you to respond no to this proposal to annex this property, not because I oppose growth, but because we've already seen what happens when we approve projects based on promises that are guaranteed.

My 10-year-old daughter, who also believes in democracy, made this nice little graphic for you to see what happens when a project like 751 South is approved and then all of those promises are not upheld. And I want to acknowledge up front that, again, I understand this project or something like it is likely going to be approved at some point, and that's okay. Durham is growing, and it's this wonderful place to live that we want to share with other people. Without growth, people like my family don't get to experience this wonderful community. But growth alone is not the goal.

The right growth should be the goal. And the right growth is not this project. We don't have to speculate because we've seen what's happened with 751 South. It was presented as a thoughtfully planned mixed-use community, a place where people could live, work, and gather together. Its promises seemed balanced.

Infrastructure and benefits to the broader community with annexation. These were all promises. An EMS, fire station, school, All within that planned community. Guess what? All of that since 2023 has been taken off the table in exchange for a payment to the housing fund, in exchange for Durham doesn't have the money to build the land, so let's just give DPS some funds.

That's not okay. That's not what we were promised. And who absorbs that impact? The increased traffic, the schools becoming strained, the environmental concerns, and the trust in the process that's weakened. We do. Durham citizens do. My family, my 10-year-old daughter Elizabeth. This is the lesson of 751 South. What is promised in annexation or what's granted doesn't always guarantee that that's what's going to be delivered. And this is what we are concerned and what we fear with the Morgan Farm developers in the end.

So tonight, it's not just about should we grow, we will, but let's grow the right way. Ask for more. Thank you for that human espresso. I needed it. All right. Tell me your name. Kathy Rexrode. Say it one more time. Kathy Rexrode. Okay. All right. So if I can have Chris Peckham, Juan Montes. No, not Juan. William Few. Nope.

Chuck Darcy, Andy Lowe, and Katie Jackson, Jennifer Mayer.

I wish I had her energy. I don't right now, but good morning. My name is Kathy Rexroad, and I live also in the Downs neighborhood., and thank you for listening to us tonight in the middle of I'd like to speak briefly on how this annexation application relates to the county Durham County comprehensive plan, specifically Policy 165., part of it reads, annexation into the city limits should only be considered when a substantial benefit to the community can be demonstrated.

We've heard about proffers, and just like the last speaker said, we've got money being offered, but no actual affordable or accessible units in this location. We've got issues with the Jordan Lake Watershed. We've got increased traffic in areas where roads cannot be widened. We've got increased utilization of overcrowded schools with, again, money thrown at it. But does that really fix it?

Future water and sewer line maintenance issues and many concerns that you've heard. Policy 165 also states that annexation should not cause service delivery or operational issues for the city or county. You've heard and seen on the map how the proposed sewer line would be laid perpendicular to water flowing into a floodplain. In the storms, that water flow is very forceful, and if and when this sewer line fails and sewage either flows into Jordan Lake watershed or backs up into the proposed 437 conservation homes, Durham will have serious service delivery and operational issues. And people will be asking, who thought this was a good idea?

The planning department wanted to remove this parcel from the urban growth boundary when the light rail project was canceled for this specific reason.

Council, as you're well aware, annexation is permanent and it obligates the city to provide city water, sewer, and other services. If this is not a good plan for sewer and it's annexed, then you are on the hook forever. We are on the hook forever. The guidelines for the city of Durham that the city and county of Durham have created for annexation have not been met. Please vote no. Thank you.

Good evening, councilors. My name is Chris Peckham, and I am the president of the Montclair Homeowners Association. My address addresses on file. I want to thank you for your service and for taking the time to listen to us well into the morning here. This morning, I would like to speak to you about growing pains.

Yes, growing pains. This is what I once heard a member of the City Council refer to about potential disruption associated with developing along Farrington Mill Road. Now, when I think of growing pains, I think of the challenges of being a teenager and growing up to be an adult. In other words, I think of pains that go away, but what we are talking about here today won't go away. It will create permanent generational pain.

While we are just talking about annexation, we're really talking about a development, because without the annexation, there will be no development. But with annexation, there will be a development without further oversight. So this evening, you will have heard from folks that have talked about the pain that development will cause. This will be similar to what you have heard heard before with the Britmore proposal, only to be 3 to 4 times the size. You will have heard about a significant disruption to traffic during annexation and significant increase in traffic from the development itself on roads that are not allowed to be expanded, and there's no land on which to expand them if you could.

Permanent pain. You will have heard about impact to ecology and wildlife that cannot be restored because no one ever tears down a development to build a forest. Permanent impact. New students will be underserved at schools that are at or over capacity with no plans to expand them. That's generational impact.

Economically and physically disadvantaged persons might be expected to live here, though they will have no access to public transportation. Pervasive systemic challenges. And then there is the potential impact to our drinking water that comes from this sensitive area. A remediation here would cause financial pain for generations. Our comprehensive plan did not take all of these factors into account, so I urge you to please vote no to annexation. Thank you.

Hello, thank you everyone for being here, and, thank you for Your patience, everybody. My name is Katie Jackson. My address is on record. I'm here tonight to speak more about the consequences of growth that outpaces our infrastructure, particularly as it pertains to our schools. We're already seeing this impact in Durham Public Schools.

In a recent message to families, the superintendent acknowledged that Lyons Farm Elementary is experiencing significant overcrowding. Overcrowding. In fact, the current enrollment already reflects what is projected for next year's high enrollment scenario, meaning we're not just growing, but we're ahead of the most aggressive projections. So what happens when a school becomes overcrowded? We don't just add students, we lose opportunities.

Because of the state class size requirements, the district is now being forced to consider repurposing classroom space that's currently used for core instruction to, accommodate additional students. So this would mean spaces that are used for enrichment, innovation, STEM, education for students with, special needs. These are at risk of being, eliminated or, reduced. So let me say that again. Overcrowding is not just a numbers problem.

This is an education inequality problem. So this is where accountability matters, and we should, not be approving more homes for families without the ability— without the promise of being able to educate those students. So as an example, when, we have this current development on Fayetteville Road, when this was being proposed, the residents of my community and surrounding community, we were told overcrowding was not a problem. At that time, Creekside Elementary was already at 125% capacity. So clearly we do have an overcrowding issue.

Adding more homes is not going to solve that. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, City Council, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem. I'm back here before you. Normally when I come before you, I'm urging you all to approve more housing, more density, and as you weigh the trade-offs. Of, of that density. There's usually kind of a give and take, and many of you have acknowledged that tonight with some of the other cases.

This case is unique for me in that there is no additional density right now. Very close to the amount of homes that are being asked to be built are already allowed to be built, just with septic tanks and no utility hookup, but still there and still the same traffic., what the developer is asking you to let them do is hook up to city water and sewer, not put septic tanks in in the ground and put a covenant on massive amounts of open space. Now, I normally don't have my environmentalist hat on here, but I guess tonight I do because that seems like a very good deal compared to clear-cutting a good part of the land, timbering it, selling it, building large estate homes, and building the— digging the septic tanks and wells for them. So from an environmental perspective, I definitely would take that deal over leaving it in the county.

So thank you. I urge you to support the annexation tonight and hope you all sleep well. Are you Jennifer? Good morning. My name is Jennifer Marr. My address is on record. Thank you for your patience, and I admire your stamina.

I am speaking on behalf of the New Hope Bird Alliance, for which which I am the conservation co-chair. I want to bring two issues to you that I don't think have been addressed really. One is the effect of fragmentation. So we have done studies that show that the New Hope Bottomlands, which was a very productive bird breeding, rare bird breeding area of Durham, has suffered a serious decline of bird population because all around the edges, the land has been developed. And that means access into the land and a much less attractive breeding association.

So if you looked at the maps that you were seeing of the conservation area, you saw chunkier, chunkier, chunkier. What you didn't see was how this land now connects down to the Jordan Lake forested area and creates a very intact and environmentally important area for birds. The second thing I want to bring up is, is the effect of groundwater in filling our reservoirs and giving us clean drinking water. The more that we have impervious surfaces replacing mature forests, which this land has, the more— the less drinking water is actually retained and flowing into Jordan Lake. At the same time, if we develop, we're adding more people trying to consume this drinking water.

So I have a feeling that we are in trading off for little bits of affordable housing or small parcels that are some percentage of natural heritage being preserved. It's almost like the biblical story of Esau. Yes, we are getting a porridge now, we're getting a few affordable housing, but we're giving up our natural resources that we will depend on for the future, foreseeable future. And for this reason, I hope that you will not annex this land. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, I have Steve Cohen, Astrid Cook, Pablo Friedman.

I'm Chuck Darcy. I've lived out in that area for almost 50 years. You don't want any part of the city being out there. It's going to cost you more money. And that's something that you guys are very aware of when you consider projects like this. This is going to cost you money over the long run. You don't want any part of it. And, and I urge you to, to vote no. Jeff, do you also go by Chuck? It's a different person.

I was Chuck Darcy. You did say Chuck Darcy. I thought you said Jeff Darcy. I'm sorry. You're good. Yeah.

Steve Cohn, 1406 Pennsylvania Avenue, Chair of the Open Space Committee of the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission. Because, because much of this property is in a state-designated natural heritage area, and because it contains other, other sensitive natural areas, including buffers to the area owned by the Army Corps for protection of Jordan Lake, approximately 63% of this property is marked ROS, Recreation and Open Space, on Durham's place type map. The comprehensive plan is explicit about the purpose and treatment of these areas. It says recreation and open spaces are areas that will remain free from development. Natural features and environmentally sensitive areas should be preserved in all recreation and open space place types.

On the site plan, the developers are showing well over 50% of the property's designated ROS land will be built on top of in their plan for a nominally conservation subdivision. In keeping with the UDO's priorities for which space to keep open, the substantial pond and the area with historical buildings must take up much of this project's open space. Leaving not much room for including the land actually designated as ROS in the part of the development that would remain undisturbed. The majority of the ROS place type will not remain free from development and will not be preserved in the way our comp plan, the comp plan you are meant to follow, demands. There would be some benefit in bringing water and sewer to the southwest corner of the county and adding more single-family homes to Durham's housing stock.

But it is essential to net that out against the irreversible loss from enabling a developer to build over land the state has designated as vital to North Carolina's biodiversity and the city has identified in its comp plan as critical open space that should be fully protected. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Astrid Cook. My address is on file, and I'm speaking once again on behalf of the Durham City Council Environmental Affairs Board Land Use and Planning Subcommittee. We have reviewed this annexation and am opposed to the request as presented. This opposition is based first and foremost on the absence of any enforceable mechanism to ensure that environmental protections discussed during the review process would be carried forward and upheld over the life of the project. The application proposes annexation into the city without a concurrent zoning map change or binding development plan.

As a result, there is no clear enforceable framework by which commitments related to stream protection, tree preservation, stormwater management, or construction practices could be guaranteed. In the absence of such a framework, EAB Land Use and Planning Subcommittee cannot evaluate the environmental impacts of the project with sufficient confidence to support annexation. While the proposal is described as a conservation subdivision preserving approximately 50% open space, we note that this figure includes areas that are already constrained from development, such as stream buffers and floodplains. The application does not demonstrate that preserved areas will be contiguous functionally protected, or managed in a way that maintains ecological integrity. Without a binding plan, these areas risk becoming fragmented residual spaces rather than meaningful conservation features.

EAB is further concerned about the scale and duration of construction activity associated with the project. The proposed development includes up to 437 residential units and approximately 22,000 linear feet of new roadway infrastructure. With a multi-year build-out extending from 2028 through 2032. Prolonged land disturbance at this scale, particularly within a watershed protected area, presents a significant risk of sediment transport and long-term degradation of downstream water quality. Thank you for your time. Please vote no.

Thank you. Our last speaker.

All right, good morning. 1 in the morning. This might be a new record, Council. Congratulations on that record., all right, close.

So let's talk a little bit about this one. On the previous case before you, I talked about how the standard for net per pupil had increased dramatically from where we started at the baseline a couple weeks ago. Of 500, and I think the developer didn't— or the— sorry, the applicant didn't talk about this, but I do want to commend them. I mean, the net per pupil commitment is over— is somewhere between 30— it's between $3,300 or $3,500 depending on my math, which I haven't seen those numbers come up before. And I think that's— I want that now to be the floor.

We have a developer, an applicant coming here and setting that expectation going forward. I think the council should be weighing future requests on that expectation. Going back to the question that you asked the last meeting, Council Member Kopac, about what the expectation needing to be changed around per pupil funding by the applicants. But I also want to talk about this being a continuous improvement process. Earlier we talked about how comments from, the environmental affairs folks being incorporated into the, the documents that you received.

I think that's really good. I also want to continue that conversation around the EMS. There were 4 individual elected officials that spoke from the dais tonight— Council Member Kopac, Council Member Burris, Council Member Cook, and Mayor Pro Tem Caballero— saying you want to see that data, right? And I agree with you. I don't know this person, but some of his posts have come to my attention, which is Jerry Ray.

And you saw that earlier on one of the slideshow presentations that were before you. There are moments right now that those of us who are premium taxpayers of Durham where the emergency responders go into what's called eSTAT mode. I had never heard of that, which is that there's no ambulance available to pick up the call, and that's already right now without any new approvals. So how many times have— has eSTAT happened, and how are these new applications going to ameliorate that or provide more capacity when, as is, we can't even service the calls that are being received? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, those are our speakers for this evening. Did I, did I miss someone?

Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, you're at the bottom of this page over here., yeah, William Few. Now is a good time. Yes. All right. And Randy Few as well. Yes. Okay, sorry about that. That's all right, we didn't want to be excluded., as you know, my name is Bill Few.

I'm the president of Kendrick Estates Investment Corporation. Kendrick Estates is a family corporation and it is the owner of Morgan Farms. We have, as a family, held this property for 5 generations now as an investment to recover the growing timber value and as a potential, and for its potential development., the growing timber on the property has been managed in compliance with the professional management, plan for forestry for decades now, and the timber is mature and ready to be cut. So we must, in order to maintain our compliance with the plan, either timber the property or do something else.

If we don't maintain compliance with the timber management plan, we'll likely lose our present use valuation for property taxes for the property. It'll be reappraised at its highest and best use, and it'll be simply unaffordable for the family to maintain and hold on to the property any longer.

Timbering the, timbering the property is not our preference, however. So we have an opportunity as an alternative to timbering the property to develop the property with MI Homes as a conservation subdivision preserve the hardwood forest and pine timber forest on the property, and extend a sewer line to Farrington Mill Road at the developer's expense, which is needed. So in conclusion, I'd simply like to say that I think the best of all alternatives is for us to develop the property with MI Homes as a conservation subdivision. And in order to do that, to preserve the pine and hardwood forests on the property and the environment, annexation— thank you— is necessary by the City Council. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Randy Few, one of the owners of the Morgan Farm property. In development discussions, there's often the perception that projects are driven solely by outside interests with little regard for the land or community. That is not always the case. Behind many greenfield proposals is a family trying to make thoughtful, long-term decisions, and that is our story.

Morgan Farm is part of the original 680-acre Sheffield Farm which has been in my family for more than 90 years. In the 1970s, more than 400 acres, nearly 60% of the land, were conveyed or rendered inaccessible as part of the Jordan Lake Project. The loss of pastureland, crop, and hay fields to the Army Corps of Engineers fundamentally changed the agricultural potential of the property. Since the 1970s, we have believed this land would one day be appropriate for development. We have made deliberate decisions to retain the land rather than pursue piecemeal or premature development.

We waited, often at the encouragement of planning staff and elected officials, until public utilities were accessible so the property could be planned comprehensively and developed in a more environmentally responsible way without reliance on septic systems or other on-site wastewater solutions. This belief was reinforced by the construction of the nearby wastewater treatment facility and the water line along Farrington Mill Road. The city modified the urban growth boundary some 25 years ago to include our land. This is not a short-term or speculative endeavor but reflects a consistent commitment to align the future of this property and its transition with Durham's longstanding growth plan. After more than 90 years of stewardship, we believe this proposal represents a responsible transition, preserving 50% of the land as open space, providing needed housing within the urban growth boundary, and aligns with the policies and planning that have guided this area for decades.

Thank you. In addition, it adds $1 million to Durham's dedicated housing Thank you. Can I respond to one other thing regarding, regarding the, question of conservation entities interested in purchasing the, the property? These conservation entities should talk to the owners and not the neighbors. I think I speak for my cousin. We have as well— we've had no discussions with our contact from country.

To be clear, these are the property owners with the applicant, so they actually do get to respond. Yeah, and Mr. Cowan is right. In fact, he sent me the email saying that there was this some unknown group who was interested in the, in doing this, and was it okay for him to send my contact information to them? I said yes, fine. Never heard anything, and this was February. Thank you, sir.

Thank you again, and my apologies about that mix-up., there are— there is equal time to both sides, proponent and opponent., so it's It's been about an hour and a half or two for the opponents. Technically, it could be the same for the others. Hopefully you guys don't take that, but that's usually how it works. All right, I don't have any other speakers. Applicant, would you care to respond?

So a lot has been said tonight, and I know it's late or early., I appreciate your attention, in what is a straightforward planning request, but obviously a complicated emotional request when you take into account the folks that live closest to this property, in the Montclair and Chapelwood neighborhoods. And we understand their sentiments, but they were just like, just like us 10, 20 years ago when this property was held by the Few family for the last almost a century. They've been here stewardship of the land, following the directives of the Planning Department, of city councils before you, and maintaining this land for conservation. They've been doing exactly what these groups are now turning and asking them to do, except those subdivisions were approved by council in 2012.

With the same density that we're asking to come before you today. They're up here complaining about what we understand are valid concerns about traffic and patterns that they experience in their daily lives because their neighborhoods were approved by this council at the same density that we're asking to be approved here today. And so we understand those are existing problems that exist because their neighborhoods were allowed to go ahead, just like the 437 families that we're trying to house to house Durham shortfall, where these people are moving to Durham at an accelerated rate and they need to live somewhere. The folks that are here before you were given that chance, and we're asking you to give the, the 437 families that we'd be able to house here the same chance. Now, that density is able to come here one way or another, but the only way that the Durham gets meaningful public interest benefits— the $1 million towards the down payment assistance fund, the, the money towards the schools, the money towards the EMS, the— and I misspoke earlier, it's actually $3.5 million of transportation improvements that the developer would be bearing.

You heard one of the neighbors mention the $10 million of sewer infrastructure that would be extended to this area. All of that is possible if these same 437 families get the same opportunities that everyone before you here tonight received. We will not do that. I'd like to briefly hit just several of the points that were made. Lots of points were made here tonight.

I'd just like to follow up on the several that I think are most salient., there was discussion of the cost-benefit analysis, and, and how we weigh our environmental, areas depending on what the, the annexation, provides in this cost-benefit analysis. I'd like to turn your, your attention to attachments both G and H, which shows that the financial analysis that your staff did shows the project will be revenue positive for the city over a 10-year period. So the financials that we discussed about those improvements of all the extensions that we provided by the developer would also end up having a positive net flow for, for revenue for the city based on property tax and other improvements and fees that the development would produce going forward. At the same time, no operational analysis—, operational analysis does not show any deficiencies in service.

So you're getting positive, cash flow without detracting from deficiencies, and we heard about some concerns there., second, there were policies cited as to the, comprehensive plans policy 79, 81, and 83 about not disturbing the North Carolina Heritage Program. The Heritage Program is a voluntary program, and we understand the comprehensive plan adopted the open space designation and aligns to a great extent with the hardwoods that are protected under that voluntary state program. But the reality is that the comprehensive plan of the City of Durham cannot be used to penalize an existing owner who has maintained the hardwoods on these years under a voluntary program and, and take that same, that same justification and say that this should be denied because it's inconsistent. What we've done here is preserve the majority of the hardwoods that were able to be preserved.

60% of that North Carolina Heritage Program natural area is able to be preserved in the filed conservation plan that is with the city and will become binding once approved. Again, the restrictive covenants for open space require any owner of the land to follow that, that open space. And so protecting the North Carolina Heritage Program, which is voluntary and not regulatory, is the only way that those hardwoods have protection. The annexation is denied tonight, and that's the will of the council. There is no protection for those hardwoods.

So we can talk about how much we want to preserve them and how much we want to follow the comprehensive plan, but the reality is there are landowner rights that these folks have had and held this hardwood forest intact, providing 100% canopy for everything that you see on site today. For the last 100 years, they've done that time, they've done that service for the public, and it's time for them to be able to move forward and to move on and take care of their own families. With respect to the two historic buildings, there was concern that Preservation Durham had not been consulted. I believe that we made that clear and provided that letter with the support of Preservation Durham. They are ready to take maintenance of those two structures and work with us.

Those are shown on the conservation subdivision plan that we filed with the city. There was concern over a potential burial ground and not enough investigation done on that. We sent materials over to you in an email last week that showed that there was an initial indication that there could be potential burial grounds based on that periwinkle and headstones. We had a consultant named Spangler go out there in 2023 and investigate the very area that was suspected for potential burial grounds and found no evidence of cemeteries or burial grounds in the area that was initially, initially inspected. So there was a suspicion of it, it was inspected, and no evidence was found.

With respect to the comments, about 40% wetlands on our site, that is not true. If you look at the conservation subdivision, there is no indication that there's 40% of the site being taken up by wetlands. There's a tremendous amount of hardwoods on the site, and again, those are being protected by our ability to move forward with the annexation and this conservation subdivision., with respect to just speaking briefly on the offer to, to purchase, this case has been before you for 3 years. At any time, a legitimate offer could have been made by a conservation group stepping forward, and expressing all of the passion that you've heard tonight, that we want to save these hardwoods, we want to protect this.

The best thing we can do is protect this forest. And the reality is there's not been any offer made to these folks, and so they've done the best they can after taking care of this land for nearly 90 years, and they're moving forward with the best group that they could find that would make a commitment to file a conservation plan. And that's exactly what MI Homes did. They filed the conservation plan, saving as much of this hardwoods as possible and making good on the promise to try to do the best they could in a new form of stewardship of the land. With respect to the TIA, I mentioned that the improvements that we would be committing to would be $3.5 million.

It's important that that's not just to serve the development. Of course, that relates to our traffic. But as you've heard tonight from the very folks that want you to turn down this annexation, the problems they are experiencing exist today. There's a citation of the level of service going to level of service F without Morgan Farm. What does that mean?

You've got an existing traffic problem. And either we pay for it or the city pays for it. And the way the city pays for it is with taxpayer dollars. And so what we're trying to do here is to balance that growth and to balance the revenue, shortfalls that already exist here. Those capital improvements are not funded for either, the— for those roads to be improved, and we're trying to take that burden upon ourselves.

Finally, there was a discussion about, the sewer. I think there was some concern about an aerial sewer crossing that is not part of the plan. The UEA does require, sewer improvements to the tune of, of $10 million, as was stated earlier. And that's important because the only reason this area is in the future growth area is because the city contemplated that sewer has to be extended here, and it has to be extended either by a capital improvements project or by private investment. We're here before you to try to extend that sewer for the private investment to help people like Mrs. Quinn who unfortunately couldn't stay because of her health issues, but has been waiting on things that these people already get to exist.

They already have an ability to have that sewer connection that Miss Quinn and her neighbors do not. And so we're asking you tonight to look at the positive outcome that could be with the approval of this annexation tonight, not only from a revenue perspective that's set forth in your, in your manager's report, but also from a conservation perspective, and that we've done everything we can to provide the binding commitments that existed before you, but taking them to the next level by tripling the amount of open space, by providing the same amount of stock of housing, and doing it in the best way possible to protect the trees that do not have a protection today, and will leave the landowners with no other choice but to follow the forestry plan and to timber these, these trees that have been growing for quite some time. That's not a threat of what could happen. That's just the reality of what's been binding on the site. That's the reality of the existing regulations.

You have the power tonight to choose yes to protect that forest. By choosing no and denying the annexation, you will leave the owners with very little decision but to leave the trees with the protection they have today, which is nothing. And we don't think that's what the neighbors want. We don't think that's what you want., we're happy to answer further questions.

I know it's been a long night and an early morning, but we appreciate you giving this a lot of thought. We certainly have. We know the neighbors have, and we appreciate your support. Thank you so much. I don't have any further speakers, so therefore I will declare the public hearing closed and back to before the council.

Oh my God. Yeah, I feel you, Council Member, but I am really appreciative of everyone been here tonight. Not casting any shade. Y'all are welcome. We'll be here as long as you need us to be. So really appreciate the engagement this evening and the thoughtful back and forth we've seen with the residents and the, and the applicants.

So some questions for staff because I still feel like I'm seeking some clarity on understanding what the potential paths forward are. There's, you know, concerns around trust of like what is actually submitted to or not. So some of the initial questions are, first of all, like, is the conservation subdivision guaranteed under the utility extension agreement and the CS filing? It is not. They have— the applicant has submitted a conservation subdivision application, so that application is in process, but any applicant has the ability to withdraw an application at any time.

And is there a way forward where that is agreed to and guaranteed? Is there any way to get to that point of confidence? So, I mean, in theory, the applicant could put a, a commitment within the UEA that the UEA could only be extended to a conservation subdivision, and if there was going to be something other than a conservation subdivision on the site, the UEA would need to come back before the council to get approved. So that's not currently what is in the UEA? That is not currently in the UEA.

Okay., how was the conservation subdivision filed without a pre-submittal meeting? How does that work in this? There would have— there would have been a pre-submittal meeting with the major— with the land development review staff in our department. Okay, so there was that meeting.

That should— that should— well, actually, yeah, I'm trying to think. They do things a little bit differently in land development review. I believe they have the neighborhood meeting first and then the pre-submittal. Is that right? Yeah, I think they do the, the neighborhood meeting first and then have the pre-submittal.

So that pre-submittal may not have taken place yet. It has taken place. Okay. And then in terms of concerns around the management of the land for environmental purposes through translational zoning and the absence of enforcement mechanisms, is that the case that we're facing? I'm sorry, rephrase that, please.

So is there any way oversight and enforcement, you know, by the city and development and planning over the practices of the build-out of the conservation subdivision through this translational zoning? Well, there would need to be a— there would be a requirement for a site plan to be submitted, and that site plan would need to be followed. And that would follow— that would be— that would be the standard, same way we do with any other site plan. Okay. Next, just trying to understand the potential paths forward.

So is there a way for this land to be developed as been described by Wright without the annexation? Yes. And is that what— single-family homes with septic? Single-family homes without access to water and sewer, so well and septic. Okay.

And so we have the annexation, or we have single-family homes with you know, with septic, or there's potential— I mean, there could also— they could do a community wastewater system, they could do a community well system. There are— those are difficult and expensive, but those are possible. Okay. And then there's the possibility of the trees just being clear-cut based on the forestry management plan from what we've heard. Right.

In a conventional subdivision, Division, there's no requirement for, is there an identified wildlife corridor? So we do not— there is not an open space plan, an adopted open space plan in this part of the county, so there's not a locally adopted and identified wildlife corridor. Well, it's not adopted, it's been identified. There may be something identified through other mechanisms, but we as staff do not see an adopted wildlife corridor in any of our local plans because we don't have one for this area. I may have some additional questions and thoughts.

I'll pause there. I just want to make sure we're understanding all the potential paths forward so we're being thoughtful. I understand this is an area of high ecological sensitivity. There's concerns around the traffic.

You know, those things matter. I just want to make sure we're not— what's the expression, you know, cutting off our nose to spite our face— based on what the outcome could be, if that is ultimately a worse outcome from an environmental standpoint and from a neighbor preference standpoint. And I'm not fully confident that I understand and am convinced that I, you know, I kind of know what the outcome will be of a yes or no, which sometimes is easier to discern. So I'm going to pause there.

What's next? Yeah, go ahead. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'll jump in. Yeah, thanks, Council Member Kopac, for the comments and questions. I mean, Yeah, there are so many questions here that I think folks have raised here. Also, the late-breaking— appreciate the late-breaking TAA investment in roads as well as the conservation subdivision. I've got questions for staff. Actually, I have one question on that. I mean, I'm really— but let me ask this one.

So I know there was a court case about the Mason Farm related to conservation subdivision. That was the case against the county, not against the city. There were those requirements for conservation subdivision. Have we, have we changed things based on that case? Like, what is— how does that case relate to what, what we're here considering for the City of Durham?

So the ordinance was changed subsequent to that case. Now, the, the issue that was in question as to whether or not the purposes were requirements as opposed to purposes, that has been clarified. The purposes are just intent statements. They are not regulatory. And so what applies are the primary and secondary conservation areas, the requirements for those that are further down in that section.

So that has been clarified. That is not an issue. So I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. So they— so we've changed the language. So it's no longer— is it something like shall or may or something like that? Correct. It just clarifies that the purposes are not regulatory. Or not. So there's these 14, like, purposes that all 14 maybe met or just one, right? Correct. Okay.

Yeah. Following the lines that Council Member Kopac was going down, I mean, I think there's different options here, right? We could— if we don't— and then I think the attorneys have been clear about this. If we don't annex this property, there could be logging, there could be development by right, the same amount of units that were— had been proposed by the development team. So I think we've got— I think we're between a rock and a hard place here.

I think there's a lot of questions around what the TIA would actually do that have not been validated. To me, there's— it's like 1:30 in the morning. We outlasted the Hurricanes game. They won in double overtime. We've been here longer than the Hurricanes.

I know Mr. Kane is a big fan of the Canes. Sorry you missed the game. Like, I'm not a no on this, but it's hard to say yes given all these questions. I feel like we need more time. It's like 1:30 in the morning.

There's so much here. I think this council has done good work to really wrestle down some of these cases. I feel like we can't do that right now. So for me, I think we need some more time. I would send this back to the planning to answer some of these questions because I think there's, I think there's potential here. I think there's also like risks if we don't do anything that we've not fully evaluated. So I would like more time on this.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any other comments? Yeah, go ahead. Well, I'd like to— I mean, if you can make a motion, that's fine, but I do want to hear everyone's comments. I can make that motion now, or I can— I'll still open for discussion after. Okay.

I, I'm not sure we're going to get any more clarity if we, if we spend longer on this. I think that at some point in time we're going to have to realize that we have to grapple with some unknowns and we're going to have to make a decision. I want to say thank you. I heard many of you talk about our patients, and I know that I'm very wiggly up here because I have horrible sciatica pain, but all we are doing is sitting up here. Y'all are the ones that have come out, you've researched, and you've stayed up.

It is 1:30 in the morning. I want to just appreciate public comment and the ability for residents to come speak to us. It is amazing. As someone said earlier, it is an incredible opportunity., I think we heard earlier that there was a statement made that the development wouldn't move forward without the annexation.

That to me feels like it is the likely thing to happen. We heard that this is emotional, and I get that it is emotional, but I also don't want to discredit the, like, dozens of speakers who came out with intensive research, photos of infrastructure, timelines for plans. I mean, we have so many questions about whether any of these things could happen— the Army Corps of Engineers land and whether they're going to allow the sewer, whether we're going to have to end up getting those costs passed down to us because of the bridge renovation. Those are the two things that are kind of standing out to me in terms of economic impact. And then we've heard all about this environmental impact as well.

I just reread the letter, the TCC letter, and see that the conversations have been ongoing. This one is, is easy to me. I think we've heard y'all have been out here for hours and hours. There's been lots of work put into it. I, I don't need any more information. I'm ready. I'm prepared to make a decision tonight, understanding that there's risks to that decision, but I'm willing to stand in and make that decision tonight.

I have a question for the applicant, for either of the fews— for the landowners. I'm sorry, Ms. Schuler.

Have you— you said you have not had any conversations with any land conservation folks, that you have not had any direct contact? Not about this property, no. Okay. What was the question? No contact with any conservation group Absolutely not.

I can tell you that I have been looking after Kendrick Estates for 30 years. My name is on the Secretary of State's office as a registered agent. I'm on the tax rolls, and I've had no contact with anybody who's shown any interest in buying this property as parkland or anything similar. So to say that— that's a— I think that was a gen— This is January's comment. And— sir, we don't— we don't do that here.

We don't shout at us from the audience. I'm sorry. And I'd be happy to share in private with you all the market value of this site. It's a— it's a very expensive piece of property. We have 21 shareholders. Some of them are miners. They're in 5 different states, and we don't have the authority to give away any part or parcel of this property. That's simply not in the cards. It's not available to us. So can you say the last part again?

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. After the 21 shareholders, can you say what you said again, please? Randy, did you pick up on that? I think, yeah. Saying is this, is it's, you know, family businesses are hard, particularly multigenerational ones. And yeah, to get all 21 shareholders to agree to a thing, I got you. Yeah. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah. All right.

Good morning, afternoon, evening, night. So thank you all for, you know, being with us., or just expressing your, concerns regarding development. I know some folks say that, you know, we'll be here as long as it takes, but some of us do have different responsibilities, and as a single-income person, I have to go to work in the morning. So look forward to that exhaustion.

I'm not in favor of continuing this for the fact that we've heard from residents' concerns, and so I think that I have sufficient information to make my decision and be confident in that decision-making at this point, and I'm solidly at a no, as I have arrived at no for other developments along this same area of town in Durham. I remember some of your faces from last time, so I won't belabor the situation. I think that while I do appreciate some of the efforts, I have not been convinced by what's been proposed this evening to, to change my vote to the affirmative.

Thank you all for, for making it this long. Thank you to staff and to folks who have come and spoken and to the applicant team as well., I do believe in the, the, the motivation of the, the landowner., Randy, I remember meeting with you back when I was on the Planning Commission many years ago. About this, this very property.

So I know it's been, it's been in, you know, something that you've been taking a look at for a long time. You know, there's a lot of persuasive comments that I've heard on both sides, but ultimately we are here to review this against the comprehensive plan and do our very best to make the best possible decision for what is a very large and sequential site here at 1:39 AM. And so you all have heard my position earlier this— or yesterday, earlier this evening. I am not leaning towards supporting any further large-scale I'm losing my train of thought here this evening.

Outward growth at this kind of scale, it's something that I've been deeply concerned about for a very long time. You know, short of a very, very impressive master plan, I do— to the landscape architect. I do think the layout here is not bad. I also want to say, I do want to point out the commitments here are spoken by the applicant, unprecedented, and I do think that they are impressive. But ultimately, we do need to weigh the positive and the negatives and make the very best decision here.

And mine currently is a no. Council Member Rist, I don't know what kind of questions you would be seeking clarity on.

I currently lean toward just simply voting no. But of course, you know, if, you know, majority 4 council members wanted— needed more time to to ask questions or whatever, you know, obviously you have the right to do that. So that's where I'm at at this point. I think that is the— there are a lot of unknowns. And so at this point, I am leaning toward a solid no. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

The applicant has made a lot of ambitious commitments on this.

I feel like this case has changed substantially since Planning Commission, and sometimes that allows me to be able to make a decision, but I feel like there are still unanswered questions. That more time would benefit from. It would give us time to evaluate how we can integrate some of the EAB recommendations, think about other adjustments to the utility extension agreement to make sure that we would get the outcome that is being proposed and have it as a promise and see what else can be baked into that UEA.

I mean, it'd be time to see if there's actually a legit buyer. I spoke with the TCC about this. I think that there's a desire to see that, but as I've heard, there's been no real conversation. Perhaps this is then that time, right? Rubber to the road to see if there is that opportunity.

I think the TCC, they communicated to me that they are concerned about the potential for this site just being logged. But from a value standpoint, it's hard for anyone to advocate for something that feels like a feels like not fully aligned with what you believe in and want to see in your neighborhood. But with it being Earth Day and Earth Month, I don't want to end up with a much worse environmental outcome because there's enough consternation about the option in front of us. And so if there's more time to explore that and these other options, I think that that is worth it for a really consequential case., and so with that, you know, I would be interested in having the support of, you know, our, our, you know, our volunteer advisors and Planning Commission, to see this completely different case.

I've spoken with half the planning commissioners. I think that, you know, from what was holding many of them up, I think some of that has been addressed, but I think that there is a lot a lot that else that is outstanding that makes me unable to vote for this, but makes me concerned enough about the consequences of voting no. And so sometimes it's worth doing continuances to try and get it right instead of rushing ahead. And so I would be supportive of that motion to explore some of these open questions.

Colleagues, you know, I'm not, I'm not doing my best thinking, and I think none of us are. It's 1:44 in the morning. My suggestion is that we figure out a continuance if the applicant is available. I actually want to— I do want to say this because I remember when Mr. Few came to us, I was on the council when we made the decision to not do urban growth boundary versus future growth boundary. And part of it was because there's a pretty large Black family that had been on their land, quite frankly, longer than anyone in this room.

And they have been denied sewer and water. And so they were part of the team, the neighbors who said, please, please, please don't put us in the urban. It wasn't just the FUSE. There were other folks who were like, please don't put us in the urban, you know, outside the urban growth boundary. We are never going to get sewer if you do that.

And I know that that family is not here this evening. I know they had to leave. And now I'm— part of the reason I don't want to say anything is I don't want to— it is very upsetting to me when I see older affluent white people deny housing to other folks. I will never forget Mayor Schewell and the amount of respect that I have for that man, because early in my tenure on council, he was a huge proponent of housing and he was a huge environmentalist. And no one can ever challenge his credibility on either.

And a good friend of his, a man he'd been friends with for 40 years, came in and was an opponent on a case. And I remember Mayor Schewell very matter-of-factly, in a kind way, just said, I don't believe in pulling up the ladder behind me. And then he said, and I hope I see you for lunch on Friday like we're supposed to have lunch. And that was the end of that conversation. And I remember, I think I'd been Council maybe 6 months to a year, and I remember what an impact it made on me.

And that is how I've guided many of my decisions, is thinking through who has— I have— I own a house. I think most of the folks in this room own a house. I think most of the people on this council own a house. I know a few folks are still renters. And, and that is what I think about. It is environmental, but it is about housing.

And so I don't want want to continue down this path. I think maybe buying us some more time, getting some questions answered. There have been other cases where we've done a continuance and it has resolved itself in a more positive way. So that's where I'm at, colleagues. I thank you, colleagues.

Is there any other— yeah, go ahead, Council Member Cook. Well, one of the main things that Council Member Kopac said that he was interested in was getting the Planning Commission Commission's take on this new case. So if I think if we are going to truly do the continuance that adds to the value to what folks have said, then we need to send it back to Planning Commission.

I, I don't— these mics are wild. I can't hear y'all either. So, okay, what I said is that you— one of the things that you mentioned wanting to learn was how— what this new case would look like in front of the Planning Commission. And so in order In my mind, in order to make a continuance worthwhile, it would actually be to send something back to the Planning Commission. And I see Aaron Kane is already raising his finger at me, but that is, that is my— yeah, go ahead.

Sure. So just something to be aware of is that Planning Commission does not have a purview to review annexations per se. All they have to review is the zoning, and they do not review annexations. They do not review utility extension agreements. So from a Planning Commissioner's perspective, nothing has changed.

This is still a direct translation annexation to rural residential, rural residential, rural residential, not reviewing the UEA, not reviewing whether or not it should be annexed. So just something to keep in mind if you're going to send it back to Planning Commission. To them, it's going to look just like the case they saw. That's a good call. Council Member, does that change your— I guess then the continuance is just with us, and we can choose to engage, Planning Commission, Environmental Affairs Board, others in helping to evaluate it more informally.

But I guess then the continuance would just be us.

I just— can I say one more thing? Oh, sorry.

I, I just want to say one more thing, which is that I appreciate that comment, and I, I think it's important that we are looking at things, with an eye towards race and, equity., and also, I spend— I, I have to be also at work in 7 hours, to court to help people stay which is what I do with my daytime job all the time. And what I don't want for folks is to be housed in places where it's not sustainable for them. And we're hearing this, these comments about this horrific traffic, the terrible infrastructure. That's not a sustainable place to live.

So, I mean, we can build houses. We can just build houses everywhere, I guess. But it's like we have to build houses that are meaningful and actually can house people and are places that we think that folks deserve to live. It's, it's not enough to just build four walls and a roof. It has to be a place where we also would feel comfortable living and put the standards as if it were our own family.

So I understand both sides of that, but I just want to— I wanted to state that, which is I think we're all worried about. Housing. And also we can think critically about growth with that concern in mind. And just since we're going down memory lane at 2:00 in the morning, I do recall a case where it was around the light rail maintenance facility at the Farrington, where we did, I think, go— the transit authority did condemn a Black family's land, and they also condemned it, and then they also offered to lease it back to them. So we're going to just want to make sure that we're just weighing all the sides of the coin out.

If we talk about, like, you know, we're talking about the past, that we have had some moments where we may not have made the best decision. So I just want to gain clarity on from this point forward, though. So are we just simply— my colleague is asking us to send this— I mean, continue this while you all conduct yourself study to feel more confident in your answer, or just like— and then ideally, like, what's the timeline for that?

I mean, I'm going to propose that, you know, to me, like, 3 months, 90 days to answer some of these questions around— is there a potential, like, as Council Member Kopac said, rubber hits the road, is there a potential buyer for this? I think conserving this land long-term, some kind of folks who want to buy for conservation purposes would be a great option. But I think we have to be like, there's, there's questions that have there been conversations, have there not? The owners have said there's not conversation. So I think giving time for that conversation to like, you know, what part of it?

Yeah, yeah. Let me ask you a question. Can I, Councilor? So what is the, what is the value of the land? Do you all know that?

The— am I at liberty to share that? The, the The land's under contract for $40 million, and we have not had an offer from any groups, not just a serious offer or we're in discussions. There hasn't been an offer for that land. So to continue it for a discussion that frankly could have been had during the last 3 years that this case is pending, I think is, if there's groups that are out there that are waiting in the wings, I question why they haven't approached the owners directly on that., I think the other thing to note, and, and this might have been my mistake, is that the TIA has been submitted.

It was submitted in connection with the conservation subdivision, so that has been reviewed by both, the city staff and DOT, and they've concurred with the findings. So of course that goes through the, the process for the conservation subdivision, but it was submitted, and that's how I'm able to say we're committing to these things because we already have an email back from both city staff and from DOT that, that they agree with what we've shown as improvements. And then Council Member Kopac, to your question on the conservation subdivision, we're willing to offer a proffer that, that, that be part of the UEA. We had discussions with planning and the City Attorney's Office about what things would go in the, in the UEA and what wouldn't. That's how we arrived at doing the open space covenants to not only say we're recording these binding covenants on the land to say that it will be submitted as a conservation subdivision, but it will also be reflecting the open space that's shown in that conservation subdivision.

That Exhibit B I showed on the screen was the actual open space exhibit from the conservation subdivision. So we're already bound under the, the open space covenants that will become effective if this land is annexed. But we're also willing to say that can be a condition of the UEA that this would proceed as a conservation subdivision, if that would make the council comfortable in taking action tonight. We don't have time under our contract to, to wait for 3 months, and I think that the questions, they're tough, but I do think that they've been answered, and, we would like to proceed tonight and, and hope that you can find it, more beneficial than not to approve this case and move forward.

Well, I have a question. What, what's different about this property than the other properties adjacent before housing was on them? I don't know if that's a staff question or— before there was development out here, what the land that was developed on where there are communities and subdivisions on now, How did that land differentiate from what's being proposed here? Do we know that? I cannot speak to that, though.

Those— the existing developments that are out there now very much precede my time with the city. I can't really give you an answer as to what the decision-making process was then when those were approved. Yeah, and I'm just thinking about I mean, I too used to live over there, you know, and I'm looking at what is happening over there. And to be honest with, you know, your colleagues, I do want to make a decision tonight.

If there is more information that needs to be retrieved, I'm amenable to that. But I think, you know, when I do look at the complexities of this case, I think the positive outweighs the negative on it. And that's just me weighing the options here. So I won't belabor it. And I don't, you know, I won't belabor it. Whatever you guys want to do, I'm amenable to it. I'm prepared to make a decision tonight as well.

Yeah. And I would want the opportunity to review the UEA with the committed language to understand whether it reflects the protections that have been asked, since I think that still remains an open question. And so I don't know if that's harder for me. I mean, I can't do that this evening, so I don't know if there's a shorter continuance period than 90 days that would be acceptable. And for me, like, I don't think since the, you know, the court case, I don't think we've done a conservation subdivision at the city level, right?

So we've got— so as the planning director said, this is no longer regulatory language, it's sort of like a suggested language. So it's not clear to me with the concept, with the, with the, with the proffer to do one, what, what exactly that— what do we actually— what can we count on as a city? So I So I have questions about that I'd love to see answered. I'm going to try my best to answer Commissioner Kopac's question, or Council Member Kopac's question. Still getting— still used to you being on Planning Commission.

So if the council chooses, what you could do is if you were to approve the annexation and— City Attorney Raeburn, yeah, I see you're looking. Okay. I believe what you could do is you could, if you were to vote to approve the annexation, you could delay the UEA and that could come back to you at a later time with that language. And then that could be on consent and then you could approve the UEA at a later time. That might be a possibility to address— appears well leveraged question.

Well, let me go here and then, go ahead. I just wanted to clarify for the attorney, in this case, and I also the applicant, I feel as though you've stated that you do not desire to have a continuance. Is that what's been stated, and that you want— may not want— like, you may not have the time? I just want to make sure, like, we're— that we're aligning, like, what you've expressed and that we're not overlooking, like, what's been articulated tonight. Yes, thank you, for asking.

We always do our best to make these decisions easy and not to put you all in a difficult position. We've done our best to do that tonight., if we had more time, I, I'd be willing to do it, but we don't. And so, we, we have had cases where, we make a commitment to the UEA, to follow the conservation subdivision, which does have that restriction of the 50% open space in your UDO that's required., that's not something that would be a wishy-washy intent.

It's absolutely required. And again, the covenants show where that open space would be. So we can make that verbal commitment, we can add that language, and that can come back for the City Attorney's review. If you can act upon it tonight, subject to the, the review of that language, but it would be a commitment to filing the conservation subdivision, and that the UEA would be tied to a conservation subdivision going forward. So we would have to proceed with a conservation subdivision and only a conservation subdivision under the, under the rules, which do have a tremendous amount of restrictions on how it's managed, who manages the open space, how it's maintained, all sorts of restrictions about what's to be included and what's not.

And so I don't want to make it— I don't want to make light of the court case, but I don't want to pretend that there's nothing in your UDO about the conservation subdivision, because there's 3 to 4 pages of requirements and regulations that we would have to follow. And we're willing to make that verbal commitment to work with the City Attorney on the language of exactly exactly how that would look in the UEA and be able to move forward tonight to give you that certainty.

I mean, I appreciate that. I think the struggle is 1:00, 2:00 AM, and also, you know, through, you know, a couple years on Planning Commission and time on Council, I haven't seen a case on conservation subdivision, and I've never seen an attempt to do a translational zoning in connection with the utilities extension agreement and annexation. And so, you know, like, I, I I appreciate the suggestions that, like, these are things that can just be made to work. But, you know, given what we're trying to accomplish here with the complexity, it's just difficult for me to have as much confidence signing up for that. And so I'd feel more comfortable at the next council meeting having this discussion.

But if you don't want a continuance, then you don't want a continuance. So I understand that.

Yeah, go ahead. So, Mr. Kane, so what you propose, one possibility would be to approve the annexation, but to leave the UEA to a, like, some later point. I think there are a couple of ways to address the concern Council Member Kopac brought up about wanting to see the language I mean, you have in the past approved, zoning cases where a proffer has been made with an understanding that staff is going to work out the exact language later with the applicant. We could go that direction with this additional proffer that the applicant has made on the UEA, and staff is perfectly comfortable doing that, and it would involve staff from the City Attorney's Office as well. We could do that.

The other option I had kind of just thrown out there was you could vote on the annexation, and if you approve it, wait to bring the UEA back to you with that language on consent if you feel more comfortable wanting to see the actual language that's laid out. I don't think it's going to be that difficult. It's basically going to just say this UEA is only is contingent upon it being a conservation subdivision, anything else, the, the UEA is invalid. Or again, City Attorney Rayburg will come up with much better language than that, but basically that will be the gist of it, I believe.

So staff will be fine either way, just wanted to throw those, those options out there.

So do we need to— we need to modify the motion then if we want that, right? We need to— yeah, we would need to shape the motion for that if that's the, preference of us. I wonder if the City Attorney could help us with some of that. What would that— what might that look like? Any idea on the language? One moment.

I mean, I think it depends on which of the two options. Yeah, can we get clarification? Is there a preference on the options here?

So Option 1, Mr. Gant, Option 1 would be that we would, we would approve the annexation with some contingency there. The other one would be that we actually come back and vote on the— so let's say option 1 is that you vote on the annexation. If the annexation is approved, you're going to hold off on voting on the UEA, and we will bring that to you at a later date, and that would likely be on consent.

Option— the second option too, let's say, is you go ahead and just vote on everything like normal with an understanding that a proffer has been made by the applicant to add one additional contingency to the, to the UEA. And you're going to go ahead and vote on that with the understanding that that contingency will be in there with final language to be worked out between Planning and Development staff, the City Attorney staff, and the applicant. Like I said, we do that somewhat regularly on zoning proffers. Go ahead. So, Mr. Mayor, if it— I'm sorry, my apologies, Council Member.

I just wanted to say that Aaron is right. We do often take direction from you all in these meetings and follow up and make sure that things get in that were verbalized and committed to. One additional kind of safeguard for the UEA is even if you were to approve the UEA tonight as part of this consolidated item, those UEAs afterwards have to be executed by the city. So they go into our contract queue, I review them, and then the city manager sees them. So there is an extra additional set of eyes to verify that what is supposed to be in there is in there.

I'm comfortable with that. Go ahead. So just for clarifying, question. So if we move forward, then we basically like, we're just going to— we be done the public hearing. And so if you work these things out in the back end, the public would not have any opportunity to provide feedback on it.

It would just be trust in the will of council to make sure their issues are addressed., so are you asking— yeah, for clarification on the options presented tonight Yeah, well, I would prefer just to vote for it as the motion as it currently exists because that feels like I don't want to take away the opportunity. It feels like we're doing some more negotiating but in a silo that doesn't necessarily represent like what the community members want. So I'm just trying to figure out like if we're moving forward in a way that, kind of cuts out, the voices of some people in the neighborhood. I, I didn't get that same interpretation.

Let's get more more clarity on that. Could you repeat what you stated? Sure. So the only thing that I have heard tonight in terms of like an additional commitment that could be baked into the UEA is basically making the UEA contingent or valid only if it is a conservation subdivision. So it would be like adding one phrase or sentence to the UEA to make sure that, that it is only applicable to a conservation subdivision if someone were to try to do a different development, it would be void and they would have to come back and get another UEA.

That's the only thing that I have heard that is actionable that we could put in, in terms of like an additional commitment. So what I was suggesting is that we can do that just like we do— like Aaron said, we do that all the time when there are additional proffers. You all don't see the final, development plan or the final ordinance. We get it cleaned up we work with the clerk and it gets stamped and signed and we all verify that it has what it's supposed to. So we make a decision tonight and everything else is just a formality of it becoming the language that is contracted.

So I don't, I, I don't see another need for community engagement after that since we're giving everyone what we're— we're making the decision tonight. Everything else is administrative after that. That's what my interpretation is.

Yeah, go ahead. I mean, so I, I think I hear Council Member Burris' question. I, I, I would prefer what Mr. Kane laid out as the first option, that the actual— the, the utility extension agreement actually does come back to the council for later vote. That'd be my preference. And that is the additional language that would be added in, correct?

I think, I think that's right. It would just be— is that— if I— am I correct? That was option 1, that there— the, the UEA, UE— UEA does come back to the council. It may be on consent, but would come back to us on an agenda, correct? So the, the additional language that would be in there would be the same in either path we choose, because again, the only thing that I have heard is adding a commitment that stipulates that the UEA is only valid if it's for a conservation subdivision.

So the question I think before you is, do you, do you want to see that explicitly? And you could just omit the second part of the motion., don't say the— to enter, you know, authorize the city manager to enter to a utility extension agreement. Leave that off of your motion and you could go that route. You include it, then staff will do what we normally do with development plans, and we will make sure that— and that will be back on, on the agenda at a later date?

In, in the first— yes, scenario. I am okay with that if you all are okay with that. She's not asking for— is that still— no, no, you would be voting. You would just only go into— and that would come back to the table.

Councilor, do you have clarification on what we are talking about over here? I, I think I do. Option 1 is to take— or one of the options, I'm not sure, I've lost track which one is which. One of the options is to take action on both, the annexation and the UEA with the verbal proffer that we do agree to, that we would be would be only be able to move forward with the UEA if it's developed as a conservation subdivision, and staff would work that out based on how they typically do for development plans. Or the second option would be making— taking a step forward on the annexation with the UEA to come back at a later date.

Our preference would be the first, but if it's— we want this project approved, and if the only way to do that on this is the second, we can make that work. We just need to be able to move forward.

Council Member Cook.

I'm not sure how I understand that that second option is functionally different from a continuance, so I'm, I'm just struggling a little bit. If it's going to come back anyway, it sounds like we're all coming back anyway. But that being said, I just want to, I just want to like go back to the fact that this is only one issue of many, many issues that have been brought, and that we still don't know. And the big one is that there is a huge chunk of Army Corps of Engineers land that they are likely to not approve any development on. That is going to be infrastructure improvement, that's going to be sewer pipes, all of these things that we are talking about tonight that make this seem like it might be a nice project could possibly not happen at all.

So to me, it's this— whether it gets verbally put in and we come back later, or, or because verbally put in tonight, or we come back later for this amendment, it doesn't actually impact the fact that this is a translation— translational zoning, a large parcel of land with a lot of unknown factors that frankly, like, make even the possibility of the good things is just so far outweighed by what seems like it's gonna be just a catastrophic mess that we're gonna have to pick up later. So I guess it doesn't really matter to me which one we go with. I'm still gonna be a no. I think there's so many unknowns here. I cannot imagine that we would vote yes on this project, even if the conservation was written in.

That to me was like sort of not the most important piece of this. Thank you for your comments. Yes. I'm just wondering, are there other— first of all, I'm not sure I fully understand the safeguard of it coming back to us. Maybe I need to hear it again. But, you know, I, you know, anyways, it's been a long night and a long week, so I'm doing my best here.

I want, you know, is there then an opportunity to have like, you know, other safeguards put within the UEA, if that's the direction we're going in. Otherwise, I think there are legitimate concerns that if this doesn't go forward, then you get the same amount of traffic. I mean, you're shaking your head, but like, that legitimately could happen. Like, somebody could develop this, like, you know, without going through an annexation process where you have single-family homes with without the preservation of the open space with the same amount of traffic, or you may be deciding, do you love traffic or trees more? Or do you, you know, do you love trees more than you don't like traffic?

Because those are legitimate outcomes of this, of this process. So, ladies and gentlemen, please, please. Yeah, and this is, this isn't the venue for having— correct, correct. But having time to discuss it is, but I've been told by the applicant that that's not possible., and so it, it, it makes it difficult to evaluate.

Are there any other comments? Right, I have to figure out what the question is., Which of the two options? All right, Council, colleagues, I need a little direction here., the, the direction is, am I going to read this entire sentence or am I going to read half of it?

And what I is Are we going to move to adopt an ordinance annexing Morgan Farms, period? Or are we going to adopt an ordinance annexing Morgan Farm into the City of Durham and to authorize— well, I'm sorry, the first option is annexing Morgan Farm into the City of Durham, period, or annexing Morgan Farm into the City of Durham and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement. Premet with MI Homes of Raleigh LLC. I need direction., so I'm going to say option 1 is just annexing into the city and we bring the other part back later, or option 2, read the entire motion and we follow the same practice that we've been doing with other cases where they make the proffer and staff takes it on, adding it to the lake which at a later date.

So if I can get an Option 1 or 2 from each person. Council Member Kopac. I mean, I'm not clear. I'm not sure I'm clear on like what the advantage of one versus the other is. So, so, I'm saying I'm not clear.

I'm not sure I'm clear on the advantages of one versus the other. So Option 1 is yes, we annex it into the city and it stops there. Nothing else can happen into nothing The utility extension agreement cannot happen until the language is inserted. The staff takes care of it and then it comes back to council at a later date and be placed on the agenda to be approved. And the annexation just happens by itself, or the annexation happens and the utility extension happens and we rely on staff and the, the legal team and the applicant and the owners to pretty much do what we normally do with other cases.

The developer makes a proffer and staff said, all right, we've heard it, we're going to add it in and we'll move on from there. So are we going to rely on staff to just add the language in there and they move on, or are we going to annex it and they bring this back for us to review it again on the agenda later, which is the utility extension? Which is where the leverage points are, I guess. And so can nothing happen if there's an annexation and nothing else? Let me let the attorney address it.

Okay. I have cleared— clarified this with the planning director. So if you want to see the UEA at a later date and you want to see the language that gets hammered out, making sure that we're dealing with a conservation subdivision, What you would do tonight are the things that you have had the public hearing for. So you would vote on the annexation itself. You would vote to assign the initial zoning.

So it's— and it's a translational zoning, and that would be it. And then the UEA would come back as a contract. So you don't have to have a public hearing to approve a contract. Okay, does that make sense to everybody?

But if we grant the annexation tonight, we cannot ungrant it. So it would just be granted. So if the utility agreement comes back and we don't like it as it's written, we're opening up for not— you would have a piece of property that's in the city with city zoning, but not an agreement to extend the utilities.

Council Member Ristberg, so, so with that, with the annexation approved but no utility extension agreement, that's in practice not an annex. You don't, you don't have the full rights of annexation, right, if you don't have the utilities? So it's, so it's, it's annexation in name only because you don't have, you don't have You don't have the rights to the utilities. I mean, the property would be within the city's jurisdiction, but lacking— but lacking the water and sewer infrastructure. Yeah, thank you.

So there's nothing they can do basically with it. They— our leverage is the utilities, you know, so that, that's, you know, and it's going to come back to Council Member Burris' point, it will come back on the agenda. No, it won't be a community meeting, but if it's on the agenda, it can be pulled and people can address it that way. So I— to me, this kind of meets everyone's concerns. But, so what am I doing?

Am I going to— so let me— Council Member Kopac, I, I, I can start down here, give you some time. Yeah, Council Member Rist. Option 1 or 2? 1, which is like the sort of half of the annexation. Just annexation. Okay, Council Member Cook. I think we put the whole thing to a vote tonight. I'm sorry, the whole thing to a vote tonight. Before we get to that, I need to know— one was as proceed as normal. Oh, I thought that was one of the options.

Well, Before, before I move to the entire motion, you know, let me do this. Option 1 is just the annexation. Option 2, annexation with the extension agreement later. Option 3 is everything as is. Everything as is. Okay. If we do everything as is, is that not allowing the proffer included with the conservation, or it is included? I mean, the proffer has already been made, so it will be. So yeah. Proceed like we normally would with the proffer. So everything as a— as is.

All right, that's option 3. That would be okay. Option 3.

I, I, and I, I'm open to option 1, just annexation. Just, I'll do 3 if we want, but I ain't want to vote for it. Either way. I mean, if it's one, I'd want to have more included than we've already talked about, but it seems that's a little bit difficult to do here at 2:18 a.m., so I guess I'll say— excuse me. Yeah, yeah, what's time? I guess I'll do option 3.

You guys are— so I don't, I don't, I don't— no, I don't., oh, is it 4 on 3? You said— what did you say, 3? Just read the motion. But Mr. Mayor, the proffer has been captured, correct? The proffer is captured of the conservation subdivision tied to the utility extension Extension agreement that has been captured. Staff has that. Okay, thank you for nodding. Thank you. Just to clarify, Option 3 is with the commitment in the UEA to have the conservation subdivision, correct?

Okay. Yeah, we're just not extending, further time. All right, all right. So I would read it— read everything as is. So I'll entertain a motion at 2:20 AM. To adopt an ordinance annexing Morgan Farm into the City of Durham and to authorize the City Manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with MI Homes of Raleigh, LLC. This is what the proffers captured. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Moved and properly seconded. Adam Clark, please open the vote.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. All right, please close the vote.

The motion fails 5 to 2 with Mayor Williams and Council Member Rist voting yes. All right, that's a Thank you all for your time. Thanks for coming out. We are adjourned at 2:21 AM.