City Council · Regular Meeting · December 15, 2025

>> Good evening everyone and welcome to Durham City Hall. It's great to have you here. I will begin with a moment of silence. Thank you.

I'll now pass it over to you Council member Rist for the Pledge of Allegiance. If it's your practice, we invite you to stand to say 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. Thank you.

Anna clerk, will you please please call the roll? Good evening, Mayor Williams. >> I'm here.

Madam Mayor Pro Tem Caballero. Here. Council member Baker. Here.

Council member Burris. Here. Council member Cook. Here.

Council member Copack. Here. And Council member Rist. Here.

Thank you. All right. Um before we get into um the rest of the program, I am going to read a few remarks and then we'll get going with the business. I'm going to read this passage uh as I did at work session.

I'm going to read it here, but I won't read it every meeting. You'll be able to find that language on our website as well as um at the top of the agenda in the agenda center on the website when you are looking up the agendas for the meetings. This is uh in regards to uh just some protocol that I'll be following uh in regards of just um maintaining

decorum in the chambers. Um as Mayor of Durham, it's my role as presiding presiding officer to protect open public participation while ensuring City Council meetings remain orderly, respectful, and productive. Durham has a strong tradition of community engagement and that will continue. At the same time, we must be clear and consistent when conduct when we when we conduct uh our meetings to ensure that there are no disruptions and also to prevent uh the council from conducting city business.

17 This authorizes action when an individual willfully disrupts an official meeting and refuses to comply with lawful direction. Individuals may be removed from the meeting chambers. And in and any decision regarding

charges rests solely with with law enforcement. Disruptive speakers at the podium. I would clearly state when a speaker's allotted time has ended. If the speaker continues, I will rule the speaker out of order and direct them to stop speaking and relinquish the podium.

If disruption persists, I will warn the conduct I will warn that warn that the conduct violates state law and direct the speaker to leave the chamber. If the If the speaker refuses, I will request law enforcement to remove the individual from the chamber. I would not request an arrest. Disruptive individuals in the audience. I will identify the behavior as disruptive and rule the individuals out of order or the individual. Direct immediate cessation of the

disruption. And if the disruption continues, I will warn that the conduct violates state law and direct the individual or individuals to leave the to leave the chambers. If they refuse, I will request law enforcement removal only. If physical force becomes necessary, arrest may occur occur under state law.

While not preferred, this may be unavoidable if individuals refuse lawful directives. This is not to silence anyone. This is This is Durham and we appreciate um diversity of thought. We appreciate engagement. And to be honest, Durham is probably the most lenient of councils when it comes to, you know, expression in the public spaces uh and what we also call here a limited forum. Um but at the same time,

we have to have some level of mutual respect and some order. And so it is my job to facilitate this meeting on behalf of you. That means that we have these parameters that I will enforce if I have to. These laws have been on the books for a long time and we have been very lenient for a very long time.

And I will continue to be lenient, but if it gets to the point of absolute disrespect and disruption of us being able to do the people's business, then therefore I will enforce and follow through with what I just recently read. So I hope that we can adhere to that and I won't read this every meeting. I'm just putting this on the record now uh just so it can be referred back to if needed. Um but I do appreciate your uh you all obliging me on that. That being said, I'm going to uh go into our ceremonial items and pass it over to our newly elected Councilwoman Schewel Burris for

her first uh proclamation reading that she had all the time in the world to prepare for. As in like 5 minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Williams.

All right. So this is for the Salvation Army of Durham Holiday Impact Recognition Day, which we present >> present to Major Angela and David Rivas. Are you all here? Hello.

If I mess up, please blame the mayor. Thank you. All right. [laughter] Whereas the Salvation Army of Durham was established in Durham in January in 1888 and for over a century has remained a committed lifeline for families across East Durham and throughout Orange and Person counties. And whereas 18,723 meals and snacks to families, 2,704

households with groceries, 225 youth with enriching summer camp experience, 190 BA, um 6,784 toys and bicycles to children and families, 6,106 articles of clothing, $30,351 in rent and utility assistance for families facing eviction, and 5,150 volunteer hours dedicated to uplifting our neighbors. And whereas these efforts reflect the deep and ongoing commitment to addressing hunger, preventing homelessness, supporting youth, and uplifting those facing hardship. And whereas through strong community partnerships, dedicated volunteers, and a mission rooted in service, the Salvation Army continues to meet critical needs while standing in the gap for families facing hardship and contribute to a more stable, compassionate, and thriving Durham. And whereas over 1,500 children are registered for the Angel Tree Christmas program, the need for support is tremendous and has increased significantly. The Salvation Army of Durham remains committed to responding with urgency, care, and a spirit of goodwill during this holiday season and

beyond. Now, therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim November 21st, 2025 as Salvation Army of Durham Holiday Impact Day in the City of Durham and hereby urge all residents to support the efforts of this organization to build up our community. Witness my hand and the corporate seal of Durham, North Carolina on this 15th day of December, 2025. >> [applause] >> It is certainly an honor for the Salvation Army to have been in this community for over 100 years.

I have not been, but I've been just wonderfully blessed by the opportunity to come, my wife and I just in the last couple of years, and we have fallen in love with the people here and those who have supported the the Salvation Army work. And again, we're very grateful for all that we can do together. I think it is a testimony to what can happen when a community comes together to do what is good. And we certainly appreciate it. God bless.

>> [applause] >> Great job, council member. I will have representatives of the Durham Committee on Affairs of Black People to please join me. All right, I have the honor of reading this proclamation to celebrate the most historic black um political advocacy group in the state of North Carolina. Whereas on August 15th, 1935,

distinguished African-American business and community leaders, including but not limited to Charles Clinton Spaulding, James E. Shepard, J. T. Taylor, Richard McDougal, R.

N. Harris, I. E. Austin, W.

D. Hill, W. J. Kennedy, and John H.

Wheeler organized the Durham Committee on the Affairs of on the Affairs of Negroes. And whereas the founders' goals and objectives have been advanced through strong leaders who empowered Durham citizens to elect public officials at every level committed to its mission. And whereas the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People celebrated 90 years of continuous service, advocacy, and leadership of black Durmites. And whereas for nine decades the committee has advocated for black welfare and education, health, housing, politics, youth engagement, religion, and human affairs shaping a more just

and equitable Durham. And whereas the committee has played a significant role in civil rights advocacy, voter education, and participation, strengthening black political power. The organization continues to champion social justice and racial equity through initiatives in civic engagement, economic opportunity, health, housing, youth resources, and education. The committee remains devoted to preserving and expanding its legacy of service and leadership for decades to come. Now, therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, mayor of the city of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim, customarily, August 15th, 2025 as Durham Committee on Affairs of Black People 90th Anniversary Day in the city of Durham and hereby urge all residents to support the efforts of this organization to build up our community. So witness my hand and the corporate seal of the city of Durham, North Carolina this 15th day of December, 2025.

Thank you. >> [applause] >> Let me thank you, mayor, as well as the council members for this uh wonderful recognition of the Durham Committee on its 90th anniversary. Certainly, it's been a transformative organization. If you think back 90 years ago, uh what the plight, the circumstances were of African-Americans living here in Durham, the extent to which they had very limited opportunity to be involved in government, certainly did not have opportunities to serve in elected office, facing all types of disparities when it came to education as a result of institutional racism and segregation, facing the type of barriers that we don't have to think about today, things that are gone as a result of the civil rights movement, the segregated lunch counters, the segregated restrooms, the segregated water fountains, but more importantly, the fact that you were a meaningful, significant group in this community that was marginalizing your

opportunity to participate. As a result of the Durham Committee's leadership, as a result of the coalitions that have been built in Durham, so many of those barriers have been taken down. I remind you the fact that here in the city of Durham, before the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, desegregation had already occurred. The lunch counters were already at a point where anybody could sit down and eat next to anyone else.

So Durham made progress in profound and significant way. When it came to school desegregation, we did the same in many respects shortly after Brown versus Board of Education. So we have made progress in Durham. We continue to make progress in Durham. The racial disparities that have existed in the past are being addressed in meaningful and significant ways. I thank those who have served in this community as the founders of this organization, those whose names you hear throughout

Durham if you're walking around. R. N. Harris, you think about that elementary school, you don't think about his role.

C. C. Spaulding, John Herriot, uh John Wheeler, and so many, many, many others who worked diligently to found this organization. And I thank the leaders in the past, people like Willie Lovett, people like Dr.

Lavonia Allison, and so many others. I stand in their footsteps today. My job as its current chair is to work hard, to work diligently, to pass that proverbial baton, but more importantly, to keep lit that torch, that hope, that beacon that we will have a more just society, and that the principles of the Durham Committee and all that they embody will be accomplished through our work and through our work with you as elected officials. I want to thank uh Glendola Beasley, who is here this evening, who

is the chair of our Public Relations Committee, as well as Aleia Sanders, who is the vice chair of that committee, as well as the mayor and city council for the work that you continue to do today that represents and symbolizes what the Durham Committee felt was necessary in this community community and which epitomizes the best of who we are and what we can become. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Thank you. Thank you so much, senator, council member. All right, moving on. And next will be our announcements by council.

Council member Rist. Thank you. >> All right. Go to the right first.

I love that. Um good evening, uh Switching up a few things. >> Yeah, yeah. No, thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Good evening, uh colleagues, staff, folks in the audience, and those online. Thanks for being here. Thanks for being part of Durham city government.

Um well, first of all, I want to say congratulations to the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. Um really appreciate the comments from Senator McKissick um about 90 years of impact. It's been a pleasure having been in Durham so long. It's been a pleasure having worked with you, both as senator, but also you you recognized leaders who've come before or served before.

That was also you up here on the dais, right? Not that long ago. Um it's great to see Glendola and Aleia here also from the Communications Committee. Uh and again, just congratulations on the amazing impact.

We know about the Durham Committee in Durham, but you all are known, as you know, statewide as one of the leading players at the local level. Your impact is felt here and so far across the state. Just want to thank you for all of your individually for your service and for the whole committee, and also for recognizing leaders that have

gone before you, Mr. Jackson, Willie Lovett, Dr. Allison, such great leaders, and it's been a pleasure to work with all of them. So congrats.

Um a couple of other things. So, you know, my heart goes out to the folks across the globe in Sydney, um and as well as here at home in Providence over the weekend, two awful, awful, tragic shootings. Um it's simply horrific. There's too many guns available.

We have to have gun control at this in this country at the state and federal level to stop this. It's horrific and it's so sad. Um we need to elect leaders who will do that. Um my heart also goes out to the recent Durham Academy graduate, Kendall Turner, who I think you all have read about, who was one of the Brown students who was injured, luckily not killed, but is in critical, stable condition.

Um I also want to thank uh we have say our hearts our thoughts and prayers go out to her family at this time. We hope and pray that she will be better and will recover. I also want to appreciate Durham Academy Headmaster Michael Ulku-Steiner, a good friend, who's been keeping us all informed, and I want to

thank him for his kind words about Kendall and her family. Simply horrific, and we hope all um as well with her, but again, our hearts go out to the families of those who've been impacted both in Providence, but also in Sydney, which looks like it was an awful attack on folks who were celebrating Hanukkah, which is so tragic and awful. So, I yeah, it's I don't have the words to ex- to express that. Um I also want to thank Urban Ministries of Durham.

They hosted their annual holiday party last or the holiday luncheon last week. I wanted to attend that, and I want to thank Executive Director Sheldon Mitchell. Actually, uh Council member Kopack was there, the mayor was there. I want to thank um Sheldon Mitchell and his staff.

They're They're absolutely critical player in our homeless support system. They serve over 700 meals per day at Urban Ministries of Durham. Um and they also serve they provide almost 30,000 nights of shelter per year to women, men, and families. It's an amazing part of our homeless system.

I support all the encourage all the folks who want to thank all the folks who are there as donors and encourage others to get involved. We need Urban Ministries of Durham. Uh they're important player

and I want to thank them for all the work they do day-to-day supporting homeless folks in our community. Um speaking of that, it's also cold outside. So, I want everybody to be careful in the cold. Um Urban Ministries is also one of the entry points for our uh referral on white flag nights.

You know, white flag nights happen when the temperature goes below 32 or when it goes below 35 and is raining. We reached that last night. So, I want to thank all the organizations and partners who are part of the continuum of care that supports additional shelter beds being available being made available on white flag nights. So, critical that folks stay safe in these cold evenings.

Um I'll stop there, Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much and look forward to my uh comments from my colleagues. Thank you, Council Member Kopec.

Good evening, everyone. Really wonderful to have you all here. Um also want to extend congratulations and thanks to the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People and the representatives this evening uh as well as to the Salvation Army uh for the service that both organizations have shown in our community for for so long and such critical uh and important ways. So, thank you.

Um I want to thank our Office of Community Safety, our first responders, Open Table Ministries, Families Moving Forward, Urban Ministries of Durham and other partners for taking care of our residents um last night during white flag and and tonight and ongoing. And I also want to celebrate that as of tonight uh our city has expanded uh our bed capacity by more than an additional 50 beds uh and that's to the diligent work uh of our city staff uh and partners here in Durham and that's so important to keep everyone healthy and safe. Um I'd like to highlight the repair work that's being funded uh that'll be in our consent agenda tonight. Uh it's really a cost-effective way to support affordability and sustainability and so I'm excited to see us move programs like that forward. Um I'd like to wish everyone a safe and healthy uh holidays with Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and perhaps other holidays that will uh come and go um before we return here to the dais again. And also sending my my heartfelt uh thoughts and prayers to the tragedies that have happened here and and abroad um to folks uh just simply celebrating

uh their communities and and you know, their right to religious expression. Um I love the holidays also for the arts and culture and performances. And so, some of the ones I'm looking forward to included the uh Triangle Gay Men's Chorus performing Wednesday at the Durham, the Durham Choral Society that will be at Duke Chapel on Saturday, uh the Ella Kelly Museum exhibit at NCCU that's ongoing till January uh and so many more. And so, I encourage everyone to get out and enjoy this time of year together in community uh and take in some of the the incredible uh life and arts and culture that we have to offer here.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Cook. Thank you. Good evening, everyone.

I appreciate y'all being here and those of you watching online. Um I want to send a quick shout-out to the People's Table. Folks were outside um in very frigid temperatures this evening uh giving warm food to folks, which is amazing. Thank [applause] you for doing that. Um I also want to shout-out the fire department for their annual Toys and Books for Rides

that they held on not this past weekend, but the weekend before. Um I got to watch from inside a building for uh quite a while, which was really nice cuz it was very cold, but lots of young folks got to ride around in the fire trucks, which is so cool. " But um it was so sweet and I think they did a great job um as they do every year uh gathering toys and books and just sending a lot of joy to young folks in the community. What a real treat to be able to ride in a fire truck.

I did my ride along and I was in an actual like physical truck, not one of the big trucks. So, now I feel like I have to go back and get that experience, too. Um I also want to send out a thanks to Turquoise Parker and to Lakewood Elementary. Um I along with dozens of volunteers participated in last week's 11th annual Bull City Food Raiser. We packed non-perishable items um they distributed to over 5,000 Durham Public School families, which was amazing. Um I

took on the task of pushing the carts into the truck um which I thought I was really strong and by the end of the night was not feeling so strong. Uh but I think it was like multiple tons of food that was distributed. So, that was really incredible. Um the next couple announcements are going to be pretty heavy.

Um I want to say firmly and unequivocally that this space is meant for the public. I was not involved nor informed ahead of time about the decision to trespass a resident without warning and for the maximum time allowable. Trespassing a resident from this building that's meant to be for public discourse is something that should be a last resort and something that we should take really, really seriously. There were no threats of harm or violence.

The person was asked to leave and did so. We were able to continue our meeting immediately afterwards. Again, there was no warning and the maximum time allowable was the penalty that was given. Um Durham has historically spoken out against attempts to use tools to silence dissidents. And with

the current state of affairs in our uh federal government and state-wide government, I would hope that this city council would distance themselves from those tools. And so, I just want to I JUST WANT [applause] TO I JUST WANT TO REAFFIRM THAT BY DECIDING TO DO THIS JOB, we understand that sometimes we're going to be uncomfortable up here. >> [clears throat] >> And we can't use our discomfort to silence people with whom we disagree. The last thing I want to say is chagsameach.

We heard from a couple folks. Um it is Hanukkah. It's the second night of Hanukkah. Thank you to I stressed everybody out cuz I lit the menorah in City Hall tonight.

Um but anyway, hopefully you saw it in the window of my office. Um it's a heavy holiday today as several of my colleagues have stated and I want to echo what others have said and say that I'm standing with Jews across the country and especially in Sydney. Um those of us who are Jewish know that

when you go to synagogue, when you light the menorah and put it in your window, there's always um celebration that's tinged with fear. And that was made real for folks in Sydney. And so, I want to just send out the fact that um we are all impacted by that violence um and my colleagues have mentioned as well the shooting at Brown. Um Hanukkah is a time to talk about light and darkness.

And so, we have seen some darkness. Um So, I want to shout-out to the to the to the victims' families, to the survivors of those shootings, to the first responders. Um and also want to say a word of thanks to Ahmed Al Amad, the unarmed uh uh immigrant who saw one of those shooters in Sydney and took it upon himself to disarm the person and probably saved a whole bunch of lives. Um I read this quote and I just want to say it for y'all, too. Um

Those targeted for who they were were saved by somebody who owed them nothing except for his humanity. I thought that was really beautiful. And so, we will continue to light our menorahs. We continue to think about bringing light into spaces of dark darkness and continue to fight for the sanctity of life.

Thank you all for being here. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Baker. Uh good evening to everyone.

Thank you all for being here um to all of you who are watching at home. And thank you to my colleagues for all of your comments. I agree with and support everything that has been said um so far. You know, it's always an interesting activity to to come into the chambers and talk about issues that affect people's lives and in an attempt to improve people's lives in an atmosphere, a state and federal atmosphere that is fully moving toward fascism and oligarchy, moving all of our material wealth into the hands of the few while the poor are getting poorer,

the rich are getting richer, and we are we are back into the roaring '20s and the inequality of the '20s the the 1920s. And uh being impacted by that at the local government level, our neighborhoods are impacted, our residents are impacted. We all feel the uh ineptitude, we all feel the corruption and incompetence that is happening at the state and federal level. And so, it's difficult to to um detach ourselves from that.

Um to more positive matters, I want to thank Parks and Recreation and all of our staff, uh community members, nonprofits, organizations that participated in the um holiday parade uh this weekend. There were so many people out and about having a very good time. I saw several mar- marched along with several of my colleagues there um and that was a lot of fun. Also, I want to shout-out the People's Table who are out there in frigid temperatures um the

tonight and last night are two coldest nights since uh 2022. Um and as uh several of my colleagues have mentioned, um we are seeking to expand beds available to residents who who do not have homes in our community. Um the way to do that is through what's called entry points. And if you know someone who is in need of emergency shelter, you can call the number 984-287-8313.

So, thank you to city staff, nonprofit, faith-based organizations, everyone who is out on the front lines trying to make things better for people who who have very little. And then lastly, I just want to mention the Unified Development Ordinance. The one of the most powerful documents that we have, the DNA that shapes the way that our city grows. A document that is not updated but for every every few decades

and has impacts on future generations. We are going through the rewrite process of the Unified Development Ordinance. It has gone through four modules. And the last module was presented to joint city-county planning committee this month.

So, the next steps on that are to have a full draft available of the Unified Development Ordinance by the end of this year. January and February, the team that is working on the the UDO rewrite will go out to the public do engagement education. And then the adoption process begins with a goal of adopting the new UDO at city council before June 1st. So, I think that people should know that.

It's an important thing to plug into. It governs every square foot of our city and of our county. There are a lot of opportunities and it's also just very important to be informed and make sure that we make the

right decisions. So, full draft should become available in the coming weeks. Prior drafts have continued to be edited. So, they are not necessarily the final drafts that you will see in the completed draft.

So, keep an eye out for that. Again, thank you all for for being here. Look forward to a productive meeting. Thank you, Council member Burris.

Good evening. Thank you all. Thank you, Mayor Williams, as well. Thank you all for joining us.

So, I had the opportunity to attend the senior holiday party earlier this month, which I thoroughly enjoyed hosted by Durham Parks and Recs. If you've ever had a chance to go, you'll see why it sells out so fast. I believe tickets sold out within an hour. It is pure bliss and fun in that environment and they can actually outdance a lot of us cuz Council member Cook and I found out and we actually have been invited to attend a couple of trainings about dancing.

So, you'll be there with me. >> [clears throat] >> Also, I've been continuing my new member council onboarding journey. So, I want to again express gratitude to our city staff during this process. Had a chance last week to meet with all department heads, learn more about the intricate

work that goes to making Durham run, and I appreciate doing those one-to-one outreach opportunities. And I also had opportunity to attend a very informative training last week hosted by the NC municipalities about council member conduct and procedures. And that gave me a lot of space to ask a lot of questions, but also it's important that when we assume positions that we actually know what we can and cannot do to be effective with governance. And so, I would encourage folks to also explore taking those trainings as well.

I There is a elephant in the room. I have received correspondence from members of our community expressing concerns regarding decision to ban a resident from city council chambers. I do not support that movement at this moment or just at any moment. To be clear, I was not a part of any discussion regarding the outcome of that.

To my knowledge, that was made by the city manager, the mayor pro tem, the mayor, as well as the city attorney. I wanted I believe that matters of that nature should have been discussed publicly and by all council members. As we swearing in that night was completely disruptive. If it was not just one person and I want to ensure we have equal application of the rules and

the law. If we're going to apply the rules, I want to know why other members were not trespassed as well. There was a gentleman who was violently yelling in front of the the individual. There were people chanting and this is not the first time we've seen that.

So, I want to make sure we're not targeting our residents for political retribution and making sure we also understand that each of us up here hold equal power. So, it should not be that two people can go and make a decision. I'm not sure the origin points of that, but I want to make sure we have transparent and clear government. And that decision again was made in a silo and I hope that we will not continue to practice governance in a manner that stifles public opinion.

We signed up for this. I read the emails. Everyone's not going to be your friend. Everyone's not going to do everything in your favor.

If we're going to fight authoritarianism at the national level, we can't silently try to silence people at the local level. So, I really want to reiterate that and make sure we understand that we all have equal access and opportunity here and we should not use our city employees to do our bidding work. If you're going to make a move like that, stand on it. So, thank you all.

Council member Sun. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Good to be with you all.

Um I appreciate and that's going to get old and people probably tired of already. Um I am the chair of the procedures committee. We redid the procedures. Most of the folks on this council approved of those procedures.

Many of the rules that you will be hearing are rules that have been part of our procedures in some form or another since I think the mid-90s. To Council member Burris's point, they have been at times It is up to the chair and the chair on this council is the mayor and how they are applied. I have been on council meetings when folks have shown up and sung to us. I have been in council meetings when folks have brought flowers to the front.

There has been all kinds of protest and all kinds of action and it has not been stopped. We've had to pause our meetings. We've had to go into recess.

December 1st was a transfer of democratic power. There were oaths that were being sworn. That is the difference. We can talk about authoritarianism and we can also talk about the acceptance of election results.

The folks who are sitting on this dais have been elected by Durham residents to sit in these seats. There are folks who may be unhappy at that outcome. And the order of operations in this country is to wait until the next election and cast your vote. If you are showing up in our chambers, which happens all the time, I've been here since 2018.

Again, I've seen all forms of protest. Our procedures are some of the most flexible. Our public comment are some of the most flexible in the state of North Carolina. I know that because I had to work with the city attorney's office to draft them.

It's not fiction. It's fact. We are here to do an agenda that is in front of us. Sometimes we comment on national items.

Sometimes we comment on state happenings. But if we do not follow rules, then the folks who are here tonight this evening do not get their opportunity to speak. If we do not follow rules, folks who are being sworn in, they don't get to have the moment that they have won democratically. And I think there is a difference.

There's a huge difference. And as from somebody who's actually from a country and had to leave a country because democratic norms were not followed. So, this isn't again, fiction. I live in this country because the United States United States helped put a coup on the country that I'm from. That my family's lived in for generations.

That's why I live in this country. That's why I'm an immigrant. So, I appreciate and I will always appreciate how Durham shows up. But we also have to lean into the moment.

And we can be upset with our elected leaders, but it does not help. I always say this town is hard on each other. We are hard on one another. And sometimes it's important to look ourselves in the mirror and really sit there and think about we're all supposed to be on the same side.

In this town, we're supposed to take care of one another and our neighbors. So, we have to find a way to do that. Many of us are talking about the humanity of one another. When you are talking about political violence online or supporting folks who espouse that, I deeply question your intent. And that's my right, just like it might be your right to do it back.

I'm a Montessori teacher by trade. That was the first professional job. And one of the tenets of Montessori is grace and courtesy. And I try to extend that to each one of my colleagues, whether I agree with them or not.

And I try and extend that to residents, whether they agree with me or not. But if we're ever going to get to a place of actual listening and understanding, we have to give each other grace and courtesy and we have to be actually able to have that dialogue. And when folks come and shout down when folks are taking their oaths of office after a democratic election, it's not moving us forward. It's moving us back.

So, I appreciate the mayor for reading out the rules of decorum. I understand that they're different. It's what the county commission has been doing for a long time. It's what our school board does as well. And it's what most elected bodies do across the state of North Carolina for a reason. If you would like to have a conversation

with me or dialogue with me about it, please reach out. I'm always eager to have conversations with residents. And I understand we may not always agree. Um I missed a lot of our holiday celebrations this uh I missed the holiday parade on Saturday.

It was one of the first times I'd missed it. My father turned 80 years old last week uh and I went down to Rock Hill, South Carolina to celebrate with him. And uh he has lived an incredible life. Um and it was really a great and special weekend to be with him.

You can pick a number, right? I you know, you can pick a number. You're like, I think I'm going to be alive. You can say 80 and you do really have to question, I don't know if I'm going to make it that long.

And so I think it's a true gift and blessing that we've had him for this long. Uh and unfortunately this morning uh I attended a funeral for a a really incredible Durham community member. And so it was another reflection of uh the cycle of life and in this moment,

many of my colleagues have talked about the grief and the suffering that we've experienced across the globe with many incidents. And that's what I always hold. We have both light and dark at all times. And it's hard to live right now and be in this world right now.

It's a struggle for many. Um and so my faith tradition is uh I was raised Catholic. Yesterday was the third Advent third Sunday of Advent. It's Gaudete.

It's joy. And so I extend to you, I hope you find joy in this season however it comes to you. I hope you hang on to it. I think we've all had a really hard 2025 and I hope that we can seek that light and seek that joy and enter 2026 renewed.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. So uh you've heard many of the comments uh of the holiday festivities and I um went to most of them, at least the ones I could get to. And um boy, um the holiday party with the seniors. I say age is nothing but a number, but

it's definitely not a limitation. Uh they proved that very well. Uh and the holiday parade was just amazing. Seeing our community come out and come together.

Um had a brief chat with the mayor um Mayor Smiley of what's going on up in Rhode Island. And uh they are going through it. And and again, I just I hate you know, I love this country, but there's some parts of it, you know, the way guns are celebrated more than or held to a higher quality or value than human life at times. I I hate it.

And it's just unfortunate, you know, that we have to deal with this in this world. Um but kudos to um everyone is standing in for one another in this tough time. And yeah, Durham Durham showed out, you know, with all of the holiday festivities and um it's just a great

time of the year from the Christmas tree lighting to the tower lighting to the parade to all of the parties, the receptions. It's about three or four a night. So it's just good spirits, good times. Um but many of the comments have been said and I will not repeat them.

But what I will say is uh in respect to uh my colleagues, which I've met with some of you all one-on-one today and always feel free to bring it up to me directly as well as to the public. Um we don't get to celebrate I I mean, we don't get to demonize things like January 6th and then accept it at the local level. We don't do that. And as long as I'm mayor of this city, I will always have respect for freedom of speech. But if it gets so bad and so egregious that the manager feels that he needs to

trespass, I will support that. I'm appalled that some people would even clap after watching what happened when children are standing here with their father being sworn in and the most egregious behavior is carried out and we're okay with that. So I'm not going to gaslight this. What I will say is this is the people's house.

And as long as I'm mayor of this city, we're going to have respect for one another. And this is not a performance. This is not me trying to get hand claps. This is not me throwing you all off guard cuz I've been very clear with each of you. We've gone through rough times in this council.

And my goal is to keep us focused on what the people's work is. I can't solve socialism. I can't solve capitalism. I can't solve all of those societal issues that are worldwide or nationwide.

But I do know we have it a heck of a lot better than a lot of countries. And I know that this city is in a much better position than many cities across this country. So the instructions that I read earlier, those are the instructions that I will be following. Those are the procedures that I will be following.

What you saw on December 1st, which yes, there was someone trespassed, the manager has that right. And let's make sure we know what we're talking about. The manager has that right. And he carried it out. He did not need to bring that to the

city council. That is why he did not. Yes, he did inform. But if we just read these instructions, not the ones I've read, but the actual law, the probably the the actual code of conduct here, we can make that publicly available as well.

I can read it out if we need to. But we cannot name fascism, oppression, racism, all of those things at the national level and be okay or somehow lenient with them at the local level. That is not what we do in Durham. That is not how I lead.

And it's not how I'm going to. So I just want to clear the air. Colleagues, we have these procedures in place that we all put in place, that we voted on for a reason.

And this is fact. This is truth. It's not a performance. Let's get to the business.

Mr. Manager. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. Uh the city manager's office has the following priority items this evening.

Agenda item number five, this was the update uh on redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill. This item was referred back to staff at the work session to come forward at a future council meeting uh following direction that council gave us at the work session. Agenda item number 10, that's the redevelopment loan agreement with the Durham Housing Authority for the redevelopment of Tribute Rising. This item was referred back to staff at the work session.

And agenda item number 11, 2025 the third quarter crime report. Uh additional information was requested during the December 4th, 2025 work session and that's been attached under agenda item number 11. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Manager. Madam Attorney. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, and members of the council. The

city attorney's office has no priority items this evening. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, and members of city council. The city clerk's office has no priority items this evening. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you very much. At this time, I will read the consent agenda, but there was one thing I just wanted to make sure I referenced again.

Actually, colleagues, I'll read this at the beginning of our public hearings, but uh we will be changing the order just a bit tonight. Uh in regards to the public hearings, I'll read them as they are right now on the consent agenda, but I will change the order to items to this the following order. Item number 15, 19, 20, 16, 17, and 18. That will be the order. 15 15, 19, 20, 16, 17, 18.

All right. This time I'll read the consent agenda. >> [clears throat] >> Item number one, participatory budgeting steering committee appointment. Item number two, Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau Discover Durham appointment.

Number three, hiring practices performance audit, November 2025. Number four, cooperative group contract uh purchase contract compact rear loaders. Number five, update on the of 505 with Sherpa Hill Street. Which was referred back there.

Referred back, yeah. Uh number six, tennis court lighting purchase contract with Whipperwill Park with Musco Sports Lighting LLC. Number seven, proposed lease with Durham Regional Association of Realtors Incorporated at 4238 University Drive. Number eight, tennis court lighting purchase contract at Rock Quarry Park

with Musco Sports Lighting LLC. Number nine, home self-recipient agreement with Preserving Home for the Homeowner Rehabilitation Program. Number 10, redevelopment of loan agreement with the Durham Housing Authority for the redevelopment of Tribute Rising Four Sales Heights. Referred back.

Number 11, 2025 third quarter crime report. Number 12. Number 12, uh fiscal year 2026 I'm sorry, yeah, 2026 Federal Transit Administration Section 5303 GPO amendment. Just make sure I have all the pulled items here. 2025. Colleagues, I'm going to go back to Yeah, never mind.

All right, number uh number 13, [clears throat] amendment number one to contract number 21430 with Schnabel Engineering South PC for professional engineering services for dam inspections and maintenance activities. Number 15, public hearing number two on the fiscal year 2024-2025 consolidated annual performance audit and evaluation report. Number 16, consolidated annexation 3306 Page Road. Number 17, consolidated annexation Hamlin Preserve Reserve.

Number 18, consolidated annexation Lee Village Center. Number 19, Downtown Durham Blueprint 2035. Number 20, zoning map change 3404 Page Road amendment. All right. All right. That is our consent agenda

with uh of course our public hearing items are the only ones that are pulled. All right. Make a motion. Yeah.

All right, at this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved. Then moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please submit the vote.

Thank you. Please close the And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. All right, colleagues, and as I mentioned at our last meeting, uh just in respect of our time and and getting through this agenda, um I'm going to try and reel us in on our engagement and [clears throat] give us a time allotment as well. And as we're going through the public hearings, each member of the public will

have 3 minutes to speak. Um and when it comes to council members, we'll start our first round of 5 minutes and then a second round of 3 minutes and then a third round of one if needed. And Madam Clerk will help us with managing this. Thank you.

But we'll see the timer. All right, so first up is item number 15, which is the public hearing on the fiscal year 2024-2025 consolidated annual performance and evaluation report. And this this is this is a public hearing, but we'll hear your staff report Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Cavallero, and members of the City Council. My name is Braden Corwitz. I'm a

Planning and Performance Administrator with the Housing and Neighborhood Services Department. This public hearing is to receive comments on the recently submitted consolidated annual performance and evaluation report, better known as the CAPER. The CAPER details both the anticipated and actual performance of the city's US Department of Housing and Urban Development formula block formula block grant funding over fiscal year 2024 and 2025, which ran from July 1, '24 through June 30th, '25. This report covers CDBG, Community Development Block Grants, HOME Investment Partnerships, HOPWA, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, and ESG, Emergency Solutions Grant. The CAPER's format is prescribed by HUD and its grants management platform, the Integrated Disbursement and Information System. The performance metrics in this report were informed by two planning documents, the city's 2020 to 2024

consolidated plan and the 2024 to 2025 annual action plan. Some information in this CAPER, such as reporting for ESG and HOPWA, are submitted via other platforms as stipulated by HUD. The reported activities from the previous fiscal year supported community development efforts that primarily focus on access to and the development of affordable housing and assistance to extremely low, low, and moderate-income residents, as well as persons and households with HIV and AIDS. Uh public service activities bolstered the city's homelessness system by funding case management services for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Before submission to HUD on September 26th, the draft CAPER was first made available for public review and comment from September 9th to September 24th as per the city's citizen participation plan. Copies of the report were made available on the Housing and Neighborhood Services webpage and at the following locations,

the City of Durham's Clerk's Office, the Durham County Clerk's Office, the main branch of the Durham County Library, and the Housing and Neighborhood Services offices. No public comments on the draft were received at the time of its submission to HUD. As a final note, all of our planning and reporting documents regarding our HOPWA funding can be found on the department's webpage. I'm available as needed for questions.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Um before we go into the public hearing, colleagues, are there any technical Excuse me, technical questions for staff? All right, at this time I'll declare this a public hearing.

And I have one speaker. Yep. Haley Cunningham, are you in the building? Hey there, welcome.

Welcome, Dr. Cunningham. You have 3 minutes. All right, thanks.

Uh my name is Dr. Haley Cunningham. I'm an HIV provider and co-chair of the Coalition to End HIV Epidemic in Durham. I'm here yet again to express our disappointment and concern regarding how HOPWA funding is being allocated and the lack of transparency and collaboration with the community.

On February 6th, Community Development admitted to City Council during a session that the prior 2 years of HOPWA funding remained, quote, untouched. In May, a request for proposals was released for community organizations to apply for HOPWA funding. Partners in our coalition and partnership with Healing with Care submitted applications by the deadline and should have been noted of approval or rejection by June 2nd. Until September, we were led to believe that the RFP process was open and were told that we could not discuss HOPWA utilization with the city during this time. We met with city officials multiple times and were told this.

This was intentionally misleading given that city officials recently said to us in a meeting in November that they knew in May that neither RFP applicant organization would receive funding for reasons that remain unclear to us. We were also informed that a HOPWA administrator at DSS was on the review committee for the RFP and the other reviewers also had conflicts of interest. Ultimately, it was decided that DSS and the City of Durham would continue to be the only HOPWA administrators despite a record of poor performance. DSS remains the only entry point for HOPWA and places additional barriers to receiving support, including requirements that homeless and unstably housed people provide proof of citizenship. Healing with Care and the Lincoln Community Health Center have referred multiple people to HOPWA services through DSS in 2025 and none of their clients have qualified per DSS. We are in the process of reaching out to HIV care and service providers across our five-county region to better

understand just how HOPWA funding is and is not being used, as well as how many people are in need of services, given no one from the city or county has been forthcoming with this information. Even the CAPER has gaping holes. As of February of this year, 2 years of funding remained untouched. 1 million from 2004 has been allocated.

Given the small number of people assisted with HOPWA funding over the last 2 years, mostly for utilities assistance, I worry that the vast majority of this has been allocated to paying city and county officials who are actually not making a headway in helping people that this funding is meant to serve. We have submitted a formal request for comprehensive documentation surrounding the utilization of HOPWA funds, and will also be submitting a complaint to HUD. We have asked to work with the city and county for the past 2 and 1/2 years, and we won't stop until funding is allocated appropriately. Thanks. Thank you, Dr. Cunningham.

Those are all of the speak That is the only speaker I have for this item. So, therefore, I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Colleagues. No action.

Okay. Thank you. Staff, thank you. Um Councilmember Cook.

Thanks. I like have no idea where you're looking when you're looking, so. Um Maggie, I have questions. Sorry, I see that you're already here, ready to go.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, council members. Maggie Carnegie, acting assistant director with the Housing and Neighborhood Services Department. Um I have some questions to follow up on our April conversation about specifically about the RFP that was going to be for resource identification. Um wanted to know where we were on that, and um

I mean, I think that originally the hope and dream was that there would be some capacity building as a piece of that. Um I know that there was some issues with um how we felt like we could work with community groups. Um unfortunately, it sounds like we've gone kind of the opposite direction in terms of building trust. Um so, I was just hoping you could update us on the um that RFP on the resource identification part, and then um maybe we can talk a little bit about community engagement afterwards.

Yeah, absolutely. So, Councilmember Cook, as you mentioned in April, we reallocated some of our HOPWA funding to the resource identification eligible activity. So, we took funding from the 2023 and 2024 program years to make those reallocations to support that activity type. Um in the coming calendar year, the project team who is now managing and administering the the HOPWA program will be uh preparing for a strategic plan effort that isn't just strategic planning where more

simplistically stating that is what that would encompass, but it would entail a needs assessment, engagement with um partners and providers and stakeholders throughout the five-county EMSA. Uh it would also consist of system mapping and things to support us in developing a strategic plan about how to most effectively utilize these HOPWA funds to meet the needs of eligible persons um in in need of services. So, that is in the coming year. As far as the specific timeline, I would have to circle back uh with a formal response as to what that looks like. So, I Sorry, I'm going to have to go back a couple to a couple different things. So, the first question I have is I thought that the issue was that we were max We had a maximum amount of money that we could pull from those years to do the resource identifying and and or the I know there was a 7% on administration

cap. And then, so I guess I'm confused on where the funds are coming from that we're able to pull into that RFP. And then also, I the conversation that we had in April, it sounded like that RFP was coming like this year as soon as the um the the like HOPWA funding distribution one was done. And but now I'm hearing you say that we're not going to do that until next year, so I'm confused.

So, there is uh firstly, the the 7% project sponsor administration cap. That's for anyone who is carrying out and administering one of those eligible activity types. That respective sponsor has that 7% allocation to spend on administrative costs, like indirect costs, direct staff costs spent uh administering like TBRA services could be billed to the TBRA activity line. So, there is a distinction there um just about what direct and indirect costs look like for this grant. Uh regarding the timeline and timeframe of

the resource identification or strategic plan uh body of work, we were planning for um that body of work to take place pretty immediately following that reallocation of funding. There has been some just changes as a result of the reorganization and staffing who's managing the HOPWA program. Um changes in leadership that have have had some implications on us moving that body of work forward, but the the new project team who's administering the HOPWA program uh really in its entirety is is working through that. Um and and that has been a discussion point, but the specific timeframe I I again, I'll have to circle back on what that's going to be.

Okay, we have a Oh, yeah, did you have something else? And did I answer I think you asked >> Yes. Yes. Two quick questions.

Okay. I'm going to have a couple more. Um So,

the We have a 3-year period on performance. That is correct. >> you help me understand how that works with this timeline? So, we have a 3-year period of performance for each respective annual allocation of HOPWA entitlement funds.

Then we as the grantee can request HUD extend that period of performance by an additional 2 years. Um our period of performance works based on the date both the city and HUD have executed the grant agreement. So, each year's entitlement period of performance uh is is different. It just depends again on that those respective uh execution dates.

So, the 2023 program uh period of performance, that would uh end in next year. I I don't know the specific date, um but that is something else I could follow up with the specific date of when that would end. Um but as far as the older

uh funding sources where we have funding available, we request period of performance extensions to HUD, and we submit them. There has been some lag as a result of the federal government shutdown Mhm. um in responses uh to some of those period of performance extension requests, but we submit if we see that we're not going to fully expend that allocation within the initial 3-year period. I think I'm getting tripped up on how it how it works with the um with the timeline when we're talking about we've we've done the the distribution to DSS for Is that for this whole period?

And that ends like whenever the 3-year period ends is also when our contract with DSS as the distributor ends? Is that Am I understanding that? >> So, I think we're conflating period of performances and the respective timeline and timeframe for expending funds from like a given year's allocation. So, with our contract uh with Durham County

Department of Social Services, there's multiple years funding within that given contract. And so, each of those respective allocations, if there's 2023 funding uh in the contract and 2024 funding in the contract, then each of those have its own unique period of performance, and that would be outlined in the scope of work of the contract stating you need to prioritize expenditure of this year's funding given that there's a period of performance we need to be mindful of for this given year, and then so on. Okay, yes, that is helpful. Thank you.

Um And then, my next question is about the um appropriate reporting for all the categories. We had didn't have goals for two. I think it was uh supportive services and then permanent housing maybe that we didn't have the appropriate priority set for that. That's correct. We did had to have to make some updates to this consolidated plan that covers this report so we could

actualize um the the actual uh accomplishments associated with the various activities that we're funding. So, where those where you would see those in this report, if you give me a moment. So, you'll see those on um page three of the CAPER. Okay.

And in this chart, there's a couple uh goal areas that say provide support to people living with HIV AIDS. And then there's three separate goal categories that comprises all the activities that we're currently funding using HOPWA funding. And so, in column four of that chart, and I apologize, this is a HUD prescribed template. I know it is not user-friendly. >> Yeah. Um but these various categories do encompass what equates to supportive services, permanent housing placement, tenant-based rental assistance, and

short-term rent mortgage utility payments. How HUD defines uh those activities in the they're called goal outcome indicators, those categories they fall under are reflected in this chart. Okay. Great.

And um and then I guess my last question is that it was just brought up by Dr. Cunningham, um that there was quite a bit of money that was unaccounted for. Can you just talk about that expenditure? Yes, of course.

So, this report accounts for all the expenditures we incurred in this given time frame. It is not specific to a program year. So, that is why you would see that we have 7 or 800,000 dollars worth of expenditures that could be across multiple program years, say 2022, 2023 HOPWA allocations. What we're responsible for reporting in the CAPER is any performance and expenditures incurred in the time frame covered by this CAPER. So, July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025.

Okay. So, at any given time again, we could be expending multiple years, different allocations. It just depends on project sponsor, the invoices, the funding they have available in their respective contract. Okay.

Thank you. Um and I know last time we had kind of I said I had one more, but I had more. Um I know that last time we had a conversation and you were kind of talking about that there might be other sources of funding that we could potentially leverage for um coalition building in the community. And I was just wondering if there had been any movement on that.

Um but it sounds like that might fall within the scope of the RFP to come. Is that Is that seem right? I would say we've had conversations about the need for capacity building of uh potential project sponsors. We are currently receiving technical assistance from HUD. Um that is at HUD's expense. We requested that technical assistance to better support our administration of

HOPWA um and the program just in general. And that is an item that we have spoken with our TA provider about is the need to increase that project sponsor cat uh the the project sponsor pool, those interested in uh administering federal funds and HOPWA funds in compliance with those. So, as far as the other funding to pair, we haven't gotten to that point of identifying what could be that other funding to pair, but I'd add resource identification could be used depending upon um the type of the type of activity um and if we're under contract or have already identified a project sponsor, that could be paired or mirrored with say a local funding source or something else to help build that capacity. Great.

Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you, Council Member Rist. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Thanks again for the report. I appreciate the staff, the hard work you've done. I know this is an important piece we need to give to HUD every year. Um uh you know, we talk a

lot about affordable housing in this council. Um I care about that deeply. So, I wanted to ask a few questions about the affordable housing goal here. Um so, I know that and I appreciate the discussion about sort of the difference between some of the goals and outcomes, how we achieved uh those or how we did or did not achieve those goals.

And I know the city did not meet its goals for affordable housing production or rehab. I appreciate the conversation there. I had a question in particular about the rental assistance goal and why we didn't achieve that goal. Can you say more about that, whether that's sort of internal stuff or kind of market conditions that made it difficult to reach that rental assistance goal.

I know that renters are particularly challenged in our city. I think the numbers are like half of our renters are um cost-burdened. So, I would love your uh feedback on exactly how why we didn't meet that goal. Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you, Council Member Rist. Um so, a couple things I do want to identify is that this consolidated or excuse me, the goals and priorities established in this report were created back in spring of 2020. And so, that carried us through our five-year consolidated plan period. Then each year when we develop annual action

plans and then this CAPER report, that reports on what did we actually achieve in meeting these goals throughout this five-year plan. So, some conditions have very much so changed since spring of 2020 when these goals were identified. Um especially looking at other funding sources and uses, uh there was a prioritization just bluntly of our bond funding and dedicated housing funding as part of the Forever Home Durham initiative that took some precedence over the federal funds that we were maybe envisioning using back in fall 2019 and spring 2020 when we developed uh that plan. The other thing that I note is there are some programs that we're already investing in, but the outcomes haven't actualized. So, we aren't going to report an accomplishment until we have either a unit constructed and fully constructed per the standards uh for each respective funding source or the requirements for each respective funding source, um or a beneficiary has received a

a service in totality. So, an example when we're looking at the affordable housing work, rental units constructed, the Commerce Street project. There are 71 home assisted units in that project. We executed an agreement with our developer and partner Durham Housing Authority and Laurel Street Residential back in June of 2024.

Construction isn't complete though. So, we can't report on those accomplishments until construction's complete. So, we'll see the outcomes of that investment a year and a half ago in uh subsequent CAPERs, just not now. And so, that's that's part of the challenge too is to why you see some of these goals haven't actualized.

Right. You mean just kind of lags between the goal and the actual production. I get that. My question was really more on the rental assistance side.

So, to what extent like to what extent for example market conditions were part of the factor that that led to us not meeting that goal. If you could say more about that. And so, I'd I guess that to make sure I

explain clearly, we haven't invested as far as using HOME or CDBG dollars for rental assistance, so direct rental subsidies. We have utilized HOPWA funding. We have used HOPWA for tenant-based rental assistance. Um I do believe that in previous CAPER reports, we reported the HOPWA outcome under that affordable housing category for rental assistance um and didn't split it out as its own unique goal.

But we have not again used CDBG or HOME in that way. The uses have predominantly been about rental unit construction, uh rental unit rehabilitation, um and activities more of that brick-and-mortar type. I guess I'm I'm I'm responding this on page 26 of the report where it says uh rental assistance goal was also not met reflecting the abrupt loss of the HOPWA TBRA project sponsor and challenges with market conditions, rising rents, and limited vacancies. So, did that that

piece is what I'm kind of would love to hear more, yeah. >> Mhm. So, uh that is very specific to the HOPWA program and tenant-based rental assistance um that is administered through that HOPWA program. There have been some changes in our TBRA provider.

Durham Housing Authority for many years was our tenant-based rental assistance provider. Uh they ceased being that provider in June of 2023. We then began working with Central Piedmont Community Action. Uh they were the TBRA provider for the five-county EMSA.

And then in October of 2024, they abruptly shut down without notice. As a result, the city Housing and Neighborhood Services Department now administers that TBRA program. So, between changes in TBRA providers, there have been impacts and implications about the number of folks that we've served just because there's been a change in who's administering that service. There have also just been

challenges in landlords being willing to accept um tenant-based or rental subsidies and assistance. Uh we have tried working with the homeless system. They have a landlord engagement group uh to help identify landlords, small and large, who'd be willing to accept subsidies uh to help kind of bridge that network and gap and also leveraging uh partnerships we've established with development partners as a result of our investment in the Forever Home Durham initiative, but this is an opportunity where there there are uh ways for us to improve like how we make those connections with with landlords. Got you.

Thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you. Colleagues, thank you all so much.

No action is needed on this item, so I guess we're all good. Thank you. Thank you. >> great evening. You, too. Colleagues, next um we're going to have item number 19, the Downtown Durham

Blueprint. Yeah. Welcome. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Council members.

My name is Nicole Thompson, and I am the President and CEO of Downtown Durham Incorporated. DDI is pleased to present the Downtown Durham Blueprint 2035 to you for your approval to adopt this plan as an official city plan. Throughout our two-year process of creating the plan, we received feedback and input from over 2,300 people, and with this engagement have crafted a detailed plan on how downtown Durham can preserve its unique character while supporting continued growth and vibrancy. The blueprint includes a shared vision, seven targeted goals that each have deliberate strategies which are further defined through implementable implementable actions.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> [snorts]

>> Thank you. Uh >> [clears throat] >> this is a public hearing, so um there are no technical questions initially. I'll declare the public hearing open this time. And I have no speakers.

Mr. Mayor, there is one person signed up to speak. In person. Oh, I see it down here.

Pablo Friedman. Pablo, are you in here? Up there he is. Welcome.

You have 3 minutes. Welcome. All right. Good evening.

>> [clears throat] >> Congratulations, Mayor Williams, on your re-election. Congratulations, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and all the new council members on the dais. I'm here tonight to talk about two things. One is about the process for

actually signing up for to speak at this hearing. At the very beginning, I'll talk to that very briefly, and then I'll go into the rest of the remarks in our 3 minutes. One is I think the process for signing up to speak on an item needs to be a little bit better. There was a crew of us that spent about 10 good solid 10 minutes waiting to sign up to speak, and I think that process could be much smoother well by having cards or allowing people to sign up in advance online.

Just food for thought as this council develops better processes. But on the item at hand, as those of us who were engaged in this most recent election cycle, one of the common questions we heard from labor was why is the municipal agency giving a lot of its oversight on public goods to nonprofits or entities outside of the city. And I think this is a really good opportunity. We've done two small area plans, one in the Lakewood area, another one in the Northgate area, that are managed by the city. And as somebody that does live in downtown Durham, actually pays the BID tax that gets transferred to DDI. I really believe this small area plan needs to be managed

by the city and not by DDI. I want to be really clear. I think this small area plan has really good things in it, like really good things that need to happen. But I think the process, the public oversight, needs to be managed by the city directly as opposed to a nonprofit.

I think there are a lot of examples where the city will often outsource things to nonprofits or things like that, and I think that that's not the right decision. So that's point number one. Point number two on this whole process is I also think when we look at this small area plan, one of the things I think that's really important, those of us who live in downtown pay the BID tax, and then the city transfers that BID tax to DDI. I think we need to re-look at that because a lot of those public goods and services that are being done through a nonprofit could be more efficiently and better served to the taxpayers of Durham by the city itself directly.

So that's my public comment. I'll give you back a minute cuz you have a long evening tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. >> [clears throat] >> That's the only speaker I have, so therefore I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

And I will say that we we do So the council has numerous uh quasi-judicial boards uh and nonprofits that we outsource, but all of those agencies or entities have oversight with representation. And actually tomorrow I'll be publishing the um I'll be publishing a memo that has the oversight assignment of each council member to each of those boards. Um and this is one of those boards, so it will have a council member on it. And I can't remember which one of you all So Council member Rist is a representative of the council that will be providing an extension of oversight to this organization as it always has been. Um and from the county, I believe it's still Vice Chair Nader Alam. Um but it's also a way that community

members can be involved. They have that community oversight as well. So it it it it does extend. Um but those comments are are well noted.

Thank you. All right. Yeah, Council member. If I could, Mr.

Mayor, thank you. Um yes, I am the DDI representative from the council I've been so for 2 years since I've been elected. Um it is one of the boards I'm most proud to serve on. I want to thank the folks from DDI for being here today.

Um I've been in Durham since 1989. When I first came here, downtown was in a different place. We've had a couple, if I'm not mistaken, a couple different master plans or for downtown that have been done. Those took place when downtown was a much different place.

And so I appreciate DDI taking the time and effort and resources to really look look at where we are now, what the challenges of downtown are now, and developing a plan, a blueprint for for downtown going in the future. I know that process included a lot of people, a lot of pop-up engagements, different sort of ways people could engage. DDI has a very active board of folks who are downtown property owners, downtown residents, public officials, a broad-based representation there. So I

appreciate the process for developing that plan being thoughtful and engaging the community in that. If I'm not mistaken also, one of the reasons this board is being asked to approve the plan, to the speaker's comments, is that in the past I'm not sure the council's actually adopted those plans. And so by adopting this plan, we are saying we are ultimately responsible for the outcomes that are that are presented in the plan. So I think it's I think it's really great DDI's asked us to approve it.

I'm glad it's on our agenda as a hearing. I will gladly support the plan and have supported its development, and I urge my count my council colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Yeah, I have to say I enjoyed curling up on the couch with this plan like it was a good book.

And I appreciate all the thoughtful engagement that went in, the design elements that made it really easily accessible, the reference back to all the other many plans that we have. I encourage you everyone here to to dig in and and really try and try and digest it as best you can. Um but there are some real highlights for me, you know, fixing parking, especially for our working folks. Um you know, excited to see that,

supportive services for our unhoused residents, all the two-waying and fixing the loop, better bike and walk infrastructure, public art, welcoming spaces for all of our residents, especially our black and Latino residents, and more climate-resilient infrastructure. So there's a lot of really good stuff in there. Um the key ultimately is not to have good ideas and plans. Those are foundational, but ultimately to be able to implement, and there's a really critical implementation section in the plan that I encourage you to check out, and especially the you know, the the tactical action groups, so the TAGs, where I encourage everyone here to look at the plan, you know, find an area that you're passionate about, and sign up to be part of the solution to deliver. Um there are some early action items that have have been identified through this process, and I think it's going to be really important that we show forward momentum and and and success at ticking off some of those early steps and and show that we can deliver. Um you know, while we work on delivering other really critical projects for our community like 505 West Chapel Hill Street, you know, the beltline, and other initiatives that have been languishing.

You need to work at both of those those timescales and as quickly as we can. So please do check it out and and sign up and participate. So the this is a this is a small area plan. This is the the city's second small area plan following the Walltown small area plan.

Small area plans are really really important because what they do is say let's look in a focused area and let's look at it comprehensively. Let's not just look at the zoning or just look at the streets or just look at the parks. Let's look at all of those things together so that we can move forward on some of the best next steps. And if we don't do that, we're often in a position where those who are big landowners and those who are powerful, they are the ones who are presenting the potential future for all of us to react to. This flips the script and says we as

the people want to have a say in the way that we shape the world that we live in. We should have we should be able to determine and set a vision for what our city, what our neighborhood, what our multiple neighborhoods should look like moving forward. What are the next steps that help get us there. And when developers come in, when NCDOT comes in, when the city is taking action or or some large organization, they have a blueprint from which to work from that is presented and created by by the people.

And so I think small area planning is incredibly important. And as was pointed out earlier, we have a third small area plan following this one that is moving forward from the planning department. And I I agree with with what was spoken to earlier, which is that the city should be doing this. The the city should be doing long-range community driven planning. I think that that's very very important that we invest in, that we spend the time doing, and that

it is owned by the city, by elected officials, and by you all who who elect us and who participate and drive those processes. So I think that's so important. That being said, this was uh run by and conducted by uh Downtown Durham Incorporated and I think they nailed it. I think they actually did a very, very good job.

Um, they have a lot of good projects. Um, Council member Copack uh provided a list. I provided a list at our last work session, so I won't repeat them. But uh they're very, very thoughtful.

They're well well thought through and and done. And what it does is it looks The devil's in the details for for how we build our city. This looks at the devil it looks at those details uh to make sure that that we get it right. Now, we can't do everything tomorrow.

There are a lot of capital investments. There are zoning changes that are needed. There are a lot of things that need to happen. Um, but this also presents uh I think I think a

good a good action plan um with the Tactical Action Group's idea. So, overall, I'm I'm a fresh professional planner. I'm very pleased with this plan. I think it sets a a high bar for us moving forward.

I hope that a lot of our small area plans look like this uh moving forward and that we continue to invest in our the people's ability to shape the world that we live in. Thank you all so much. >> [clears throat] [cough] >> So, therefore, I'll uh entertain a motion to adopt a resolution amending the uh Durham Comprehensive Plan to include the Downtown Durham Blueprint 2035 Plan. So moved.

Second. >> Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote. And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much.

All right, colleagues, the next item is item number 20, zoning map change 3404, Page Road amendment. Ready for the staff report? Thank you, Mayor Williams. Mayor Pro Tem Caballero and honorable council members, good evening.

I'm Andy Lester with the Planning and Development Department and it's good to be with you all 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. Affidavits of all notices are on file in the Planning Department. Pamela Porter of TMTLA Associates proposes to amend an existing graphic development plan, specifically Z-17-00031, on three parcels of land located at 0, 1000, and 1002 Oak Mill Drive. 788 and it is not requested to change through this application. The applicant proposes to amend the

existing development plan to allow for an additional external access point on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 3306 Page Road, specifically the next case, Z-25- uh 00006. No other changes are proposed. The amended development plan with the new access point is graphically depicted with an arrow and is shown within bubbles on sheet three of attachment D. As this application is an amendment to add an additional external access point to an approved development plan, some typical zoning map change report sections have been omitted as they are not applicable to the request.

Thank you. Staff and applicant are available for any questions. Thank you. Colleagues, any technical questions for staff?

All right, at this time I'll declare the public hearing open. Um, Madam applicant, how much time do you think you need? Two minutes. I'll be brief. All right, put five minutes on, please.

Thank you. We'll have some time to spare. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council.

I'm Pam Porter with TMTLA Associates. I'm joined tonight with I'm Jeff Palmer of Shenandoah Homes. Um, this is a really simple request and will facilitate the following zoning request. Um, we're just requesting an amendment on this to basically put a break in the buffer to extend a road.

Nothing else is changing on this zoning. We're not changing density. We're not changing anything else. We're just putting a break in the buffer cuz that was a zoning commitment, a graphic commitment.

In order for us to break the buffer to extend a road through, we need to amend the zoning and that's simply the request that is in front of you. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions and Jeff is available as well. So, we thank you for your consideration tonight. Thank you.

I don't have any other speakers, so therefore I would declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Colleagues, are there any questions? Yes.

Ms. Porter, could you just go briefly about how this um extension of the road I mean, I guess we can talk about it when we get to 3306, but can you just give us a heads up about why these why this is important? Sure. So, we're we're requesting to amend the zoning to extend Oak Mill Drive into 3306 Page Road.

That zoning and annexation, which you will hear about next, is to that is a request to facilitate the construction of up to 15 townhomes. So, in order to build these townhomes, we need to extend the road cuz we are not extending through to Page Road. We're not making that connection. So, we need to amend this zoning to extend the road to request the subsequent zoning for up to 15 townhomes.

Okay. Thank you. All right, thank you. So, therefore, I will entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance by taking property out of

788. So moved. >> Second. It's been moved and properly seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

And I'll entertain a motion to adopt a consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 160D-605. So moved. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Next up, item number 16. Thank you. 82 acres and located at 3306 Page Road.

The annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits. The current zoning is Residential Rural. 876 to allow up to 15 townhouse units. The zoning map change application is related to um Z-25-0010, um 3404 Page Road amendment, the case you just approved.

The properties are currently designated Mixed Residential Neighborhood on the place type map. 876 zoning is generally consistent with the designated use on the place type map. If the proposed zoning is approved, there'll be no change to the place type. Thank you.

Staff and applicant are available for any questions. Thank you. Colleagues, any questions? All right, at this time I'll declare the public hearing open.

And I have one speaker and that's the applicant. How much time do you think you need? Three minutes.

Thank you. Put six minutes on the clock, please. Good evening again, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council.

Pam Porter with TMTLA Associates. Um, again here with Jeff Palmer of Shenandoah Homes. Thank you to staff for the presentation. 876.

And this rezoning, if approved, will facilitate an additional an addition of up to 15 townhomes to the adjacent Page Oaks neighborhood. The development will not have access to Page Road, which is why we asked for the previous um zoning amendment to extend Oak Mill Drive through to this parcel to allow for those townhomes to be constructed without making that direct connection to Page Road. The zoning modification um which you just approved will help to facilitate that, of course, and um just a couple of notable commitments of the development,

we are committing to a minimum of 5% tree coverage and there's no none required, so we're committing to more than the required, which is none. We are committing to a maximum of 70% impervious. Um, just note no impervious restrictions as this is not in a watershed overlay. We are committing to use of native species for any new landscape plantings.

The addition of a 10 use 10-ft multi-use path along the frontage of Page Road, which we are doing um despite not making that connection to Page Road. A $6,000 monetary contribution to Durham Public Schools. A $15,000 monetary contribution to the Dur- Durham Dedicated Housing Fund. And as staff mentioned, we're consistent with the UDO, the comp plan, and the place type map.

Um, and we did receive unanimous recommendation by Planning Commission in October. And um thank you again for your consideration and I'm available for questions and Jeff is as well. Thank you.

>> Thanks. You're the only speaker I have, so therefore I will declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Colleagues, are there any questions? Yep.

Council member Baker. Just a quick question for staff. Um Sorry if I missed this. Uh why no connection to uh Page Road?

I believe that was from the applicant, most likely uh Pam can talk to that. They may have received word from NCDOT about a connection, but I'll defer to her. Sure. So, this is basically going to be an additional phase to the Page Road neighborhood, and we wanted to keep it simple and not create a situation where there was going to be a lot of road improvements that were going to be expensive and costly for building 15 townhomes, so we decided to keep it internal to the subdivision. So, is this going to have a cul-de-sac abutting Page Road? Yeah, Page Oak Mill

Road will extend to the length allowed in the UDO and then stop. Um and we are, I believe, one of the commitments is to create a pedestrian connection from there to Page Road and the 10-ft multi-use path. We're just not having a vehicular connection. And NCDOT required that?

The connection, um you know I >> NCDOT prohibited the connection at to Page Road? Um I don't remember if they prohibited it, but I think we had discussed it with them and they were fine with us not making the connection. And it follows our connectivity regulations? Yeah, that'll be determined at site plan stage.

So, if there is an issue, they'd have to come back. Okay. Thank you. Or make the connection. All right, thank you so much. Thank you, colleagues.

Oh, I'm sorry. Council member Cook, go ahead. Yep. One more question for you at um the planning commission, there was some conversation about green building and potential EV chargers, and you said that you would talk to your client about that.

Do you have any updates? >> Sure. So, I don't I don't believe we are going to include any um green building at this time. We'll discuss EV charging stations at site plan.

I don't know as if we're going to have any required parking, like a parking lot that would require an EV charging station. I don't think they're going to be part of the individual units, um but if we do a parking lot, we can explore that at site plan. But at this time, we're not making any proffers to that right now. Okay.

Thank you. Council member Thank you, Ms. Porter. Also just a question. Um um on this issue of the connection to Page Road with the sidewalk, so um I'm looking at the BPT comments and it looks like they requested

uh or right, they were requested pedestrian and cycle cyclist accessible connection to the neighboring property on Oak Mill Drive, and it sounds like your response was you will build the 10-ft shared path along between the terminus of Oak Mill Drive and the 10-ft shared path on Page Road. So, so so that will that that is the commitment. >> connection will be there, correct? >> To Page Road, yeah.

Yep, just not the vehicular [clears throat] connection. >> Right. And then you'll build that you'll build the 10-ft uh path along Page Road as well. Yeah.

Okay, thanks. Well, thanks for being responsive to BPT's comments. Or that may be not already your plan, but I appreciate your responding to their concerns, so thank you. All right, thank you so much. I've been stated. 876 city jurisdiction.

So moved. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote. And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. I also entertain a motion to adopt a consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 160D-605.

Move to adopt consistency. Second. Uh yeah, I just saw that. It's out of order.

Cool. Madam Clerk, please close the vote. And the motion passes unanimously. All right, and I'm going to go back I missed I it was out of order and I I read number two first number and then number three. So, we haven't adopted the first motion and I would just say the consistency statement.

So, do I All right. I uh we have a little mix-up in the order of the the motions, so I misread it here. Um so, what I'm going to do, colleagues, is going to call a motion for ask for a motion for um to adopt an ordinance annexing annexing 3306 Page Road into the City of Durham and to authorize the city manager to institute enter into a utility extension agreement with Capital Properties of Raleigh LLC with the understanding that this would apply to the consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 160D-605. So moved.

Second. And the rezoning. And the rezoning. So, motions one and

two here apply by motion three. All right. I'll entertain that motion. Was there a second?

Okay, good. Thank you. Uh Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously. All right, thank you. All right, the next item is number 17. Thank you.

Yeah, that'd be helpful. A request for utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and an initial zoning map change has been received from Worth Mills of Longleaf Partners. Actually, I'm sorry. I'm going to stop you.

I'm going to ask that we I'm going to actually recess this for about 10 minutes and then come back and we'll finish the last two because these are going to be pretty long. Thank you. We're recessed until um 8:55.

I really can't see. I came to the city to develop leadership and supervisory [music] skills. I stayed because of the city's culture and dedication to serving residents. The City of Durham, where careers meet community. gov/careers. >> [music]

>> I came to the city for the great insurance and retirement benefits, >> [music] >> but I stayed for stability and vacation time. The City of Durham, where careers meet community. gov/careers. I came to the City of Durham to improve living conditions for [music] residents, and I stayed because I'm encouraged to advance my career.

The City of Durham, where careers [music] meet community. gov/careers. [music]

Vine a la ciudad de Durham [music] para mejorar las condiciones de vida de los residentes. Me quedé porque me apoyan a avanzar en mi carrera. La ciudad de Durham, [music] donde las carreras se encuentran con la comunidad. gov/careers.

>> [laughter] >> All right, thank you all. We'll continue with the staff report. You can start up there. >> [laughter] >> Thank you, Mayor.

Um a request for utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning map change has been received from Worth Mills of Longleaf Partners for two parcels of land totaling 42. 61 acres and located at 2503 and 2523 Hamlin Road. The annexation petition BDG 2400020 is not contiguous to the primary

corporate limits. The applicant intends to develop the site as a conservation subdivision to allow up to 81 single-family units. A conservation or conventional subdivision, as well as limited commercial, public, and civic uses are permitted under the current county residential rural zoning. The properties are currently designated rural and agricultural reserve on the place type map and are outside the urban growth boundary of the comprehensive plan.

The annexation outside the UGB is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. If the proposed annexation and initial zoning map change are approved, uh staff recommend a change to the place type to designate the property as mixed residential neighborhood. If the proposal is approved, the comprehensive plan would be automatically amended to extend the urban growth boundary to incorporate the parcels. That extension of the urban growth boundary would also include a portion of the Army Corps of Engineer parcel,

specifically Reed 169168, that is not part of the proposal, but it is located between the proposal and the existing UGB. This is a direct translational zoning. A direct translational zoning is one in which the existing residential rural Durham County zoning is translated into the identical residential rural Durham City zoning district upon the annexation of the property into the city. A translational zoning does not and cannot include a development plan.

And any future And any future development may proceed according to what the zoning would allow. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions? All right, at this time, I'll declare the public hearing open. How much time do you think you need?

I think 8 minutes will suffice, Mr. Mayor. All right, put 12 minutes on the clock, please. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, council members. Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of KB Raleigh Home or KB Home Raleigh Durham Incorporated, who is the rezoning applicant. Uh Ricky and Kelly Cates, who are the current property owners, are also here, and I'm joined by Landon Lovelace, civil engineer with Underfoot Engineering. So, the the purpose of this annexation request is to connect to an existing 12-in water line that exists along Hamlin Road today.

And then the development would be allowed to extend city sewers from nearby Industrial Drive with a pump station. If approved, KB Home intends to develop a single-family conservation subdivision for up to 81 homes. And if approved, this annexation would marginally extend the city's urban growth boundary. I think it's important to note this annexation does not change the

property's existing RR zoning, but just extends it or or sort of takes it into city jurisdiction. I do want to talk a little bit about KB Home as well. Um they build homes for first-time home buyers and workforce housing. Um these homes are anticipated to start uh in the mid-300s, uh which is on the the lower end of a market-rate for-sale home in this area.

KB Home is Energy Star certified, which means that their homes come with energy-efficient features. And they do have experience in Durham um including the Aster Ridge development, which was a 202 town home uh conservation subdivision near Merrick-Moore Elementary School. So, KB Home has demonstrated that they can uh build and deliver affordable for-sale homes in Durham and pursuant to a conservation subdivision. 61 acres are outlined in red

here. They're on the north side of Hamlin Road. All the property to the north of us is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Eno Industrial Park is shown on the left-hand side of the screen.

The site today is um primarily forested. A lot of those mature trees are located uh towards the north along the shared boundary line with the Army Corps land as well as to the east um providing a buffer to our our neighbors to the east. A little bit of background, Ricky and Kelly Cates bought these homes about 15 years ago. When they purchased these properties, uh they were within the suburban tier.

They were envisioned to urbanize. They were anticipated to receive city uh utilities. City of Durham water connections were available at the time of that purchase. When the City Council adopted the UGB in 2023, the Cates came forward, petitioned to have their properties included. Uh their properties were not included in that 2023 vote by City Council.

Uh there were only two individual requests that City Council did include in the uh initial UGB and staff at that 2023 hearing said that those two properties, uh which are shown here, um now have private development that's able to serve those areas with city utilities at no cost to the city or county. Farrington Mill Road area, which is about 274 acres, the Patterson Road area, which is about 198 acres. This is the same scenario that we have now. Private development looking to extend city utilities at no cost to the city or county.

And we are much less than the areas from Farrington Mill Road or Patterson Road. Hello, I'm Landon Lovelace with Underfoot Engineering. Um this the city has already issued a summary utility development statement or SUDs um with regard to the utilities for

this uh potential utilities if this were to be developed. Um Hamlin Road has an existing 12-in water line that would be tapped to. And there's an existing sanitary sewer outfall on Industrial Drive. The project would build a public pump station on site that would pump up to a manhole in Hamlin Road.

And then about 2,000 linear feet of gravity sanitary sewer would be extended down Hamlin Road to tie to the existing Industrial Drive. Um in the in the SUDs, it's noted that this is in the Eno sewer basin and in the Luttrell pump station sub-basin. Um anything that would be designed or built pump station-wise here would also be required to support future development that would be upstream of the pump station. I'll be around at the end if you have any specific utility questions. And here you can see a an exhibit uh highlighting that sewer extension and the lift station there on the property.

So, as I mentioned, this annexation would extend the current urban growth boundary line. Uh the exhibit shown here has the existing UGB in the dark red line. The two Hamlin Road properties are outlined in bright red. Um the current UGB line is only 217 ft uh from the western property boundary of 2503 Hamlin Road.

I did want to highlight as well those areas that are within the Falls Jordan critical watershed, but also within the urban growth boundary. I know there's a lot of uh different lines on this screen, but um what I did want to highlight are the red stars there, which are areas that are within the Falls Jordan watershed and also within the urban growth boundary. The smaller yellow star there represents our two properties. Currently, there are over 1,600 acres of land that are both within the urban

growth boundary and within the Falls Jordan critical watershed. 8% increase in the amount of land that is both within the UGB and the Falls Jordan watershed. I did want to compare the two developments sort of scenarios where if this property remained in Durham County or if it was annexed into the City of Durham. So, if uh remaining in county jurisdiction, uh the Cates uh or uh a developer could build up to 40 homes.

Um it requires 30% tree coverage. Those would have to be uh served by septic tanks and community wells, meaning that those lots are going to be larger. There is no open space required under the conventional development option in the RR zoning. And for a lot of that size, which is probably going to have to be at least an acre to accommodate the uh septic tanks and community well, we would expect home prices to start around

$600,000. Compare that to a conservation subdivision in the City of Durham, which would allow up to 81 homes. The tree coverage remains the same at 30%, but these are now on city water and sewer. Uh the conservation subdivision does require at least 50% of the site be set aside as open space.

And because we would be dealing with smaller lots, um more compact development, we would expect those home prices to start near 350,000 dollars. So, uh a significant difference in the style and the price points of development if they are annexed into the City of Durham. This concept plan prepared by Underfoot Engineering sort of highlights how this conservation subdivision could be laid out. I'll note that the areas where we are showing lots are areas that are mostly cleared today. We are preserving the uh largest groupings of mature forest, which uh abut the Army Corps of Engineers land,

as well as that um thick buffer along our eastern property boundary. So, in order for us to uh develop this site for a conservation subdivision, a lot of thought's gone into sort of where those homes could be located, where does it make the most impact to preserve uh that 50% open space and those mature trees. I just wanted to highlight this slide as well. This is the fiscal impact analysis prepared by the city.

6 million dollars to the city. We are less than a 10-minute drive from Duke Regional Hospital and the commercial area along North Roxboro Street. We're even closer to the Welcome Venture Park and the Eno Industrial Park. This annexation, this development would bring additional homes uh within close proximity to a world-class hospital, commercial center, and uh other employment opportunities nearby. So, just to summarize, this annexation

is really to allow for the connection of utilities and to retain the existing RR zoning. We do have some uh proffers that we are willing to offer if City Council uh is willing to accept them. So, prior to construction drawing approval for an approved subdivision plan, the development shall provide a one-time contribution of $25,000 to Durham Public Schools, a one-time contribution of $25,000 to Durham's Housing Fund, and a one-time contribution of $25,000 for a fire and emergency services grant project. I think that the city's reluctance to extend the UGB in previous cases stems from, you know, this fear this possibility of setting a precedent for other developers who might want to do the same, but we think that approving this annexation case would send a signal to other developers that this is the type of annexation the city would want to see if it were to extend the urban growth boundary. It's retaining its existing RR zoning.

It's the intent to develop pursuant to a conservation subdivision. And it's proffers to address the city's needs in this area. So if these properties can't be extended into the urban growth boundary, then I I just don't know which properties could be extended in the future. We appreciate your time this evening.

We're available for any questions, but we'll reserve the rest of our time. Thank you. Thank you so Thank you so much. Thank you.

All right. We have quite a few speakers for this one. I am going to start with online residents. Just to make sure they're online.

I'm Tina May, um Penny Mayze, Tina Motley Pierson, and Katie Ross. All right. All right, Penny Mayze, can you hear me? Penny Mayze.

Yes, I can hear you. Welcome. You have 3 minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um I'd like to speak against this project. I live in the Gorman community.

We are already having a lot of traffic in my community. This will add to it as traffic goes from Hamlin Road to I-85 for work. Also, this project is in the critical watershed. The more projects that we add that are part of the critical watershed, the more pollution we're adding to our watershed.

And this is water that Raleigh's depending on. Um this project also is just going to push more projects into the urban growth boundary and um we live in a rural area and it's rural is rural. It's um we who live here would like to preserve the the rural um flavor that we have in our community and

um the density um this destroys that. So thank you, sir, for listening. I appreciate it. Thank you, Penny.

>> [clears throat] >> Tina Motley Pierson. Tina, can you hear me? Yes, you can hear me. Hey there, welcome.

>> Uh good evening. Uh Sorry. You're good. You have 3 minutes.

Yep, you have 3 minutes. Welcome. Uh good evening. My name is Tina Motley Pierson.

My address is on file. So this development does not threshold for modifying the urban growth boundary. It also severely undermines the validity and effectiveness of our adopted comprehensive land use plan and place type map. This property should remain rural agricultural reserve. Under current zoning, 40 units could be built, but up to 81 unit units if it's a conservation subdivision. But considering consideration must include the environment, citizen concerns, and

infrastructure. Approving this development sets a bad precedent. I'd like to quote a few comments from planning commissioner Woke, county commissioner Wendy Jacobs, and city councilman Kopac when he was on the planning commission regarding this development. Planning commissioner Woke noted that this application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan as it's outside the urban growth boundary.

She also notes there was considerable community opposition with the message that the new comprehensive plan was just adopted 2 years ago and this parcel was not included in the UGB. Zoning and annexation should only be allowed if there is a public health or safety issue and this project does not demonstrate any health or safety issues, nor does it reach any goals outlined in the comprehensive plan and it expands into the critical watershed. Commissioner Jacobs is strongly opposed to the rezoning for Hamlin Reserve for similar reasons. It is outside the UGB. It is currently zoned rural residential, which is consistent with the place type map designation and notes that it can be

developed for 40 homes. Commissioner Jacobs points out that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with important comprehensive land use plan policy 118, policy 165, policy 167, and policy 168, which establish criteria for which changes to the UGB are valid. Jacobs also notes that none of the criteria such as public health or safety concerns, public health benefits like affordable housing that would warrant making changes to the comprehensive plan. Changing the zoning violates adopted policies, which discourage intrusion into the critical watershed and creates donut holes with disconnected pockets of the city and strain on public utility resources.

Jacobs states that we need to uphold this commitment to our community and uphold the integrity of the urban growth boundary. Newly elected city councilman Kopac's comments as the planning commissioner also mirror similar concerns with moving the UGB since it was recently established to protect the watershed and agricultural land. He also notes that this development doesn't meet the test to demonstrate why it should challenge the UGB. He states

that many residents expressed concern about the community engagement with the developer. We appreciate the comments of elected and appointed officials and agree that this development does not meet the criteria for modifying the UGB and that approval would undermine the integrity of the comprehensive plan, encourage urban sprawl, public utilities, and weaken long-standing commitments to protect farmland, natural resources, and rural communities outside the UGB. Thank you. >> Thank you Thank you so much.

All right, at this time I'll move to our in-person speakers and I'll call a few at a time. Madam Clerk, either I'm going to have to get a stronger prescription or you're going to have to make this font bigger. I apologize. I I can read them for you if you'd like. >> Natalie Pickett, Billy D, Yvonne Sanchez, Claire Charmey Charney, and Helena Craig.

That's weird. My goat picture showed up. Me holding a goat. >> [laughter] >> I'm not.

I I think you can go now. Okay. All right, you have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Natalie Pickett.

I address 1111 Paul Road. I'm part of a group of neighbors in this area called Oxford Hamlin Community Coalition. The most significant reason to vote no on this annexation is that it would necess- necessitate expansion of the urban growth boundary. The UGB was just established 2 years ago.

To expand the UGB right now would give us nonsensical sprawl along Hamlin Road, weaken the UGB all across Durham County, and give other developers the green light to request even more non-contiguous annexation, annexations that contradict the comp plan. I want to share a few other concerns from my perspective as an Oxford Hamlin community member. I live one turn off of Hamlin Road. Hamlin is a two-lane road with little to no shoulder. Along Hamlin

between the Old Oxford Road intersection and the Hamlin Reserve property, there are approximately 40 residential driveways, all outside city of Durham Durham. The only way to travel to or from Hamlin Reserve is by car. Hamlin Road is not safe for pedestrians or bike riders. Since this is not a rezoning case, it is not clear whether this developer will eventually make any road improvements like sidewalk shoulders or bike lanes.

8 miles away from where the nearest city sidewalk and road shoulder would resume. Clearly, this development would bring more car dependency to North Durham. Non-contiguous sprawl will make Hamlin Road even more dangerous. We also want to note the ways that community engagement was lacking in this case.

You may have noticed that the July 14th neighborhood meeting had zero residents in attendance, which is uncharacteristic for Oxford and Hamlin neighbors. I'd like to explain how that happened. The first meeting was held April 21st, which several of us attended, but it did not count because it was mistakenly not recorded. The next meeting was on May 13th.

Seven Oxford Hamlin neighbors joined, asked questions, and shared comments. We asked the applicant to share the final meeting date with us once it was determined. They said they would, but they did not. The final meeting, which was held July 14th, had zero residents in attendance because we were not informed it was happening.

We know that due to the remote location of this property, most of us are not required to be notified. However, we do believe that a corporation who will profit greatly by moving into our community should try a little harder to earn the trust of their potential future neighbors. We have had productive conversations with city council over the past 4 years about various cases in the Oxford Hamlin community. We have all agreed that development in our area is still in an early enough stage for us to work together to get it right.

We realize that most of us live within the urban growth boundary and we look forward to continued productive conversations about how to plan for developments that align with the comp plan and respect the existing residents here. Unfortunately, we haven't found any conversations about Hamlin Reserve productive since it is so far outside of the goals of the comp plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Hi. Uh my name is Billy D.

I live on Hamlin Road. Um I'm also with the Oxford Hamlin group Natalie mentioned. Um and I just want to second a lot of the statements that I've have already been made, so I won't go on and on, but um I also want to share the expansion of this property past the current urban growth boundary seems nonsensical and really short-sighted in terms of all the issues mentioned, the critical watershed, the nonsensical sprawl, and the item that um Natalie just mentioned about what felt like somewhat disingenuous um community engagement with this um particular project. I'll just speak to that briefly as somebody who attended a couple of those meetings. Um, I feel sometimes it's really confusing to be someone who lives in a place and is trying to keep track of development um when this kind of proposal like we just saw kind of pits like oh, we have this one

option, the Durham County option versus this one other option, the um conservation easement option that was just um shared by Worth Mills. And I just want to say it's not that this or that choice. I think uh a more long-sighted, thoughtful investigation of of what it would mean to go past the current urban growth boundary, to really consider all the issues that have all been already been raised, and take seriously um the the deep community engagement needed when um development is happening in places that are truly rural areas with a lot of farm farmland, homestead kind of um areas. And I'll just say as a resident of Hamlin Road, um it's already an incredibly dangerous two-lane road. Um as somebody who has farm animals myself, I've had a few animals be killed on that road by extremely fast-moving traffic um in like really um sad incidents. And I will say it's there is a whole conversation to be had about putting this level of development in um

a place where the the road infrastructure is not going to be safe. There's no shoulder, there's incredibly fast-moving traffic including a huge amount of semi trucks already, uh school buses, and um I just think there's a larger conversation to be had about um transportation infrastructure and all the environmental concerns, and the larger question of why would um such a change be approved um when there is this large question about what the meaning of the urban growth boundary really is, and um how we can think about that as a community. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Next. Yvonne Sanchez. No, this is Claire. Claire Charney.

You're good. Go ahead. Okay. Um thank you for having me here tonight.

Um I'm also recommending or hoping that you all vote no on this annexation request. Um I my address is 224 Riley Drive, which is just right off of Hamlin. That's the only way Riley Drive is a dead-end street. Hamlin is the only way I can get into the city or down to I-85.

Um this property Well, first of all, I just I I guess I don't understand what the point of a recently voted on and elected UGB is if you immediately vote to to bring another property in. I mean, that's been talked about um but but I I don't think this is the right case for it. Um I also agree with Billy that that this there it's a false dichotomy between presenting you know, the county version and the city version $300,000 houses and $600,000 houses. I personally as a neighbor, I personally feel like that's irrelevant and um a little bit offensive considering our affordable housing crisis.

Um so I'm also a neighbor, and I will also repeat what other people have said about about traffic on Hamlin. There is no infrastructure on Hamlin Road. We now

have Welcome Venture Park. We have the um the new development on the corner of Old Oxford and Carver Hamlin. There there's no shoulder, there's no sidewalk. If there are sidewalks, they're not contiguous with the their sidewalks to nowhere.

Um and I I've I have I'm two roads down once I get on Hamlin, I'm two roads down turning right. And I mean, I have people it's not very far, and I have people tailgating me all the time just getting home to my rural property. Um this just isn't the case for annexation, and um yeah, I I hope you all vote no on this request. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next. Yvonne Sanchez. >> Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Yvonne Sanchez. And I'm actually here as a

resident and owner on Hamlin Road. I have two properties in very, very close to them where they're planning to build. I'm close to Venture Park as well, and I had to go through that. Um as a resident owner, I'm just concerned like she said, the the streets.

The we have no shoulders. It's like very dangerous traffic at night coming home. And it's just we've had police at one time park there because they said they were getting all these calls of vehicle speeding. And Carver Street's open, so it's so much that's being done and not accommodating like the owners or the residents.

Um I heard him saying benefits for the city, benefits for this. What about the benefits for us as owners and residents that we actually live on Hamlin Road? I think you need to take that into consideration. We do live there.

We we go by this, you know, every day. Um if I wanted the city life, I would go back home where I was born in Chicago. But I love North Carolina, I

made it my home, raised my daughter. she went to school here, and I'm proud to say that Durham has been my home for over 31 years. So, I think that's very important that you need to take that into um into account that the owners and the residents do count. And I know that we we're growing, and I know that, you know, there's time for change, but rural is rural.

If I wanted to purchase a home, I would go to the city. If I wanted HOA dues, I would go to where there there's HOA's, but I don't. I picked a rural. And it should remain rural, and it should and you should take that into consideration for us because I don't plan to to leave.

I plan to stay there, but I would like for you to take that into consideration that that is our home. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Craig.

Good evening. I wanted to start by naming that we have two neighbors online. I don't know why you could not see them, but ironically, they're both Patricias, and they're waiting to be

heard. Um my name is Helena Craig. I reside at 1017 Old Oxford. I'm also here as a concerned resident and member of the Oxford-Hamlin Community Coalition.

As you can tell, our community was actively involved in the comprehensive development process that identified this parcel in question to clearly be outside of the UGB. As such, there are three primary reasons that I personally ask you to vote no tonight. Um it's already been stated clearly, but it is clear that this would set a horrible precedent uh for future development not only in our area, but other areas that are clearly articulated to be outside of the UGB for a variety of reasons. This one particularly abuts on the Mountains-to-Sea Trail um and the uh tributary to Falls Lake. So, we have to be super cognizant of the impact on our watershed. Um secondly, I don't believe they have

clearly articulated any community benefit to this proposal. As I said, this site this site was a beautiful agricultural parcel that directly abuts the Mountains-to-Sea Trail. We speaking to the disingenuous community engagement, we asked them multiple times, "Do they have any plan to make the Mountains-to-Sea Trail accessible to community? " They hemmed and hawed about that.

Most of what they presented to you tonight, we've asked for. They didn't share any of it. This is our first time saying I'm going to say 85 to 90% of what they presented to you. We had three meetings, one where they erroneously forgot to record the meeting so you could not hear the feedback of our neighbors.

We've had three opportunities they could have shared this with us. Uh it should not all be new to us. We we were told that because there was no development plan, they really could not and would

not make any proffers. So, it is super surprising to see three proffers here tonight when we were told the exact opposite. Um so that community ben- benefit could have been to provide some much-needed recreational opportunities in the area with a very unique property that offers that opportunity. They're not They've never offered that.

Um and lastly, I would say by allowing this development, it really is sort of a back door to getting city utilities where it clearly is not articulated in our long-term plan. It also skirts due diligence. No traffic assessment. No improvements to the roads.

I believe one of the callers mentioned, we've had a huge uptick of traffic at Red Red Mill Road opposite it. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speaker is Donna Stanback. >> [clears throat] >> Donna Stanback, Pam Lee Andrews, Wanda Allen,

Thomas Layton, and Tommy Rist. Tammy Rist. It be. Is that the order you all going in?

Yes. Okay. Yes. It's Wanda Allen.

Thank you. Can we get this in I would like to do that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Hi, I'm ready if you guys are.

Welcome. You have the floor. I'm Wanda Allen. Um, my address is on record.

Thank you for having me this evening. Uh, I want to point out that the planning commission voted unanimously against this annexation and re rezoning. All of the Durham County Commissioners commented strongly against this rezoning and annexing. As they both stated, the proposal lies outside the urban growth boundary, the parcel is in the critical watershed, there is lack of infrastructure in this area, this rezoning is not consistent with the comprehensive land plan.

There are nine policies that state no to this proposal. And there was significant opposition from the citizens because it's outside the urban growth boundary. Ms. Allen, just to make sure everyone

can hear you online, if you could just speak right in front of that mic. You're fading in and out. Thank you. >> me start over.

The proposal does not meet the criteria for urban growth boundary changes. The criteria to go outside the urban growth boundary is as follows. Must address public health and safety consideration, significant public benefits, which none of these have been met in this proposal. As the planning commission and the county commissioners stated best, uphold the commitment to our community and uphold the integrity of our urban growth boundary.

Thank you. Vote no. Good afternoon. Good evening. I'm Donna Steinback and my address is on file.

This location area is described as having an agricultural and rural character, which we want to preserve. Both parcels are in the public use value programs. One parcel's for agriculture and one parcel's for forestry as per the tax maps. Um, we still have a lot of active farmland and we need to preserve that.

There are eight farms nearby listed as registered with the Farm Service Agency uh, of the USDA. There is another property, um, within 1 mile that is a volunteer ag district. And then we know about the recently created agriculture conservation easement of 40 acres of from Bill Sparrow that is 8,300 ft away. This project represents valuable agricultural and rural heritage and is surrounded by this.

Um, regarding policy 165, this parcel is not contiguous and creates a service donut hole. The comprehensive plan policy evaluation for this case is not consistent with the policy as the proposal creates a new satellite portion of the Durham city. Uh, as this slide shows that to the southwest southeast part is 2,200 ft and the west part is 3,500 ft from the city limits. 1, um, a non-contiguous area proposed for annexation must meet all of the following standards. Number three is the area must be situated such that the annexing city will be able to provide the same services within the proposed satellite corporate limits that it

provides within its primary corporate limits. Well, we know that the EMS was not even analyzed for this uh, the service those services. We've heard the issues with the traffic. As you know, the roads are state roads and uh, they get limited support.

And um, this project is on the outer fringe of the city and other services like the public transportation and the nearest police station is 11 minutes away. Um, we uh, this is definitely not consistent with the primary corporate limits of Durham city. Thank you. Thank you.

Next. I'm going to go next. >> [clears throat] >> Excuse me. Jamie Soeira and my address is on file. I'm going to talk a little bit about growth. Um, recently in the Indy, um, our own Carl Rist did a uh,

article about land use and you uh, we referenced the Bowen Institute uh, 2024 housing gap analysis, which showed that Durham had about 33,000 gap um, in housing. Um, so you know, PRD has been tracking housing. We track all the housing units by the annexation. Since 2024, we tracked that about 12,000 units have been approved by Durham.

0 the week of Thanksgiving uh, Thanksgiving got rezoned, which this allows 4,000 acres to be changed into 15-minute cities. There's going to be multi-use there and there's going to be high density in the RTP. This is not in the city. This is in the county. So if you assume 25% of that 4,000 acres is residential and high

density with apartments being 25 PDR, there's 25,000 units. If you add these two together, we reach our 33,000 goal um, by 2029. And what we've been tracking, the 12,000 units, doesn't even include any by right. So we have the capacity that we need for Durham.

I also want to talk quickly about transportation. You've heard about the other uh, residents talking about how traffic has increased. We're here at the data. In 2023, you can see the 3,000 trips, about 17% increase by 2025.

And in southeast Durham, which we've been tracking the development, we're not even halfway built out. So think about this. That 17% is going to double or even triple. So I highly encourage you to think of the citizens um, in this area. We don't want to go outside the you urban growth boundary.

We don't have infrastructure. And we should really consider and not approve this annexation. Thank you. Thank you.

Next. Good evening. Pamela Andrews, Wake Forest Highway. On October the 6th at the Durham Commissioners Work Session, Hamlin Reserve was presented as the first case ever outside the urban growth boundary.

" Mr. Lester currently says currently no, they're not. I know that staff has had preliminary conversations with EMS. Ms.

" Remember, EMS falls under the county for funding, but they do not review annexation cases inside the urban growth boundary, our commissioners. County Manager Hager then says, "We've not been kept up with growth. One

example is in the past budget, we funded a new EMS group, and so we had not done that in about 7 years. " Ms. Hager has met with PRD numerous times and is working on this issue. How is policy 119 consistent when EMS has not been analyzed and is clearly listed in this policy?

It says emergency services and it lists fire, EMS, police, community engagements. " Remember in August 2024, we were taken a vote was taken to remove our county commissioners from hearing cases inside the urban growth boundary, which is about 70% of the county. Our team raised concerns then that EMS response times are prime examples for our alarm. Commissioners must stay abreast of annexations throughout Durham County as they impact our schools, EMS, and other county entities. EMS is critical. These cases

can be life and death. Seconds matters. Seconds matter. Policy 119 again shows that EMS, police, and community safety should be addressed in this policy.

The parcel would stretch EMS and emergency services further in a non-contiguous area. Infrastructure must be jointly analyzed immediately in Southeast Durham. Alone, the population has increased by 51,000 people in Southeast Durham. 68 subdivisions in four years.

Commissioner Jacobs also stated a previously proposed city-county DPS workgroup met met to coordinate infrastructure planning never fully launched. We really need to get the infrastructure group going right now, immediately, she said. This site will strain our emergency services. I also want to point out in April the 2nd of 2025, a code was a city code was passed, 70-129. It was recently adopted and said that water and sewer extensions are not

prohibited outside the UGB. There's lots of calls here, people. Here's a chest pain, no EMS. We have to get EMS in the control before we keep annexing annexating more developments.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, Talmadge Layton. Good evening.

I I appreciate y'all letting us speak tonight. Uh my name is Talmadge Layton and I've been farming since my junior year in high school, which this coming year will be 60 years ago. And um I have gotten involved with quite a few agricultural organizations in the county. And I'd like to speak up for agriculture itself.

We are trying to keep this county as rural as we can. Um I guess you notice I've still got my coat on. Uh I don't know what y'all were doing this morning at 8:00, but I was going

down the road on an open tractor to carry to a roll of hay to some hungry [clears throat] horses down the road, and they certainly appreciated me getting there. And I would like to be able to have our brethren that are trying to farm have farmland 10 in 60 more years. Uh as I see things going right now, I don't think Durham was going to allow that. We're going to fill everything up with houses and condos and and apartment buildings.

And I uh I happen to know Ricky Kates pretty well. He actually has helped me harvest my hay crop a few times, and I don't want him to lose his ability to sell his property to a developer. Uh I just would like for it to be done in the proper way and not extend the uh city boundaries out as soon as they had settled the zoning for the year. And it's a the county was rural at one time,

real rural. And the way we kept the traffic off of the road I live on is we would get our 15-ft leveling her and start up the road with the leveling her, and no cars could go by us because every time I got to a mailbox, we had to turn out and get in the other lane and go back. But the way development's going now, we're going to have to sit at that mailbox for 15 minutes to let all the traffic clear on the passing side of the road so we can get by. But it's going to give agriculture a really hard time to continue if we continue to develop out into the the rural farming area.

And please acknowledge that Durham was raised as a rural farming community, and we'd like to stay part of us would like to stay involved with it. And I thank y'all for letting me talk to you tonight. Hope you will disapprove this, and I apologize to Ricky because I know he'd like for it to go through, but you're still welcome to come help me get our pavement. Uh

if you will allow us to stay rural in part of the county. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh the following speakers will be our final ones.

Uh Worth Mills, Landon Lovelace, Uh okay. Malora McCall, Robin Barefoot, and Katie Ross. Oh, it wasn't designated as such. Welcome.

The first card drop in. Thank you. [clears throat] My name's Malora McCall. My address is on file.

>> a little closer to the mic? >> Yes. There you go. This annexation request outside the UGB is in the interest of a single property owner and

does not meet the standard of being reasonable and in the public interest. Residents are acutely aware that any exceptions made to the UGB set a lasting precedent impacting rural communities and the critical watershed, our drinking water sources, natural heritage areas, and the surrounding voluntary agricultural districts. Such a precedent would weaken the integrity of the comprehensive plan and the values it represents, values intended to guide land use planning in a thoughtful, consistent, and equitable way. Staff have indicated that the applicant has not demonstrated a clear community benefit as required by policy.

Instead, we've heard generalized statements. In fact, the applicant could pursue conservation subdivision under RR zoning without annexation, reaching the maximum intensity of 81 units, and presumably to meet the open space requirements discussed this evening. Building 81 single-family homes is inconsistent with the place type map to be assigned should annexation be approved. And this proposal is not aligned with the comprehensive plan in

any way. The implications of this annexation go far beyond one property owner's financial benefit when selling land for development, and the applicants have elected to take forward an application that disregards alignment with Durham's growth strategy. The gains resulting from an annexation approval outside of the UGB do not outweigh the harms to the policies established with community and the integrity of the growth principles Durham is working towards. Durham County agriculture is already facing intense development pressure pressure, excuse me.

And upholding policy 168, which clearly outlines three specific criteria an applicant must meet, is one way the city can balance competing county and city growth needs. This proposal does not meet those criteria. It's not exceptional, and it's not deserving of exceptions to policies, a sentiment echoed by the Board of County Commissioners. I urge you to protect the integrity of these policies, the health of our natural resources, and the long-term vision for Durham's growth by voting against this annexation request. Thank

you. Thank you. Next up, Ms. Barefoot.

Good evening. My name is Robin Barefoot. Um I'm going to pick up the thread that was mentioned earlier in the meeting by Councilman Baker and Councilwoman Burris about fascism and authoritarianism and capitalism. Um We none of us can beat capitalism by ourselves, but we damn sure better be trying at every chance we can.

Um canceling our Spotify accounts, um discontinuing Amazon, boycotting on Good Friday, not Good Friday. >> sorry, I need you to speak germane to the Oh, I'm getting ready to get there. Thank you. >> get there.

Thank you. I will. Um but it seems to me that what we don't pay attention to here in Durham County is the change that Talmadge was speaking to, the dire change of our county. And the expansion of the city in manners that are not to the benefit of the

public good. Um uh capitalism turns all of us into commodities and all of us into units of production and consumption. And they are taking what is a beautiful commodity in the land and the trees and the water and the resources, and they are turning it to profit. Um the reason why there's an affordability issue in Durham County, which I'm sure you're going to get to at some point in these deliberations, is because private equity owns all the residences, and they just recycle those open units for closed units.

Um and so I think it's really important that you recognize as a city council and that all of us in this room recognize that we have agency to fight against um the capitalist forces that have taken over so much of what um our nation has stood for, what Durham has stood for. Um Mr. McKissick was here earlier today. What a beautiful legacy that generation of Duramites have left for us, and you rightly acknowledged it, Leo.

But we have got to stand up and and pay attention to what they're doing, and to not buy into the lies that they are pedaling when they talk about um how things can be 15-minute walkable cities, and and how we can um build out and build out and build out, and we're going to profit this and profit that and save some trees and plant natural saplings when we've cut down mature oaks. Um we have to be realistic about what it is that they're doing. Um I really want to encourage you to lean into that agency. I want you to encourage you to think about a moratorium.

I want to encourage you to think about holding fast to the comprehensive plan and to the new UDO, and to make sure that you are focused on developing Durham in the best possible way. I also would recommend that if there's a therapy session that needs to happen for this city council, it shouldn't happen in front of the public. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Ross, welcome.

Hello, Katie Ross from Bahama and that is North Durham County. Out in the county, we really rely on this urban growth boundary as really the only protection from the encroaching urbanization uh that coming from Durham. Um I'm going to address a couple of things that the uh applicant mentioned in his presentation. First is that these landowners already testified before you at the time of the adoption of the urban growth boundary and the comprehensive plan.

Mayor, you earlier uh talked about accepting election results. Well, that was similar to an election and the voters were all of our elected and they voted to have the current urban growth boundary and the Kates lost that case. I would

suggest to them that they accept that result and develop within uh the means that they can under the current uh under their current zoning and circumstances. Um I'd also like to point out that the applicant's attorney or applicant's representation uh talked about how um this wouldn't be a precedent, but then he said it would be a precedent because he said if it's approved, it will be a model for other developers to come in and ask for annexations with a com- uh a with a uh a conservation subdivision. That's the word I was looking for. So, uh it will just be pushed and pushed and pushed. The if this development is proved approved, the next uh developer will come in and ask just to go a little further based on the same model and why would you say no? You've

got the precedent. I would also like to point out that KB Homes is the same developer that caused the collapse of wells down on Junction Road. That's 10 10 wells that were ruined. Those people still don't have water running, potable water, and KB Homes has done nothing to correct that situation.

Uh finally on um I would like to say that in preparation for this, I went back and looked at the uh hearing for Mariah Ridge. Mariah Ridge was unanimously rejected by this council. Why? Because it was outside the urban growth boundary.

And during that meeting, even those of you that thought it was a good project, came to the conclusion that the people trusted you to enforce the urban growth boundary and you didn't want to violate that trust. And I would ask you not to violate it tonight and to preserve our rural areas of the North County. Please

deny this um application. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ross.

Those are all of the speakers that I have signed up for uh for this this issue. And um One second. Um so, pa- Madam Clerk, I'm going to honor the procedures here, but I am going to ask um Ms. Yeah, I don't want to mispronounce it, Ms. Craig. Uh I'm going to ask those speakers to

please submit their comments so we can make sure we have those as well. All right. So, declaring the public hearing closed and back before the council. And um colleagues, any comments?

I'll go first. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um Mr.

Odom Thank you for the comments, folks who came tonight. Appreciate you being here and and sharing your feelings with us. Yeah, so the as all these cases are, this one's complicated. I like the conservation subdivision concept in this part of Durham.

Um I like the affordable price point of this planned 81 single family homes. I do appreciate the proffers and all that. Um and I understand without approval, we still could have 40 houses there that would be on septic. Um understand that piece. Um however, this simply does go against comprehensive plan as many folks have said since it's outside the UGB. Um I understand the problems that it presents for the property owner, um but

as I understand this and as folks have spoken to, um the conditions on the ground have not changed since we approved the plans just a couple years ago. Um and several speakers spoke to this um and the input from the county commissioners that some of the things we required to to move the boundary are not in place. Um I think it's also worth saying um the UGB is not just a line on the map. I mean, it is a line on the map, but it also represents our commitment to extending infrastructure out to that to that line, right?

That's what we've agreed to do. We've struggled in the city as we talked about in this council making sure we have the level of service, the infrastructure, the roads and so forth. And so, to me extending the boundary now without uh still committing to the to making sure the infrastructure is there within the urban growth boundary seems to me is not worth expanding it further. Um moreover, I think as Ms.

Ross said, this is like a Pandora's Box. If we approve this one cuz it's on the edge and there's other properties that some folks have referenced that are on the edge. " So, to me it's not the right time

for this. Um so, I'll be voting against this uh rezoning. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank [clears throat] you. Uh good evening again. Um Uh just very briefly, I will also be voting no. Uh I think that um I I do want to say because Mount Mariah was similar as far as there were things that I liked about the case that didn't make sense.

For the folks who do live out there, the urban growth boundary was always intended there will be an assessment at some point and I will say that a parcel like this will rank high in in moving in. Uh because of the things that were tacked, you know, uh we decided against, those are things that can be improved and so I I don't want folks to leave this public hearing thinking that that line is forever drawn. Obviously, there needs to be an assessment. Uh part of it's infrastructure, part of it is is there going to be a project that really does do that community benefit that folks were alluding to in their public um comments. So, I just want to be as

transparent as possible and we we said the same thing at Mount at Mount Mariah case. It may not be today, but for those folks who are really saying it needs to stay rural, I don't think it's going to stay rural and I don't want folks to be caught off guard in that moment. Does that mean now? No.

Does that mean this project? No. Um and this does raise for me and I we've had this conversation at JCCPC and I I want to flag it with this. It's the same thing with open des- open space designation on private property, same with the agricultural.

I do want to raise that and have that conversation at joint city county planning around the other parcels like this around the city that we have put that designation on. Uh I will say I have concerns around putting that designation. It's one thing to say a city park or a state park is open space or that that is essentially publicly held land. It's a very different thing when it's private property and I want to make sure that we are being careful with that.

Uh So, I will be voting no. I appreciate the applicant's um project. I think that

there are a lot of things that make sense. Um but uh I'm pretty I try and vote pretty consistently with our comp plan um as as best as possible. Sometimes there's a policy here or there that maybe developer couldn't meet. Um this these are pretty big policies um that uh aren't being met with this project.

Thank you. Council member Kopac Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I want to echo that I think that there is a lot of good in this project and this proposal.

Um it's a great call out for discussion around public access for for open space, but you know, I think it's worth acknowledging the 50% um you know, reserved to not be developed. Um you know, the covering of water and sewer, the green building techniques which I'd like to see more applicants bring forward. Um and the price point of likely half the alternative and while we need to be careful about drawing bright lines and dichotomies, uh sometimes that is what happens since we have to be mindful of the choices that we make and what those outcomes can be. Um however, at the end of the day for me, um you know, with the plan set as

they are, this does fall in a critical watershed outside of our urban growth boundary. Uh it's non-contiguous. It does not provide a clear community benefit and a really close study of what the requirements are for, you know, uh making uh changes to the place type map in the urban growth boundary, I don't ultimately believe that this meets that that test. Uh and so, despite there being great elements of this project, um I don't see it as being in the right place uh and I am planning on voting no.

Council member? Um this is a this is an easy no vote for me. Um although, you know, at face value, there are some compelling aspects brought forward. I don't think that there are zero good things about it, but there are far more reasons to vote no than to vote yes. Um our comprehensive plan, the future land use map, the urban growth boundary, they aren't just about what and where to build, but also when to build. Uh and

this is uh clearly inconsistent with that. Um satellite properties, um especially far-off satellite properties, really should not move forward with annexations, rezonings, and site plans and developments, um even if they can tap into utilities, water, extend sewer, as this one is showing. Um but that also means that uh services, uh fire, police, all other services need to drive through a sea of county to get to an island of city and be serviced in that way. Um and that is that is not fiscally responsible.

Um so that's that's one of the reasons. Um we also have a new unified development ordinance that is in the works. Um I think many people are aware of that, but on top of that, we also have a uh an a countywide open space plan that has just been initiated, and we are just now moving forward with that, which

should provide some additional uh policy direction, goals, um and strategies for us. So, I I think that this proposal is asking us to put the um put the cart before the horse, uh react to a private proposal rather than examine our policies comprehensively. So, it's uh it's an easy no for me. Thank you.

Anyone else? All right, thank you so much. Um I looking at it at face value, um I try to be as black and white about these things. Um you know, we need more housing.

We need more housing units. Um on the supply side, uh we need it to be more affordable. Um adding more supply here would make it, you know, more uh more units available at a rather affordable rate. Um but again, I try and be consistent as well. Um it is outside of the urban growth

boundary, and it is um it it I believe compelling is the right word, Council member. It is a lot there are a lot of things in it that are compelling, but I want to make sure that we're consistent, and um don't want to set precedents, you know, one way and then change it another another time. So. I will be voting no.

All right. And now that I've heard all comments, I will entertain a motion. This was 17. Make sure they're in order here.

I entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing Hamlin Reserve into the City of Durham and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with the Ricky Calvin Keats and Kellen Brogdon Keats. So moved. Second. So moved and properly seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. And the motion fails unanimously. All right.

>> [clears throat] >> All right. So, the uh motion fails. So, therefore, we will move on to our last item for the evening. Ready to receive the staff report for item number 18, Consolidated Annexation, Lee Village Center.

Thank you. 75 acres and located east of George King Road and west of Crescent Drive. This annex- annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits.

The current zoning is residential suburban 20. The applicant proposes to change this designation to com- compact suburban design, core compact suburban design support one, and compact suburban design support two, all within a textual development plan to allow a mixture of residential and non-residential uses. The properties are currently designated transit opportunity area on the place type map. The proposed CSDC, D, CSD, S1D, and CSDS2D zonings are consistent with the designated place type.

Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you so much. Um how much time do you do you need?

A little less than 10 minutes, ma'am. All right, please put 12 minutes. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, members of the City Council. I'm Patrick Barker, I live at 2614 Stuart Drive. I'm an attorney with Morningstar Law Group, and I'm here tonight representing Sylvan Lee, LLC. While Sylvan Lee is the majority property owner for this case entitled Lee Village Center, I need to emphasize at the outset that Lee Village Center is being put forward by long-time family owners and not developers.

The Booker family has owned some of the acreage in Lee Village Center literally since the American Revolution. I think that was about 250 years ago. More recently, the Booker family generously donated most of the acreage and buildings in Lee Farm Park, and that is only about 1/3 of a mile away as the crow flies from Lee Village Center on the other side of I-40. The majority of Lee Village Center has been owned by the Harris family since 1979. I want to emphasize that the patriarch of the Harris family was the legendary city planning professor Brit Harris, a fellow in the American Institute of

Certified Planners. He passed away in 2012. In 2000, in recognition of Professor Harris's work, the American Institute of Certified Planners inducted him into its College of Fellows, describing him as, quote, a pathfinder who over 40 years ago foresaw the importance of computer simulations in planning, the need for applied location theory, and the salience of human values and human behavior in urban development, unquote. Professor Harris's son, Jed, and his granddaughter, Laurel, are here with us tonight, and they are spearheading the long-time long-term development of Lee Village Center.

I'm also joined by Dan Jewel to represent these long-time property owners in Southwest Durham. Over the past 15 or 20 years, Dan and I have become good friends with the Booker and the Harris families, and so it is a privilege for us to be with uh to be representing them this evening. To give some background on this agenda item, our former comprehensive plan that was adopted 20 years ago in 2005 called

for Lee Village to be a higher density mixed-use development as shown on the 2005 future land use map. Our ownership team has always strongly supported that vision for this area of Durham. And what was stated in 2005 was confirmed in the Durham future place type map adopted in October of 2023 with the designation of transit opportunity area. In our recently adopted comprehensive plan, a key component, and perhaps the dominant theme, is creating the 15-minute community. Based on my 30 years of working with our planning department, I would say that compact suburban design is the best means available to implement that goal of a 15-minute community. 3, quote, The compact suburban design district is intended to encourage development of appropriate urban streetscape of and form through bicycling, pedestrian, and transit-oriented development through various subdistricts similar similar to

the downtown design district, unquote. Accordingly, our team has been sensitive to the to the surrounding existing neighborhoods by designating areas within Lee Village Center across the southern edge as support one and support two as shown on this slide. 6 opacity buffer along the southern property line adjacent to the existing neighborhood. Therefore, these subdistrict boundaries become enforceable zoning conditions if we are fortunate enough to receive approval.

Next, I wish to address policy 165 referenced at the bottom of page 11, top of page 12 of attachment H, and that has to do with those infamous donut holes. I am happy to report that we have made good progress on two out of three donut holes. We have reached an agreement for submitting an annexation petition for the parcel at the end of Wendell Road that you can see on this slide in yellow. We've also uh we also um

want to address the parcel at the end of Hornbeam. That's along the eastern edge of Lee Village Center. That parcel is going through an estate proceeding with members of the Harris family. And so we expect that parcel to be part of Lee Village Center after the estate is closed.

While the three parcels in the lower right corner at the end of Crescent Drive probably won't be annexed at anytime soon, at least two out of the three donut holes noted in the staff report should be fixed in the near future. As report there are are ranges of dwelling units stated for each subdistrict. Taken as a whole the number of dwelling units in Lee Village Center ranges from a minimum of 1,667 to a maximum of 2,294. This lack of a specific number in this range of over 600 units reflects the fact that this is an ownership team and not a developer applying for this zoning map change. Since there's no specific program of development, it's not possible to perform an overall traffic impact analysis. Rather, every phase of Lee Village Center will have to perform

its own traffic impact analysis at the time of site plan approval. This allows for increased background traffic to be counted which in the long run will make sure that the required traffic improvements mitigate all the traffic generated in this area. You may well hear objections tonight based on traffic. And another fact to show how seriously our team took this issue is that drive-thru facilities for a restaurant or for a bank or for a pharmacy or for anything are strictly forbidden.

Convenience stores with gasoline sales are forbidden as well. I reference these use prohibitions because it shows how the ownership group ownership group for Lee Village Center has taken concrete steps to reduce its financial return on the sale of this acreage. Moreover, the owners have committed to treat the 100-year storm and exceed the required UDO tree coverage. Also, based on the planning commission meeting where we where we received a 10-to-1 recommendation for approval, we added number seven on this slide to address any concerns about the natural heritage

area. Similarly, the ownership team has stepped up to the plate on affordable housing. I personally do not know any other owners, again, who would willingly take this big a hit to their resale value. I hope all the members of the city council noted that there are text commitments on page four that impose affordable housing requirements on any residential developer who develops a phase within Lee Village Center.

I think it is pretty incredible that the Harrison and Booker families have put forward a proposal to the city council that complies with 27 out of 31 applicable comprehensive plan policies. And while you have received an outstanding staff report on this agenda item, I would be remiss if I did not say in in regard to policy 50 about being located within half a mile of a city park there are 12 acres owned by the UNC Botanical Gardens only 750 ft to the north along George King Road from Lee Village Center and that would certainly meet the spirit, if not the letter, of this policy. In closing, compact suburban design is the zoning district that is probably

better than any other zoning district at implementing the comprehensive plan for creating 15-minute communities. However, we cannot create these 15-minute communities without the density needed to support that vision. We have reviewed the letter sent by the attorney for the Chapel Hill Run neighborhood, which certainly is in opposition to the density that Durham's comprehensive plan has envisioned here for over two decades. Furthermore, the road network associated with this agenda item was adopted in conjunction with that vision for transit-oriented development on these 81 acres before any of the houses in the Chapel Run neighborhood were built. Lastly, to address the right-of-way concern related to George King Road we will revise the annexation plat to annex to the center line of George King Road with an effective date of March 31 2026 which will allow us to correct the meets and bounds description and correctly produce the mylars necessary for the annexation. We want to thank the planning department

for its assistance and guidance as we move through this process. For all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval. Our team will be happy to answer any questions and we wish to reserve the remainder of our time for rebuttal. Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you. All right. Um we have a few speakers online that I'll start with. Uh John McGrath, Linda Harden, Ann Corrigan, Catherine Cook and James Richards.

Um John McGrath, can you hear me? Uh Oh, okay. Uh Linda Harden? Ann Corrigan? Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Yep, welcome. You have 3 minutes. Am I first? You're first.

Okay, I have two issues. I live in Falconbridge. I've lived there in since 1985. I think that the traffic analysis is utterly critical before this project goes forward.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 15-minute commute, but given the situation on I-50 on on uh Route 54 at most times of the day, um nobody's going to go anywhere in 15 minutes unless you think about traffic a little bit better. Um the current plan shows two collector routes dumping into 54. And for those of us who live near 54, uh it's pretty bad most of the day and it's worse at rush hour. Um I would like to see a traffic analysis done before this proceeds further.

My second issue is that of schools. Uh this is a very large development in terms of the number of families that may live there. And throwing a few thousand dollars to the Durham public schools is

not going to solve the problem. Uh right now, um Creekside School is way oversubscribed. There is already portable classrooms there. Uh Jordan is is enormous.

And what we need is a new uh elementary school and we need a new high uh new high school. And I do believe the developers should set aside a parcel of land for one both of these types of schools and provide some money for building them. Uh those are my two issues, traffic and uh and the schools. Um I think it would be unfair downstream to ask residents of Durham to approve a bond for education uh if this uh development creates such a huge need for uh more school buildings that the developers have not committed to creating.

Thank you. Those are my issues. I appreciate the time to talk. Thank you. You're welcome. And uh next, Catherine Cook.

Thank you. Um good evening, Mayor and council members. I am asking you to deny rezoning case Z-23-00042. I live in Chapel Run on Manor Dale and my home backs up to uh uh George King Road.

Um and I've only been here for 3 months. Um and it's become clear to me how unsafe George King Road is. I regularly see cars, large trucks, utility vans, construction vehicles, and commercial vehicles using King George I'm sorry, George King as a cut-through to avoid congestion at I-40, 54, and Farrington Road. Often these vehicles travel at excessive speeds and ignore their speed when pedestrians are present. The proposed rezoning would pave and reroute George King Road directly into the center of Chapel Run community turning neighborhood streets into Crossland and including Crossland, Macy

Grove, and Manor Dale into a commuter through route combined with high-volume traffic from the Lee Valley build-out and also pushed onto Chapel Run Way and Celeste Circle. Our neighborhood and those around us were never designed for this level of traffic and cannot safely absorb the increased volume from a high-density Lee Village build-out along with future development planned along George King Road and in surrounding areas. And just another thought during again, it's very congested around 54, um I-40, Farrington Road, uh GPS during those times will take people onto um uh onto um George King Road. Um >> [clears throat] >> The We are we're not opposed to growth. We're opposed to growth that ignores safety hazards and fails to protect

residents who who already live here. Uh the proposal lacks real enforceable solutions to the existing speeding and cut-through traffic. Um Track traffic volume increases from Lee Village build-out and future developments, stormwater environmental impacts to homes, the community, and the protected areas, loss of neighborhood character and quality of life. Um and just to um mention uh I apologize if I um uh did not say this, but um again, the proposed um plan is to to route uh George King Road into the center of Chapel uh Run.

And and then and then that'll go out into 54. And again, we know 54 is a mess um and these communities just cannot handle that. And the way of life um the safety factor for families with children Thank

you, Katherine. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Uh next is James Richards. I just want to make sure you can hear us all. Can we confirm we're here?

James and Kelsey Richards, thanks. Um I want to give Hamlin Roads community a lot of credit in terms of sort of contributing to things that we wish we would have seen in the development for our community. So, things that they proposed such as concrete utility plans, they proposed I mean, when we're looking at square footage of their acreage versus their per home estimates, we're looking at over a quarter of an acre per home, energy star certified. These are all things that we would have liked to see in our proposed development. To echo our previous speaker, I think none of us are necessarily opposed to community development in that respect, but responsible community development is at the forefront of our minds and we look

back at again responsible community development in terms of traffic in our tiny glorified cul-de-sac. These are roads that you can barely fit around two cars, that you have kids playing in the roads, you have dogs running everywhere. This is a truly a small community at its finest that connects to a wonderful dirt road with trails off of it and woods that a lot of us um have really been drawn to and and adds to our property value as a whole in terms of preserving the George King community. So, couple things that I I wanted to highlight again were a lot of things that our Hamlin Road community pointed to in their arguments. Um I love their focus on energy star certified, sort of concrete utility plans and traffic plans. We've heard ad nauseam that we cannot be provided traffic utility plans because of this stage in development and to be quite honest, I think that is a

m. on a weekday, you know, just how how bad that can be. There truly is no concrete input-output plan at this point for the amount of traffic it would take if we're concretely proposing thousands and I want to input thousands of both commercial and residential units at this point. I would love to be corrected if that is not the concrete plan at this point, but as far as we've heard, we're not talking 40, 50, 80, 100 units, we're talking in the thousands. So, again, we'd love for someone to correct us on that, but the last we checked, that was the tenfold community that we're proposing.

Um again, just the tree coverage. There are so many things, so many considerations that I've heard in multiple propositions tonight that we have not been afforded the respect of including that in their plans. If that again, if that is something that's in the works that we just have not been privy to, then I would I would appreciate that. Um Thank you.

That's that's your time. Thank you so much. All right. I will now move to our in-person speakers.

Is is it Jack McGrath or John? John Stein. All right, let me just start with them. All right, I'm going to go ahead and call up a few names at a time. John McGrath, Linda Harden,

C. Young Song and Linda Harden Well, Linda Harden, I already called. Oh, I see you. Oh, I see you.

Yeah. C. Morphis. And if you can just state your name when you come up, I just need your name.

Good evening. Hopefully it's okay we're going a little out of order, but we've all kind of collectively worked together to hopefully save you some time this evening. >> Yeah, but for zero or Durham, they do it all the time. Just state your names, I'll be able to check you off.

Yes. My name is Ryan Stewart and Mayor and Council members, I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns to you this evening about this rezoning. I stand before you tonight accompanied by my fellow residents from Chapel Run, Eastwood Park and neighboring communities united in our opposition to this proposed rezoning as evidenced by our attire in gray and white. To be mindful of your time, a group of us have collaborated together to present our issues in a more concise manner. It's important to emphasize that we are all deeply concerned about each of these issues regardless of whether or not we address them individually tonight. Additionally, I wish to submit a petition containing around 185 signatures and growing

in opposition of this rezoning. My efforts first involved going door-to-door to neighbors, during which I was welcomed into many homes and engaged in meaningful discussions about this project. Notably, there were no positive remarks regarding the rezoning or proposed development. I'd like to present some photographs of our neighborhoods, which might be important since I know some of the previous speakers uh described some of these situations.

So, our community features single-family homes situated on lots that range from a tenth of an acre all the way up to several acres along George King Road. And alongside that, we also have a small section of townhomes. Given that our beautiful area of Durham borders Chapel Hill, I believe it is essential to showcase these images as many of you might not be familiar with the characteristics of this community. It's crucial to highlight that certain roads in our area are quite narrow and lack sidewalks. The rezoning proposal

for Lee Village intends to utilize these roads for access to this new development. And that combined with a woefully inadequate 30-ft buffer between the communities. Considering the substantial scale of this project, I urge you to evaluate the impact it will have on our daily lives as residents, particularly since no traffic impact analysis has been conducted to address these concerns. m.

during a weekday. I wanted to mention I am not opposed to growth. I relocated to the area about 15 years ago to pursue my education and the enhanced quality of life I've experienced here is what's is what has encouraged me to remain. I wish for others to enjoy the benefits of our area, but I think we have to ask ourselves at what cost. As suburban residents, it's the lifestyle that drew us to our neighborhoods. It

If growth is to occur, it should align with the current zoning regulations and reflect density comparable to our surrounding areas. Do you have a presentation? Okay, she's going to give you a hand. Also, can you raise that back up?

Do you want this PowerPoint up? Yes, please. What's your name, by the way? Yuri.

Yuri. Thank you. This isn't it, is it?

Okay. >> All right, good evening. I'm speaking today in strong opposition to the proposed rezoning applications of Lehigh Valley area. My opposition is based on a review of the application against existing infrastructure, comprehensive planning objectives, and long-term sustainability of the surrounding community.

Here's the latest satellite imagery of the area. As you can see, this is not a highly developed area with high-rise buildings and commercial areas. This is a forested rural area isolated from commercial retail areas. This area borders the Jordan Lake Corps of Engineer protected watershed, I-40, and North Carolina 54.

There are hiking trails, wildlife hunting, fishing, and other outdoor activities. The current density is unsustainable. Since the light rail project was halted, this area has been subjected to aggressive rezoning that has derailed the original UDO concept for integrated transit and development. As shown, the immediate area is already overwhelmed with an estimated 1,500 to 2,500 proposed and completed multi-family

housing units within a short walk. This extreme density is changing the area from a residential community into a purely transient housing hub, leading to diminished not neighborhood identity. The proposed development must now serve a balancing function. Citing the council's own president about diversified housing types, this area critically requires an immediate pivot to single-family detached homes.

There is a severe shortage of detached homes for existing multi-family renters who seek to establish permanent roots within the same community area. With addition with Adding as many new residents currently and potentially adding an additional 10,000 people, what are the plans to build a new police substation? Is fire station adequate to handle the impact of these new buildings? Is the water, electric, sewage adequate?

A new lift station was built, but it seems to be having issues and constantly being serviced due to off-gassing. There are currently, as you can see, there is very limited road infrastructure to facilitate this additional up to 10,000 new vehicular trips. In addition, the lack of proper streets can be concerning during construction within the need of heavy equipment. Furthermore, once

development has commenced and the proposed commercial retail spaces open, if the roads are not addressed, how will commercial vehicles such as box trucks, large 18-wheelers, and other heavy-duty delivery vehicles access the site? Based on research, George King has potential easement right issues to enable meeting required standards. There's no current plan, budget, or schedule for the completion of the Falcon Bridge extension. In order to complete this extension, North Carolina DOT, Durham County, city would have to purchase up to six private homes.

At present, this only The only potential access is on the residential street located in the Chapel Run neighborhood. This road currently does not have direct access to Highway 54 and also does is not built to the required standards outside of the community. These are the photos of the surrounding uh streets that show limited development and don't currently meet the standards needed to provide for large traffic impact. This is George King Rail Road north and south as entryway. This is with the um Nelson Highway service road off of 54. Again, very narrow roads, non- undeveloped, no sidewalks, no dirt, no gutters,

um no proper drainage. Um I also want to say they've talked about um the owner being uh well, I guess my time's up. Um good evening. My name is Cindy Long and I live at 107 Medfield Court.

I'm speaking tonight in opposition to the proposed rezoning. I'd like to continue the presentation started by Yuri. Um In the slide, it shows the current sidewalks for the residents. And essentially, there are relatively no sidewalks, and families, children, and pets must walk in the street, which is very dangerous situation. Today, there is a relatively low number of vehicles, and the speed limit is only 25 mph, but this is uh very rarely adhered to. I and

others have had many incidences of cars speeding on these narrow residential streets. This concerns me as I've been in several near misses with cars driving dangerously on these streets. There are also no designated bike lanes. This limits the intermodal transportation options.

Again, as this is an isolated area, there is no connectivity to either Durham or Chapel Hill except via vehicle use. Approval of this rezoning would be premature, irresponsible, and would place an undue burden on existing community residents and municipal services. We respectfully request that the council deny this application until comprehensive infrastructure plans and funding are secured. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Williams, uh Mayor Pro Tem Caberra, members of the council. Uh thank you for your time tonight. I know we're getting long, so I'm going to do my best to keep it under 3 minutes.

C. Morphis. I'm a partner

with the Brough Law Firm. Our office is in Chapel Hill, but I live at 2705 Stewart Drive in Durham. And I'm here tonight on behalf of the Chapel Hill Run of the Chapel Hill Run Homeowners Association. Now, we have lots of folks in the audience.

You can tell who's opposed to the project tonight because we are wearing color-coordinated gray T-shirts. Uh as you've heard, there are other folks who are opposed. I'm not going to talk about the specifics of the project and problems with it. Uh the citizens can speak for themselves perfectly fine.

I'm here to follow up on the letter that I sent uh dated December 8th to City Council. If members of council don't have that, I'm happy to provide a paper copy now. Um in short, there are two serious legal issues with this proposal we believe need to be addressed before council can uh vote to approve this project. The first is regarding traffic impact analysis. Uh and this issue has come up twice now. Once uh during the September Planning Commission meeting, and once uh

during the December 4th um City Council meeting. 1 that unless exempted, a traffic impact analysis TIA shall be required for changes of use to determine if roadway improvements will be required or zoning map changes utilizing a development plan or site plans or preliminary plats that can be anticipated to generate at least 150 vehicle trips a peak hour. What's been proposed is a rezoning map change utilizing a development plan. When I'm explaining and trying to argue about the interpretation of an ordinance to a court in North Carolina, we always look to what is the intention of the legislature.

That would be you, City Council, when this ordinance was adopted. When there is clear language in the ordinance, that is the clearest intent, and that is what the court looks to to understand that intention. Respectfully, this cannot be interpreted multiple ways. It says can be anticipated. And what the ordinance said every time

this is brought up is staff has explained to you, well, they're going to present a TIA at the staff level um or at the site plan level. However, that is not what your ordinance says. Your ordinance is very clear that it says that can be anticipated. I am not a traffic engineer.

I don't pretend to be one. However, it's clear that this can be anticipated. I've been doing this for over 20 years with local governments and representing citizens and developers. I can tell you traffic engineers prepare traffic impact analyses based on the zoning alone every single day.

And so, for that them to say that it cannot be anticipated is simply wrong. For staff to ignore the requirements of the ordinance is mistaken. I believe the council has two options. You may deny the zoning tonight, or you could delay until a TIA is submitted, or you could change the ordinance.

But what you've got tonight cannot be done. I will uh I see I'm out of time, so I will leave you to peruse my letter for the second point. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you.

>> [applause] >> IS THAT LINDA HARDEN? YES. OKAY. YES, MA'AM.

GOOD EVENING, Mayor and council members. Actually, we're getting later into the evening and closer to night. My name is Linda Harden. I live at 303 Crossland Drive in the neighborhood of Chapel Run.

I've lived there since 2019 after moving here from St. Louis, Missouri. I love living in Durham and in this community. The people, the environment, the surrounding neighborhoods, and the woods next to and surrounding George King Road are so walkable and beautiful, and I would like it to stay that way as I am sure you would as well.

I walk my dog multiple times a day and meet and talk with my neighbors outside. These interactions make it a true community, something I would hate to lose. I am not against development. Not in the least. I am not an NIMBY resident. However, I believe we should have planned, thoughtful development to make

sure all outcomes are considered before moving forward. We need to know what is best for the environment, the safety of the residents, and the character of the community before making such sweeping changes. Based on the projections of housing units and the current lack of a TIA, which leaves so many questions unanswered, I cannot foresee how our neighborhood will not lose the character and safety we currently know. Each homeowner purchased their home with the reasonable expectation of maintaining the neighborhood's character.

When you consider the proposed changes of such volume and the lack of overall infrastructure planning, it becomes very concerning and unclear of how this will be successful. I also want to touch on a point about Vision Zero. As you well know, this is a Durham initiative and an excellent one whose goal it is to end traffic deaths in the city. The current rezoning proposal, without the proper infrastructure plan, may

easily put us in danger of going against the tenets of Vision Zero and becoming the next corridor on which the initiative will need to focus. Please consider this issue now before it becomes an issue in the future. Thank you for taking your time to listen to my concerns, and I urge you to vote against this proposal this evening and pursue more information to aid in a decision in the future. Thank you.

Um good evening. Um I'm Joan Stein and I live on Celeste Circle and we are the old community. I've lived there for over 40 years. Um and everything that's been said tonight, I agree with about the opposition. Uh I can testify about the traffic. Things have been fine until most recently, this I would say like a year,

traffic has gotten crazy. It was never like that before. And I'm one of those persons that go down George King Road because I don't want to have to deal with all the traffic. I'm also one of those persons that greets my neighbors and walks my dog two or three times a day, and I use the woods.

Uh but I walk all around the neighborhood and Chapel Run, too, and even up where the new developments are, that Falcon Ridge. So, I I see an issue with traffic. A huge issue. Um I'm not against development, either, but I I I think there has to be a better plan for where this traffic is going to go. Um it's just crazy to think about. I mean, I know a long time ago light rail was

supposed to be built. And that never happened. So, now we're considering building all of this with no regard for what's going to happen with transportation. So, thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome. Respected council members and the mayor. My name is Yan Song and I'm here and I wear two hats.

The first hat is that I'm the resident with my mom with my mom. My mom she's in his in her 80s. She moved into the this neighborhood because it's quiet, safe, and walkable and I I think many of our retired neighbors share the same same life as well. So, this is the first point that I was trying to make. Many of the neighbors build their life around this neighborhood with reasonable expectations that this area remain safe

and walkable. And my second hat is that I'm a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the UNC Chapel Hill. So, my area of expertise is in land use and environmental planning. In my humble area of expertise, I do see still there are a lot of quite a few remaining questions that need to be answered before pushing this forward.

Many speakers have already talked about the traffic impacts and I want to um speak briefly about the environmental impacts as well. Um so, when we you know, when we do research and the teaching about this amount this this sort of scope of a development, we um ask for responsible development. As planners, we are not against developments. We love for developments which are responsible. Um But in this case, if we rezone the the the Lee Village

to include more than 2,000 units of housing units and large blocks of a commercial uses, um almost for sure we'll lose a mature forest and we'll break up the habitat corridor. We send more runoff, stormwater runoff, sediments, pollutants into the Little Creek and downstream drinking water supplies. And another point here is that the all those stormwater runoff pollutants, they don't stop inside the boundary of the development. They go into the existing neighborhoods, Chapel Run and other adjacent neighborhoods.

So, they don't stop there. Um and all of those will increase the risk of flooding and heat as well because the current area serve as a natural buffer. Um So, Durham's comprehensive plan tells us to protect critical watershed and

sensitive natural areas like this. So, in this case, without studying more into the cumulative effects of this development again on the things that I just mentioned, um it's just a little bit premature. It's just premature to make this decision forward. Thank you for your time.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Hello. Hi.

Um good evening, Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and all the city council members. My name is Samantha Swan and I live in Chapel Run. I have lived here for 8 years. We chose to relocate to Chapel Run due to the protected land surrounding the neighborhood and walking access to Durham to to rural Durham County. And I'm walking less than 2 minutes from my house, I have access to what feels like you're in the countryside with two horse farms, the North Carolina Botanical Garden Foundation's property

called Villa Pinea, and properties with small ponds, meadows, and bucolic landscapes. This area retains significant natural value due to its diverse forested habitats, wetlands, and wide variety of plants and animals. The area around George King Road is a recognized ecological asset known for its biodiversity. When speaking with a friend who is a botanist and a naturalist, he informed me that George King Road is a great resource for native plant seed and one of the few places in the area with a robust population of phlox nivalis, a beautiful spring blooming native phlox. And when I looked at iNaturalist, an app that records observations of plants and animals and contributes to a global data set used for scientific research and conservation, over 100 different species have been recorded along the road and surrounding woodlands. I'm here to ask to the council to protect this relic of diversity in the

Piedmont, not only for our small community of Chapel Run and surrounding neighbors, but for all the floral and fauna which also call this area home. We need to preserve this vital green space for wildlife, retain its water quality, and protect its ecological connectivity. It should be valued beyond its developmental potential and saved for future generations and species to live and thrive. The impact of of Lee Village to this natural habitat and to the wildlife's connectivity will be immense.

The type of dense community proposed, and I quote, "The single the largest single developed planned property in Durham and by Adam Powell in the local reporter in August 2024. I live in Durham County and I do not want to live in Durham City. That is why I felt compelled to speak today as we have to protect, value, and uphold the environmental principles that everything

is connected, resources are finite, all life is important, and humans are stewards of nature. If this high-density rezoning is approved, much of this natural assortment and distinction will be lost. The tree canopy, the forest's unique wildness, species variety, everything forever. Let me end by paraphrasing Joni Mitchell.

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot. Thank you. >> Thank you.

All right. Um Is that the end of the coordinated speakers? Two Go ahead. >> [clears throat] >> Uh good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and members of the council. I'm Robby Swan and my wife and I have lived in the Chapel Run neighborhood for over 8 years. And I'm speaking you to you tonight in

opposition to the change in zoning for Lee Village. A compact urban design is the zoning designation sought by the developers um {slash} owners for Lee Village. The area is currently designated as rural residential, a designation about as far from compact urban design as is poss- as is possible in housing density terms, I think you will agree. So, why the drastic change?

This is because this is a legacy of the late Durham Orange Light Rail Transit project, which was planned to run through and provide a stop in the proposed Lee Village area and thus transport in and out of the area. This project, however, was abandoned over 6 years ago. Yet, this zombie petition remains.

Certainly, in local needs terms, there's there remains no logical reason to turn this residential area into a high-density rental housing, office space, and retail sales zone. We are not against appropriate development. Indeed, if this area was to be developed with similar housing density to our Chapel Run neighborhood, I would expect there to be little opposition. We need single-family dwellings.

Instead, Lee Village is to be, in housing terms, yet another 2,000 plus rental housing units adding to the stock of already 2,000 recently completed, in construction, or approved rental units already in our immediate area. Please deny this rezoning request. And thank you for listening and

compliments of the season to each of you. Thank you. And just to be clear, you said your name was Roby Swan, right? Yes, Roby Swan.

Thank you. Next. Hi, good evening. My name is Petra Tamisunas, and I'm also a resident of Chapel Run.

Um my husband and I moved to North Carolina this summer, and one of the main reasons that we chose our home is because of the Chapel Run community. The neighborhood is small, as you've heard, with only 84 homes total. It's very quiet. It feels tucked in and cozy, and that's was a huge draw for us.

I also am not against development, and my husband and I certainly expected that something would be popping up behind our home in that um stretch of land. But, like so many people, one of our biggest concerns with Lee Village is the traffic and safety implications on our small development as well as the surrounding area. I live on one of the two streets in Chapel Run that are

planned to be extended as part of the Lee Village proposal. Um one of the pictures you saw was my little street. It is very small. It's about a 10th of a mile.

It has 16 homes on it on very small lots. Only one side of the street has a a very small sidewalk. Um and the road is very narrow. If cars park on both sides, it's difficult to get a car through without care.

Um there are many families with children, with dogs that walk and play through our our neighborhood, and I just really have no idea how it makes sense to use a small street like that as an access point to an 81-acre 2,000-home development. It makes me um wonder really how much thought has been put into traffic flow and safety considerations. Um as you know, outside of the immediate neighborhood is North Carolina 54 and I-40. If you travel during peak times,

you will be very familiar with the congestion with bumper-to-bumper traffic, and even cars are backed up in both the entrance and exits exit ramps. Um I would hope that a traffic impact analysis plan for handling the additional traffic is required prior to any rezoning approval for something of this scale. Um but if it's not required, it's certainly the responsible thing to do for all the people in this area, including future residents of Lee Village. Thank you.

Thank you. Finally, John McGrath. Finally, we got you up here. Mr. Mayor, Mayor pro tem, members of the City Council, I wish to express my deep concern regarding the proposed Lee Village development. While the concept may once have aligned with the regional transit goals, and those circumstances originally justified condensed density housing, that situation doesn't exist anymore.

Lee Village was envisioned as a transit-oriented community supported by the now-defunct light rail project. With that option gone, the development risks becoming the equivalent of a village built on an island with no bridge, isolated, congested, fundame- fundamentally unsustainable. There are numerous reasons to oppose this project, including traffic, quality of life, environmental degradation, taxpayer burden, excessive rental to single-family ratios, as a few. Yeah, there are others.

Among these, though, traffic stands out as the most severe. In addition to the fact that no viable traffic assessment exists, most recent one being done during COVID, when many places were closed, the scale of the proposed development far exceeds what surrounding road networks can reasonably support. The consequences are predictable. Renters will become frustrated with the daily gridlock and ultimately leave the

neighborhood, damaging the area's reputation. Those occupying affordable housing units be impacted even more. Local shops will struggle and or fail due to limited access, preventing the area from becoming anything like Meadowmont Village or other successful mixed-use communities. Employers in the proposed science and technology building will face significant challenges recruiting and retaining talent unwilling to endure the transportation nightmare.

Taken together, these factors point to a troubling conclusion. Lee Vill- Lee Village, as currently designed, is going to be poised to become economic bust rather than a thriving district. I'm also concerned that the city's regulatory agencies may be placed in a vulnerable position by the develop- by the developer's plan to sell off parcels in small units. Office towers, retail spaces, townhomes,

each require different planning considerations, and fragmenting ownership will make it far more difficult for the city's regulatory agen- regulatory agencies to ensure equitable distribution of resources, infrastructure, and services. This approach increases the risk of inconsistent development and long-term management challenges. Additionally, the proposed proposal to allow only 30 ft of natural buffer space between the new development and existing homes is a clear indication of planned overbuilding. Such Now, thank you.

>> Quick question. Are you Do you go by Jack and John? Yeah. Okay, got it.

I'm a complex person. Okay, you have another [laughter] 3 minutes. Uh my name is Wendy Woodall. Um Mr.

Mayor, Mayor pro tem, council members. My name is Wendy Woodall, and I am a resident of Chapel Run. Thank you for taking the time to listen to all of us tonight. I am the closer.

You've heard from residents and experts who care deeply about this area. While each raised a different issue, they all point to the same conclusion. This proposal is not yet ready for approval. We want to be very clear.

We are not opposed to development. We support growth, additional housing, and smart planning. What we are asking for is responsible development that is supported by infrastructure and aligned with Durham's own comprehensive plan. This rezoning represents one of the most intense development proposals in this area, yet critical questions remain unanswered.

There is no completed traffic impact analysis. The high-capacity transit that once justified this level of density no longer exists. The environmental impacts on Little Creek, nearby protected lands, and downstream water quality have not been fully evaluated in a comprehensive public way. Approving this rezoning now would lock in consequences that cannot easily be

reversed. Once the zoning is changed, the city's ability to meaningfully address traffic safety, environmental protection, and neighborhood impacts is significantly reduced. We are asking the council to pause, require the missing analyses, ensure the transportation plan is realistic, confirm the development at this scale can occur safely, sustainably, and in a way that protects surrounding neighborhoods. This is not about stopping growth.

It's about doing it the right way. We respectfully ask that you vote no at this time or defer the decision until the necessary information is available. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to our community. >> [applause] >> Thank you. I have um Ali Shen,

Durant Long, Chris Selby I'm Brian Megan Salaway Malora McCall and Elizabeth Miller This is not This is not the This is not it. You just send it as a PDF. Chris Selby right here. That's it.

Yeah. There you go. And you should be able to scroll up and

down. Good evening. Thank you. I'm Chris Selby.

I live at 138 West Circle in Eastwood Park. That's here on the map. And uh Our Our neighborhood Eastwood Park was largely in favor of this collector street plan map as it allowed for the development of the Lee Village in this area here with with these two collector streets, major collector streets here and here that skirted our neighborhood and connected directly with NC 54 here. Unfortunately, this street here ends at the service road and Lee Village does not plan to connect it directly to NC 54. Over here, there is a intersection with a highway, but it is best described as a pinch point unsuitable for collector

street traffic. Now, this other collector street over here is shown in this other image here that's continuous. However, there's a continuous row of houses right across here and Lee Village does not plan to construct this connection. Therefore, if they're allowed to connect to the stub out right here now then collector street heavy traffic from this area and points north will access NC 54 I lost the mouse.

NC 54 down here not via the collector streets, but by the service road down below and by these local these other local streets here. And these these This is heavy traffic. These are local streets. They're They're narrow. They have pedestrians. They have

no sidewalks. This would be not safe and it would really trash our community with heavy traffic. Greatly overwhelm the pinch point intersection on NC 54. Another problem is this phased approval process for parcels which is likely to be uncoordinated with roadway roadway improvements.

Take for example the parcels parcel over here in the lower right corner. It is unlikely to be attractive for development and this critical connection here could be delayed indefinitely. Now, a last point I want to make is that there's one bus stop in the area located out here on NC by NC 54. It is not going to be very accessible to Lee Village because this link this link here is going to be absent and this walking path here ends up way over here in a culvert.

So, these this plan is characterized by very very poor connectivity and and as such this poor connectivity does not support high density development. Thank you. Thank you. Hello.

Hello. Um My name is Halley Shen and I am here tonight on behalf of my neighbor to the immediate south of my property and myself. Um my property is on Crescent Drive. Um I am deeply concerned about ambiguities and inconsistencies caused by the use of a textual development plan in this case.

The zoning map change report um includes the construction of several new roads, one of which Falconbridge extension anticipates a 110-ft right-of-way running through multiple private residences south of Crescent Towns. One of those is mine. I have spoken with

city planning multiple times and their response is to deny that Falconbridge extension will involve these properties and that the city would not use eminent domain powers to obtain the property. City planning has assured me the only way these private properties could be used for the road is if the developers were granted um permission. And today the city attorney emailed me saying quote um including an image with a textual development plan does not convert it into a binding zone binding zoning commitment. Yet, I have multiple email communications from city planning referring to them as committed elements.

Uh one quote, the road network is committed. Another quote um By being a committed element, that means they are trying to exhibit to the land. Um If the zoning is approved, any future developer would be committed to constructing a road network similar to the one shown in the exhibit. The only way to get out of that committed element would be through an action of approval

by city council where there would be neighborhood meetings and public hearings just as they are having now. The applicant could in theory remove the exhibit from its list of committed elements. That would be up to the applicant. I believe the applicant is trying to show how they intend to meet the collector street planned uh by committing the exhibit.

In the staff review of the development plan, a staff note says quote, please note that everything in the Lee Village Center Street and Block Diagram Plan is a committed element. In fact, the material in front of you tonight states explicitly the developers' intent to proceed according to the referenced street and block diagram. Um On one hand, I have the city attorney and some planning staff stating that the road placement is inconsequential. Others saying they are committed and then I have the applicant's own attorney stating quote, our team has worked with the city of Durham staff to create streets and connectivity for Lee Village Center over the past two years and that is reflected in the image we have shared. Um It's strange credulity to believe the

placement of this road is inconsequential given the size and scope of this project. Um I cannot fathom why this plan would be designed with elements on any adjoining properties. The rampant contradictions put forth on all fronts are frustrating. There are alternate road placements that place the road entirely on the applicant's property.

Yet, city planning has accepted this layout is asking council to vote. Why? I would like some clarity. Thank you.

>> [clears throat] >> Good evening, y'all. My name is Durant Long and I'm speaking on behalf of residents whose properties are adjacent to the proposed development. Tonight, I want to focus specifically on the process because over the life of this application, the standards being applied have shifted repeatedly and that puts everyone in a difficult position. Here's what we've observed. Early on, staff

indicated that a traffic impact assessment TIA could be waived if the applicant submitted a straight rezoning. Then, in spring 2024, staff stated that a TIA was required because the applicant submitted a rezoning with a textual development plan and commitments. The applicant represented that the planning director had determined a TIA would not be needed citing similarity to the city-initiated Patterson Place rezoning that did not require a TIA. Review feedback includes Ms.

Thomas directing the applicant to include a proffer indicating multiple TIAs at site plan would be conducted. Director Young has indicated that this was an an applicant proposed approach that they have accepted. After residents raised concerns in summer 2025, staff informed the applicant that because unit counts were proffered, a TIA was required. In response, the applicant removed intensity commitments to avoid triggering the TIA requirement and staff indicates they cannot require the applicant to provide the information. Then, in October, Director Young confirmed that no text amendments would

be pursued to clarify UDO requirements at the zoning map change stage and despite the absence of a TIA, the application was deemed complete and UDO compliant. That's where the concern lies. Taking this application forward for legislative vote without meeting the UDO's required process and without using the legal mechanisms available to resolve acknowledged ambiguities exceeds the planning director's authority. This has become a one-off handling of a development application not because the UDO allows it, but because staff appears intent on progressing the case to a vote by allowing an alternate by allowing an alternative approach that the UDO does not clearly permit. I respectfully urge council not to exceed its own legislative authority by approving a rezoning application that does not meet the specifications of the UDO, especially when the applicant was previously assured by staff that those requirements would would apply and when the proper pathways to address the UDO ambiguity have not been pursued adequately. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Next. All right. Hey everyone, thank you so much.

I'm Brian. Um it's very evident how deeply you care about Durham residents and community and the city. Um kind of to sum up I think what was just said. What uh this is like crazy, right?

Like >> [laughter] >> if I said we're going to build 2,000 units behind your house and we'll just dump the traffic in front of your driveway. Right? Like are there hidden cameras somewhere? Like this is nuts.

I mean this is like real nuts. There's probably I don't know 150 to 200 people hours just tonight on this. I didn't tuck my kids into bed tonight. And we have a sitter watching them cuz I'm here about this.

So just something to think about. I know you care so much about about this city. Um and thank you so much.

Thank you. Next. Uh good evening Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and council members. My name is Megan Sallaway and I live at 150 Celeste Circle in Eastwood Park.

I support growth and responsible development, but my concern tonight is specifically about traffic safety and infrastructure readiness related to the rezoning of Lee Village. This proposal would add thousands of new daily trips, yet there is no publicly available analysis showing how roads, intersections, and traffic patterns would safely handle that increase. Approving high-density rezoning without completed traffic and infrastructure studies puts the city in a reactive position where safety issues are addressed only after problems emerge. That creates avoidable risks for drivers, pedestrians, and surrounding neighborhoods. I respectfully request that the city vote against this rezoning until comprehensive traffic and infrastructure assessments are completed and shared

publicly, and until there is a clear plan to address safety impacts before adding new density. This approach supports growth while ensuring the city meets its responsibility to protect public safety. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you.

And I missed a few names. I have Melora McColl, Elizabeth Miller, and Andy Lowe. I think that's everyone. That's everybody.

Okay. Yeah, after this. Thank you. Melora McColl.

3. This authority appears to have also been applied to determinations involving the meaning of shall and required elements such as 854D1, 892, and 356E1. I'd like to clarify that no formal request for interpretation from the

applicant was filed with the clerk's office during review, and no written interpretation of section 33 or clarifications to 356E for textual and graphic development plans requirements is in the official record required under section 314. Because [clears throat] no formal interpretation has been recorded, the due process protections for aggrieved parties have not been preserved. This submission is consequential. The submitted textual plan with supplementary exhibit contradicts the defined quote where only text is used to describe the commitments, end quote, and staff have confirmed elements were considered committed. They have not been required to properly document riparian buffers and to submit a graphic plan despite the UDO stating that quote if committed element cannot be clearly described through a textual development plan, the applicant must submit a graphic plan, end quote. Staff advised the applicant to submit a graphic plan in second review comments, and the applicant replied noting that quote it was previously determined by planning that a graphic exhibit would be

acceptable, end quote. For clarity, a key requirement of graphic plans is existing and proposed intensity density for each zoning district or overlay, square feet if non-residential and units if residential. If the applicant were required to switch to a graphic plan, one of the mandatory components would be the missing disclosure of existing and proposed intensity square feet and units. That information is precisely what's needed for the TIA and what the applicant removed from their commitments just before the planning hearing.

Staff indicates they lack a mechanism to require this information. However, the UDO clearly provides such a mechanism through the requirement to submit a graphic plan when commitments cannot be adequately conveyed through text alone. In this case, the ordinances provide means to address the exact issues cited as unresolvable. Given these procedural and statutory concerns, a legislative vote should not proceed under the assumption that an interpretation for Lee Village section 33 or 356 have followed proper procedure.

The required administrative steps and due process avenues must be satisfied before this matter can be considered compliant and ready for council vote. Thank you. Thank you. Next.

Hi. Can you hear me? Sorry. Good evening Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem, and city council.

My name is Elizabeth Miller. I am a resident of the city of Durham. Attachment N in the agenda packet includes the committed elements of the Lee Village Center proposal, including the block diagram. This exhibit is not labeled as conceptual or illustrative.

As such, it functions as a set of committed elements intended to run with the land consistent with staff's characterization of these materials in their review comments. Rather than relying solely on textual descriptions, the applicant applicant has submitted an exhibit depicting the proposed realignment of George King Road and Southwest Durham Drive and the Falcon Bridge extension. These roadway commitments are presented as being aligned with the DCHC MPO comprehensive transportation plan or CTP

with specific references in text commitments 2F and 2I. 3 explicitly states that while the plan proposes recommended solutions, it may not represent the final location or cross-section associated with the improvement. In other words, conformity with the CTP does not establish a final or fixed roadway location. Similarly, the submitted block diagram and staff review commentary reference alignment with the adopted collector street plan or CSP.

However, the CSP also clearly states that the exact location will be decided during the development review process based on development design, traffic impacts, and environmental factors. Despite multiple communications with staff, these questions have not been resolved and instead have generated additional uncertainty. I'm concerned that council may be asked to vote without a clear shared understanding of which roadway elements are being committed, how they align with adopted plans, and how they are intended to be reviewed and enforced as part of the legislative decision. Finally,

much of the handling of this case has been justified by comparison to the Patterson Place compact neighborhood rezoning. However, Patterson Place was a straight rezoning, while the applicant here was initially advised to pursue a straight rezoning, that comparison ceased to apply once its textual development plan was submitted. At that point, the Patterson Place and Lee Village Center are no longer analogous. The applicant does not control when a TIA is required for a legislative vote by proposing alternative timelines through proffers.

The UDO, not the applicant, determines when a TIA is required, and once a development plan is submitted, those requirements apply. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next.

Uh good evening uh city council, Mayor Williams, and Mayor Pro Tem Caviero. Uh my name is Andy Lowe and I'm here to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning and annexation at Lee Valley, or sorry, Lee Village. Uh put simply, this application follows the comprehensive plan as affirmed in 2006 and again in 2023.

Uh it follows well-established goals of the city council to build denser, more 15-minute-like cities, less car dependency, things like that. This so this parcel of land would allow for that. Um and Council Member Baker reminded us in our announcement in his announcements that the new UDO is coming up and actually in the proposed new UDO, this parcel is zoned or proposed to be zoned as CX5, which is commercial mixed use up to five stories, which would be in line with what the proposal is. So put simply, I don't see any reason why we should not move forward with this as this is long-established city planning uh and aligns with the established goals of the city council over many of years.

I know there are two new city councilors, but I anticipate they probably share a lot of the same goals. Uh this is also a transit opportunity area. I know the light rail is a sore subject and long gone now, but there are other forms of transit such as our buses and the proposed BRT, and would love to see opportunities to use those. And frankly, as a Durham resident as of 2021, I rent my apartment right now with

my wife. Um there were some comments about housing shortage or not, etc. We would love to buy a house in the spring. Um if there isn't a house if there isn't a housing shortage, I didn't really notice.

So anyway, um fully in support of of this approv- of this proposed rezoning uh and hope the city council moves forward with it. Thank you. Thank you. My name is uh Philip Post.

I live at 104 Saint Andrews Place uh just a little bit west of Lee Village. I rise to speak against uh and ask you not to approve the rezoning tonight. It would allow up to 90-ft tall buildings right next to natural heritage lands. In fact, there might even be natural heritage lands on this parcel. It's 81 acres, but when you subtract the required open space, it's 77 acres. And they're proposing up to 2,300 residential units plus other mixed-use.

And it's way too dense. Because it's supposed to be transit-oriented, but there is no transit. And as fact, as you know, Durham has a future transit plan, and this site is not proposed to be served by the future transit. So, let's talk about parks.

The closest park is uh 2 miles away. And it's on the other side of Interstate 40. And you cannot uh get to that park either by bicycle or as a pedestrian. So, this development will be 100% car-centric.

And it violates your ordinance, and it violates your comprehensive plan, which encourages transit and walkability. So, I ask you to not approve it. However, if you were to violate your own ordinance and violate the principles of your comprehensive plan, I want to speak a little bit more about the 4 acres of open space, because that will be

critical. And if you don't care about the Durham residents who have spoken tonight, maybe you'll care about the thousands of residents who might live in this. They need some sort of open space. And so, I would urge you on the 4 acres of required open space to make it continuous and not be scattered throughout this acreage.

And I And I would urge the developer to designate where it's going to be. And we've asked that at the planning commission level, but haven't been given that information. And I would actually urge you to put it in the northwest corner, where it could be adjacent to the 3 acres of open space that the Lee Valley Apartments have already committed, and to the 13 acres of Villa Pineo, which would actually constitute almost 17 total acres of open space if it were if it were designated there. So, I ask you to deny the rezoning.

Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I am going to recess us in the public well, actually.

Yeah. m. And we'll be back in a minute. The Durham City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings are now available to live stream on all devices via the City of Durham's social media accounts. [music] To watch, simply go to City of Durham, NC on YouTube, Facebook,

or Twitter. Devices [music] include phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, streaming boxes and sticks, and smart TVs. The easiest way to view the live stream on smart TVs and streaming devices, such as the Roku, Apple [music] TV, and Amazon Fire TV, is via the YouTube app. Now, you can follow along with the latest developments in the Durham community at dinner, your [music] kids' game, the mall, in bed, during a breather, in the bathtub, and even on the International Space Station.

I count on Durham for awesome adventures and great bike shops. I know I can count on Durham for great sports in every season. I always count on Durham for amazing cultural events. I count on Durham for its innovative [music] ideas and the

determination to bring them to life. I count on Durham [music] for community and a place for everyone. I count on Durham to do a good job and to [music] celebrate our success. Did you know that the City of Durham Council these individuals in a city of more than 260,000 people?

You're looking [music] at residents who are making their voices count. People who care about the past, the present, and the future of the City of Durham. And you know what? It doesn't [music] matter how mature or young whether you're passionate about the economy, the arts scene, or the plight of the homeless.

In fact, we have nearly 30 boards, committees, and commissions that you can participate [music] on. The requirements are to be a Durham City resident and be current on your Durham City and County taxes. Durham is your home. You can count on Durham to be there for you.

>> Can we count on you to be there for our city? [music] Can we count on you to be there for Durham? >> Can we count on you to be there for

[music] our city? Can we count on you to be there for Durham? So, come on. Get involved.

Apply today. We [music] can count on Durham. But can Durham count on you? Falling behind on your bills?

Even if you owe more than you can handle, you still have rights. Most legit debt collectors follow the rules, but bad debt collectors don't. They break the law. So, if you get a call like this, If you don't pay, we will have you arrested and deported.

Or this. This is your final warning. Pay up now, or we'll contact your employer and make them pay. Hang up and report it to the Federal Trade Commission.

You have the right to be treated fairly, no matter what. That means debt collectors can't use abusive language, threaten violence, or harass you. Or call you before 8:00 in the morning or after 9:00 at night. They can't lie or pretend to be someone

they're not. I'm an attorney and will take legal action if you don't pay this debt right away. Or get you to pay a debt that doesn't even exist. They can't have you arrested or deported [music] or tell anyone about your debt.

Bad debt collectors like to knock you off your guard to get an advantage, create a sense of urgency, and rush you. They'll say anything to get you to pay right now. gov/complaint. We've stopped a lot of bad debt collectors. Help us stop more. gov/debt.

>> [laughter] [laughter] >> All right.

>> [clears throat] >> Yep, we signed up for this. I see all the looks like Sometimes it gets really late. And um but we want to make sure that we are doing the due diligence here. All right, so we've heard all of the public comments.

Um Applicants, would you all like to respond? Good evening again, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caviero, members of City Council. >> Could you move that mic closer to in front of you? Is that good, Mayor?

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Again, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caviero, members of Council, Patrick Byker for

um the families uh desiring to pursue this rezoning. I would like to address the chronology again because I think that's been overshadowed with some of the comments and then I'll dive into the uh TIA issue. Uh it's a very it's as I mentioned earlier, we had a comprehensive plan adopted in 2005 that called for this to be a design district form-based zoning in order to support transit. In 2011 as a community we adopted a half-cent sales tax in order to do just that, fund transit.

That put forward the light rail system that many folks uh referred to, but that unfortunately uh failed in 2019. Four years later after a lengthy community engagement process by our planning department and certainly Dan and myself participated in for many hundreds of hours. There was community engagement about the

new comprehensive plan four years later and that maintained Lee Village as a transit opportunity area. And so these houses that were built after uh these decisions were made uh with the exception of the most recent comp plan, this is the view of Croslin Drive stubbing out to Lee Village. As you can see, it's a 42-ft wide curt back back to back section. It was designed to implement the collector street plan that was adopted as part of the transit-oriented development plan for Lee Village.

I'd like to move on to the TIA issue. There are three reasons why the planning director was correct. Why planning director Young was correct not to require a TIA for Lee Village Center. Uh first of all most of these issues that you've heard about were discussed at the planning commission back on September 9th.

Under North Carolina General Statute 160D-405 part part D, any adminis- administrative decision by the planning director has to be appealed within 30 days of persons receiving actual or constructive notice. And so these issues were discussed at the planning commission. They were in the staff report that received by the planning commission when uh city city council member Kopack was a member of the planning commission. That actual or constructive notice happened on September 9th.

Therefore, the time period within which an appeal must be filed was October 9th, 30 days. Accordingly, that didn't happen and therefore the planning director's decision stands. I'd move on to say there are two other important reasons. One is equal protection. On April 5 of 2019 the City Council approved the Patterson Place uh compact suburban design rezoning for approximately 600 acres.

Then on April 21, 2025, the City Council approved the compact suburban design district on 25 acres at Page and Miami Page Road Miami Boulevard. So, to my knowledge, compact suburban design has only been used twice before by the City of Durham. Neither of those rezonings had a TIA even though the same issues that persons raised this evening, number of units, estimates on square footage, those all could have been put forward by the city, but they were not. And so I want to next dive into the the evolution of our current UDO, which we all know is 20 years old.

3 was as essentially been unchanged since January 1 of 2006. After that, several years later, we started amending the UDO to include design districts. That is form-based zoning, not use-based zoning.

I believe the planning director moved forward without requiring a TIA because of the rational nexus and rough proportionality requirements of the US Constitution that apply to any local government in relation to traffic improvements. Rational nexus means there has to be a logical connection and rough proportionality means there has to be proportionality so that you can't ask a small project such as a small townhouse community to up- upgrade Interstate 40. And so since Lee Village Center has a range of housing units from 1,667 to 2,294 plus unidentified non-residential uses, it's impossible to scope a TIA and meet the requirements of rational nexus and rough proportionality. 3. In closing there was discussion that well, we

should have just submitted a straight rezoning, then we wouldn't be talking about this TIA issue because it was a straight rezoning. The Booker and the Harris families wanted to put forward income-restricted housing on their property. park uses so that there would be no drive-thrus. They wanted to commit to greenways on their property.

They wanted to commit to the 100-year storm. All of these are above and beyond what the UDO requires. So if we committed a straight rezoning, none of those would be on the table for the council to approve. I think this falls into the category of no good deed goes unpunished.

So as you can see, this Chapel Run neighborhood was designed to tie into Lee Village. These plans have been in place for over two decades. The comments that well, this should be developed with a mix of single-family homes and townhouses. That's not transit-oriented development, members of council.

That is not. And that would violate our comprehensive plan. We are moving forward with a transit-oriented development at this location because our plans have called

for it for 20 years. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If we just build single-family houses on this acreage, what do we get? Completely auto-dependent, non-walkable, no 15-minute community, same old, same old.

And it would not be following our comprehensive plan. Again, Dan and I have put thousands of hours into these um charrettes, neighborhood meetings. Uh again, the outstanding community engagement that was done as part of the the light rail, as part of the form-based uh the Patterson Place uh compacts to urban design, and then Lee Village. I recall the first meeting I ever had with City Manager Tom Bonfield in early 2008 was to talk about Lee Village.

And now here we are almost 20 years later. And so again, these are owners, not developers. They wish to have their property move forward with income-restricted housing,

enhanced environmental protections, and use restrictions that make sure this is a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. All the infrastructure that that persons uh spoke about, we agree with that. And that's why compacts to urban design require sidewalks on both sides, requires bike lanes on both sides, requires roads that are designed to calm the traffic and encourage people not to use their vehicles. So, we believe compacts to urban design is the right district for this 81 acres.

We respectfully ask for your approval. Dan and I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, those are all of the speakers that I have. And so therefore at this time I will declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. I'm sure there are questions. Um uh

Council member Cook. Thank you. Um I'm working. Nope.

Thank you. Okay. Colleagues, you've heard my concerns. I sent an email earlier today.

Um I raised them at the work session. Um and I I think Attorney Morphis, I hadn't seen your letter, but I went back and revisited it. Um and it actually was completely in line with the uh with the um memo-style email that I had written myself. Um there is not a question. The

statute is not unclear. Uh a traffic impact analysis is required. So, we have sworn an oath. I have sworn two oaths, one to uphold uh the the laws as I was sworn in, but also as an attorney, um I can't in good faith vote on this.

It's not timely before us. So, it is going to be my motion to send this back to the planning department. Um there needs to be a traffic impact analysis, and we also need clarity on what is going on with the textual development plan. I have read the answers from staff.

They are uh frankly all over the place. They're not consistent. Um if we don't know what is applicable, then we cannot vote on it tonight. It would be a disservice to the citizens of Durham, and it would be against the oath that we took. Um All decisions should have a lot of eyes. This isn't an issue of competency, but it's a complicated rezoning that's 90 acres

that's being done as a textual development plan, um which it's unclear to me if that's really the right avenue for this. But, it's going to be my motion tonight to send this back to the to planning department. Um and I hope that y'all will join me. It is just not timely.

This isn't a comment on the application that's before us at all, but voting tonight would be in dereliction of our duty. Um excuse [clears throat] me. Are you Um Council member Cook, are you making a motion before we complete discussion, or are you uh stating that you're going to make that at the end of discussion? Um I'm not going to participate in a discussion. I think that as I've stated, this is not timely before us. So, I would make the motion now before we would have any further conversation.

Okay. Yeah, I would I would like to I want to get there. I I would like to have a little bit of discussion and questions, and then I would entertain that motion. Um If there's no if there's no second, then I we won't address it yet.

Okay. [snorts] So, um I one thing I do want to say, just to set the set the stage here, is um this is being proposed uh by landowners. So, it's it's not a it's not a development team. Um it's not yet in the city.

Uh so, there's a there's a re- rezoning on the here before us. There's also an annexation. Um so, there's no proposed development. This is purely a rezoning a request. Uh it's not a project. It's just a a

rezoning request. Um it's a large site. And so, I want to emphasize those things because um there are a lot of uh interesting things about this proposal. Um but it's not it's not immediately urgent um as as some cases uh feel like and are when when they come to us.

So, I just want to set the stage there with with that. Um I have a few questions for the applicant. Mr. Baker, so we discussed um parks when we spoke before.

Mhm. Uh you said that you were going to reach out to the to the parks and recreation department. Um can you talk a little bit about that? Uh well, what we'd like to do on the record uh Council member Baker is is let me find the text commitment here.

Sorry. Uh we would like to dedicate land for a public park. And so, for additional commitment number seven, um we'd like to say that the natural heritage area located at the uh southwest corner of the site uh will be limited to uh a public park subject to approval by the City of Durham, {comma} open space, tree coverage, and constructed wetlands and stormwater treatment. Uh as Dan and I were looking at it and talking about whether our team, I'm sorry.

I apologize. Yeah, here it is. What would be really neat about this is that if the park is down here, there'd be a greenway connecting it to the 12 acres owned by the UNC Botanical Garden. And so that would get create sort of a linear park, so you'd have a a city park at the south end of of uh Lee Village, and then the greenway connecting it to the uh 12 acres

uh that's owned by the um UNC Botanical Garden. So, create really a a unique uh recreational opportunity. So, we appreciate the suggestion. Think it's think it's really really good one.

And so, we will proffer a dedication of a public park uh that would be connected with a greenway to um the UNC Botanical Garden subject to approval by our parks and rec department. Okay, so um thank you for that. So, so that was a portion that was initially proposed as a commitment to be under private open space. Mhm.

You're now looking to to make improvements and and dedicate it to the Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I I and and we would emphasize that the well, if if the city desires it, we would put the parking on the um

northeast side of of realigned George King Road, so that the parking would not uh diminish the the open space aspect of that text commitment. Okay. Thank you. Um I have a question for for staff here.

>> So, um this is a transit opportunity area looking for a mix of uses and a walkable arrangement. Um a walkable urban design. Um So, does this require a mix of uses or could could the development actually be built out all as one use? Uh let me look that up for you.

Um Mr. Baker, we talked a little bit about uh potential exploration of green building. Did you talk to your client about that? >> Um just a minute, we could do Council member Baker.

Um the CSD doesn't require a mix of uses. So, it does not require a mix of uses. So, in practice, it could all be one Theoretically, yes. Yeah.

Yep. Uh we can certainly commit to uh energy star standard for all residential development within Lee Village Center. Okay. Thank you. Um so, in the future land use map that the place type map, this is transit opportunity area which uh is supposed to be a mix of uses and walkable format around transit.

And currently, the zoning, which does have actually a lot of compelling elements to it, including design standards which many of our existing uh zoning districts do not have, orientation of buildings, uh very short blocks, 600 length uh blocks, 600 foot length blocks. Um have you looked at uh making a commitment around a mix of uses? Yeah, unfortunately with the economy, uh it's just not possible to peg a The problem you have is you have to have a timing mechanism. And that is not really feasible. Um so, uh I know it is the Harrises intend to have a robust non-residential component and as you will even commit to a daycare center as you uh suggested during our um conference. Uh but in terms of a timing mechanism, I'm afraid we can't

can't specify a timing mechanism by which non-residential development would be uh able to be committed. So, I know Gen Norwell include that as demand grows and we will uh our obviously, we think it's a great idea to have a uh a daycare center. So, so are you committing to a childcare facility? Yeah, we would say um no more than uh prior to 50,000 square feet of non-residential space receiving a certificate of compliance, uh there will be a daycare facility installed in Lee Village Center so that we have employment and residential demand uh for a daycare center. We think that's that would be an excellent resource in Lee Village. We talked about um alleys, which I think in the new UDO will probably start

I have to look at the new draft when it comes out, but probably will start requiring at least a minimum amount of that. Purpose, of course, is to um move trash, uh utilities, all of those things to the back, eliminate driveways, front driveways, move buildings to the front of blocks. Um did you look at alleys for for this? >> we think that's a good idea.

We will commit on the record that all townhouses in Lee Village Center will be alley loaded. Okay. Thank you. Um did you speak with uh Durham Public Schools?

No, sir, we have not. We Well, the issue is our project is slightly over 80 acres. Uh you know, Dan's done a great deal of work for the uh DPS. I've done a little bit. Uh I believe the minimum for an elementary school is 30 acres and it's just not

feasible. It would be almost 40% of our site eaten up with one use. Okay. Thank you.

Um thank you for those. Um questions for um staff, just a thing is to confirm here. I just want to make sure that on these streets, um that street trees will be required along all of the streets adjacent to the curb. Yes?

Okay. And then there've been commitments for uh and I'm not even sure if commitments are are necessary because I think that they might actually be in the zoning district standards, but the um protected bike lanes. >> [snorts] >> We're looking up that for you. Okay, thank you. And then my second question is just coming back to kind of the elephant in the room here with the light

rail. Um of course, I I agree that um even without light rail, that there are other forms of transit transit oriented uh BRT. New Bern stop. Um so, I've I'm just curious uh what have we done to look at the vision for uh transit on this site, sort of thinking critically about how transit would serve this site, what that timeline might look like, how it might best arrive at the site. So, right now we know that there's no proposed BRT uh plan for this area. But as that continues to be developed, um this area being in that transit opportunity zone would be considered a viable place for for those future routes to serve, especially with that

>> And there's currently transit that goes within a mile of the site and um there will be coordination with GoDurham uh at each of the site plan stages. They would as a commitment. >> They could look at they could routing that potentially construct. Exactly.

Um but of course, we know transit is so much more than just a a bus, you know, bus stop. Um okay. Council member Baker, I'm going to come back to you. Council [clears throat] member Hurst.

Sure, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um yeah, a lot going on in this case, um here, a lot. Let me pull my notes here.

I have a couple of questions. So, the first actually, um I do want to this on this issue of transit cuz I I do mean I think there's a lot to recommend this case. Compared to the previous case, which was outside the urban growth boundary, didn't provide affordability, didn't meet a lot of our goals as a city. This case is a transit opportunity area. So, I want to address the concerns that this

is not transit friendly or not a transit we don't have transit goals here. This is a transit opportunity area. If the staff member would come back up, I did pull up the the notes from our last meeting of the uh Triangle of the uh the Triangle West TPO. And so that they um we have identified and this is the Durham County Transit Plan has identified several corridors for bus rapid transit, including the most important one is the is the Central Durham BRT, which we're working on right down Holloway Street.

But Highway 54 is one of the regional corridors identified in the county's transit plan. Is that not correct? That yes. So, so it is like we envision BRT on this corridor, correct?

Uh in some future date, yeah. Exactly exactly. So, it's not we don't have that we don't have we don't have the plans we're not we're not there yet, but this is part of our plan for having transit along 54. So, I want to make that clear, right?

Yeah, yeah. Um the next issue I want to raise is the issue of parks. I appreciate the proffer of a of a park there. I do want to say to my colleagues and I um hope

that want to make sure the manager hears this comment. Um so, we do have and I'm in addition to being on the the TPO board, I'm also on the Recreation Advisory Committee. So, we actually at our last meeting um we're looking at this issue of Sorry, let me pull this up. Where is that thing?

We looked very closely at this issue of like we want to expand our park system in Durham. We we recognize that if you look at the the Trust for Public Lands, we rank low in terms of parkland per uh per per capita, right? So, DPR is aggressively expanding its parkland, but there is an investment priority indicator we looked at at the last meeting. So, there's a clear plan for cuz a lot of folks have come to the city to say we want to pro- to provide you parkland.

Here's a parcel here or there. So, the the Parks and Rec has a clear plan and a very like very qualitative sort of tool called the Investment Priority Indicator that they use to identify where and under what conditions we would receive parkland. So, I appreciate the proffer and I think the way you worded it is that if it if the city were to receive that, I think

it would be helpful, Mr. Manager, if we had a presentation from DPR to let the the council members know that there's a clear plan on the part of DPR. We also are challenged in part to maintain the parks we have. And so part of the reason we want to be strategic about what Parkland we accept is cuz we want to be able to make sure we can maintain all that Parkland.

So, I know that that staff have talked to some of my colleagues here, but it's not clear it's not clear from the parks perspective that this is a high priority place for a park. I just want to be honest about that. But I think it would be helpful Mr. Manager to have a presentation at an upcoming work session on that on how DPR is thinking about expanding and what the conditions are what are the priorities for us expanding our Parkland.

So, if that's something we could do Mr. Mayor as well, I would appreciate some presentation on that cuz I think it's an important tool we use to note make sure that we understand there's a bunch of things going on and other folks in the city are thinking very carefully and very strategically about where and when we accept Parkland. So, that's something we got to be aware of. Um I do have a couple questions for staff cuz I think actually I wonder if either

Sarah or the city attorney I think there's there's been conversations about this and memos back and forth from the city attorney about this question about whether whether a TIA TIA is required. And so we received that memo on the council. I wonder if you could you or Sarah could just sort of for the public here clarify your decision that one is not required in this case. Just to make sure everyone is aware of that determination cuz I think that's very important for folks to know.

It's an important question for all of us to hear. So, I wonder if you'd sort of give us the highlights of that just so folks know. Um I know Council member Cook has has her opinion on that, but I think there's a different opinion you have and it would be helpful to have shared in the public realm. I don't love sharing my opinions on in the public realm Council member.

Um but yeah, so as I indicated to the council the planning director is the interpreter of the unified development ordinance, right? And and let me be clear as well. I'm an attorney as well and I also took

an oath to abide by North Carolina law, to abide by federal law and it's very important to me that people understand that when I'm advising the city I am doing so pursuant to the you know rules of professional conduct and the rules of professional responsibility that apply to me and my relationship with the city. Um I am not the interpreter of the UDO. The planning director has the that responsibility in accordance with that local legislation. And if there is concern about the way that the planning director has interpreted a provision of the UDO the appropriate way to address it in accordance with the UDO is not to ask the city attorney to overrule her it is to ask for an official interpretation under the UDO and if there is still concern about that official interpretation then there's an appeals process that is set forth

in the UDO. Um My perspective is that and and Mr. Biker alluded to this the TIA provisions in the UDO long predate um the type of form based core yeah that is being applied for in in this instance and those two things don't mesh well, right? We we know that there are provisions throughout the UDO that are very dated that don't um keep up with some of the things that we are trying to do in planning right now which is why we are rewriting the UDO and I think that the planning director in her professional discretion has tried to take the best approach to meshing these discordant things in the unified development ordinance. And so what she's done is conferred with transportation director um or their delegate and said

would it work for us to get a traffic impact analysis as each phase is has a site plan submitted. Um that was explained to me by staff. In my mind that seems to be the most logical way to dovetail two discordant provisions in the UDO because if you do a TIA right now it's not going to be adequate. It's not going to tell you what's going to be on that site that's going to be built over a great period of time, right? If you do it as those phases have a site plan attached to them you're going to get more accurate understanding and information about what will happen to transportation in that area. So, as the attorney having conferred with staff understanding that they have discretion in the under the UDO my advice to the council was this is a reasonable interpretation under the UDO.

Appreciate that. And then since I've I've got 53 seconds left, right? So Ms. Young if if you could then address so since the TIA is not required of a textual development plan, but there would be a TIA that would be required to provide at site plan stage.

Can you just for the residents here who are who are asking questions about the clarity about like what do we know about traffic and how will we evaluate that? Can you say more about what would happen at the site plan stage so folks are clear about what would be what you look at and what would be acceptable or not in terms of what the what the developer is then sort of offering at the site plan. So, what would that look like? Sure.

Good evening. Sarah Young with the planning department. Um regardless of which stage of approval a TIA is conducted at whatever mitigation measures, whatever roadway improvements come out of that engineering analysis are required. So, having a TIA at the site plan stage is no different than having it at the

rezoning stage. The difference here where we feel that this is going above and beyond is that it requires one at every single site plan. And it is conceivable that they may have some small >> this case. >> For this particular case it is conceivable that they might have some smaller uh sub phases that would not you know trip the peak hour threshold and would normally not be required to have a TIA.

So that is why we consider this going above and beyond because they're committing to every single site plan regardless of whether it meets that threshold or not will do a TIA. And in terms of the specific kind of TIA outcomes I can certainly have our new assistant director who was very excited to get up here and forgot to introduce himself John Sandor can come back up and address any specific questions you have about TIAs and kind of what may come from them. Did I answer your question Council member Reese? Exactly I know Mr. Sandor if you'd sort of if there's anything else you want to

Sorry I was it's getting late, but um yeah, so TIAs will go just as deep at the the site plan stage it's going to be the same analysis but like Sarah said it's going to actually be additional because each site plan will require that TIA. So, you're getting more granular with each one that's performed for each level or each phase of that development. So, where you could go big and try to capture everything this gets more granular as you do it at a site plan stage. And so is it possible that at that at that phase that if there were certain sort of thresholds that were tripped or whatever and the the developer couldn't sort of address that through their through their whether it's their collector roads or whatever then they wouldn't be able to do what they want to do, correct?

>> That's correct. Thank you. Let me have them go. Um I have a question for Mr. Biker.

>> [snorts] >> Is my understanding this development will take forever several years to occur? Can you give like an estimate or a timeline in terms of like how long for fully site development? If I understand your question correctly I would say to build out the entirety of the 81 acres we're we're looking at right here it would take at least 10 years. It would probably take closer to 15 or 20.

Would be my guess based on 30 years of experience here. Okay. That's the only question I have for you. Thank you.

Appreciate it. And just so I just wanted to just make the based on the discussion we've been hearing here tonight like open space is not simply just parks. And so before we try to push away from thinking about what open space will look like and who's going to maintain that but remember that this is going to be built out over the next decade or so. And so hopefully DPR will have a plan to address how they're going to maintain parks and such. So, I just want to make sure that we're not removing things without fully understanding the time frame it's going to take to build this entire site out as

well. And then also for just staff I believe if someone come back from the planning department, please. So, just want to clarify for public record at the time if we're doing the TIAs based on site reviews that means that there's no public input available or how would that work out for us? I'm still learning so thank you.

>> [snorts] >> Yes, if the TIA happens at site plan that's an administrative process and that is not a a public process with a public hearing. It's Okay, thank you. Council member. Yeah, I appreciate that question from my my colleague Council member Burris about the timeline.

Um you know, this is uh, authority issue. This is something we dug into a lot on planning commission to do our best to understand and ultimately take the recommendation of the planning director. Um, you know, we saw merit uh,

and and I see merit in wanting to have the TIA done now, uh, because more information, more transparency now feels like the right decision. Ultimately, I felt like there was a compelling argument for the commitment being made um, to do the TIAs at site plan because if you think about this being out over 10 or 20 years, Durham will be a different place, you know, at those times in the future. And by having that administrative process then, which could stop these additional phases without mitigating any additional traffic concerns, including background traffic. Uh, it seemed to be a check that offered more sustained rigor than just a shorter-term swag at what that number might be. Even though that shorter-term figure was what we were initially asking for in planning commission and seemed to to be the more satisfying initial, uh, response. And so digging in, you know, I found myself thinking differently about that

when thinking about the time scale and the growth and development we're seeing in Durham, um, and we will see over time. And so I appreciate that recommendation, um, you know, by planning director and that interpretation. And I also do see merit in that in that approach. Um, so I had a couple other questions.

Um, uh, first of all, if I could for, uh, staff and then I'll have for the applicant. Uh, there was the question raised about uh, feeling still what ambiguity about whether, as this development progresses, will it be able to, uh, basically, you know, take over people's individual private property? Uh, and I feel like I got a response when I inquired about that, um, directly with staff. Uh, that seemed pretty clear to me, but then some of the comments and concerns I heard made it seem like perhaps that still wasn't clear. And so it seems like something important to clarify. Yeah, the development would not have any legal authority [snorts] to take eminent domain

with with any of, uh, the required improvements or anything shown on that comp plan that falls outside of their property. So even if it's graphically represented, if a resident says, "I do not want this to go through my property," then it will not go through that property. That's correct. Okay.

That seems important to clarify. Thank you. Um, uh, for [snorts] Mr. Baker.

Yes, sir. Yeah, could you please share more about the riparian buffers that run throughout the site? Um, that seemed to have come up with this question of textual versus graphic. You know, what are the sensitive spots that exist and what steps, you know, are you taking uh, to to mitigate, you know, some of the the the spots of the site that could be of higher concern? Uh, yes, sir. 6 opacity buffer that'll be across the entirety of the southern boundary, uh, adjacent to

a small portion uh, Chapel Run uh, development. Uh, then also, uh, the the greenway, uh, Dan, correct me if I'm wrong, the greenway that you see on the, uh, east side, on the right, that is a 200-ft stream buffer. So that is a uh, a large, uh, green space that'll be preserved, uh, in perpetuity, uh, on this site. The only, uh, um, infringement on that is the is the collector street plan, which, of course, we have no choice but to implement.

But it will be a 200-ft buffer, uh, undisturbed, uh, vegetated. It'll stay basically just the way it is, um, along the, uh, uh, right-hand [snorts] side of of Lee Village Center, east side. And and so is that committed long-term with a proffer help? >> requirement.

>> That's an ordinance requirement. >> Yeah, mhm. Yes, okay, I'm seeing head nods. Um, are the, uh, greenways permanent

conservation easements that are proposed for the site? Uh, that's our understanding. If you want that to be an additional text amendment, I can work on that with Mr. Lester and Mr.

Cain. We're happy to commit to that. Okay. Uh, yes, I I would.

So if we can document that. Yes, sir. Uh, and I know we had discussions. I appreciate the proffers around the public park, um, you know, the green building, um, some of these other aspects, uh, of of improvements for the site.

So thank you for that. Um, you know, we heard a lot of concerns about the current state of uh, of of kind of water and flooding, uh, on the site. It's already an issue that I've heard is pretty serious for for neighbors. And so there's concern here about, you know, a large development going into the space. Um, uh, under the site, um, you know, when you are thinking about maintaining the 100-year stormwater in the future, does that also have to encompass all of kind of the the background development that the the the development in the area too that you're taking into account uh,

as well as the development for this site when you're thinking about water flowing toward the property? Um, it could in that we have to demonstrate that pre-development runoff and post-development runoff are equal in terms in relation to the 100-year storm. So if for some reason, well, for example, Lee Valley develops, I mean, this is somewhat speculative, >> [snorts] >> uh, Council member Cope Act, but in the event Lee Valley somehow creates additional, uh, stormwater within Lee Village Center, that would have to be accounted for when Lee Village Center develops cuz it'll be subsequent. So the answer is yes, but the standard applied the the same standard applies to Lee Valley that as applies to Lee Village Center. So, um, uh, we're confident that Thomas and Hutton, you know, they've obviously done the stormwater engineering on hundreds of projects throughout Durham and Chapel Hill that, uh, we will have a

robust, uh, stormwater control measures throughout this throughout this site in order to, uh, treat the 100-year storm. Is there tension at all between in the southwest corner of the site between the uh, the greenway, the storm, uh, water control measures, the public park, and how do you think about managing those in conjunction with each other? Dan, do you want to field that? I think that can be done in a complimentary fashion.

Dan might have some more insights on that. Uh, thank you for that question, Dan Jewel, uh, Council member Cope Act. Uh, we often design green areas, parks with, uh, either new wetlands or around existing wetlands. So if you read the, uh, the design commitment for the natural heritage area that we're putting aside, it did specifically say a a constructed wetland. So the idea would be since since right now we have a a a a blank pallet to start with other than existing

vegetation, that we would coordinate the location of the greenway trail, a constructed wetland in a way that could be used for, you know, not only education, interpretation, and beauty, but also for that stormwater treatment that's that's, uh, taking place there. And, uh, you know, many parks have even city parks have ponds and constructed wetlands and things of that nature. So we look forward to, uh, creating a nice little a nice little design challenge over there. Okay, [snorts] thank you.

Mhm. Um, also I do appreciate the changes that were made during planning commission stage to protect that area that was of conservation value, the natural heritage area, um, protect the biodiversity that's there. And also thinking about how we develop environmentally as an entire community, you know, part of that is having some areas that are denser, um, that are more walkable, more bikeable, that can be more transit oriented. I know this site originally was going to have more than 6,000 units. Now it's going to have around 2,000. I know that's still a big impact, but I'm also mindful that when we find the right

places to place density, it's also can help us ease displacement pressures in gentrifying neighborhoods in other parts of of of Durham. And so I'm thinking both about, you know, my concern, uh, for this community, but also trying to think at large about the the needs and interests of of all of Durham as I'm weighing this decision. Thank you. Thank you.

Council member, you had a question. Council member Cope Act, um, Cook. Yeah, I just want to respond to some of the things that have been said, which I Okay. Um, I wrote this all in the memo.

Y'all have it. The ordinance says shall. It does not give room for discretion. So where or where not, ever there is or is not an interpretation, there is no space for interpretation in the statute. It's

not about what's a good decision case by case. The statute's extremely clear that a traffic impact analysis is required. It states shall. Shall.

That is an operative word. We can't just interpret around [clears throat] that. There are three specifically enumerated exceptions. None of them are met tonight.

They are not met. We shall require a traffic impact analysis at the time of zoning change. It doesn't matter if there's been an interpretation, but also there hasn't been a formal interpretation. One wasn't requested in writing, one wasn't offered in writing, there is not one on record.

And so there is nothing to challenge. But regardless of that, we don't have room for interpretation. We don't have room for interpretations in statutes that state shall. We don't even allow judges to have room for interpretations in those statutes. If it says shall and you go before a judge, the judge has to do it. We are not at our liberty to be doing

interpretations of this statute. It is required. So I can't move forward after that. I also just want to bring up again, we've heard some issues with the textual development plan.

We've got and I I appreciate you clarifying some of these issues about private land, but we have images that are incorporated into a plan that is not then just textual. So we've got multiple issues going on here with the project that's in front of us. It's a huge project. Sorry, it's not a project.

It's a huge application for a zoning change. And we need to be really cautious. It is not timely in front of us. And I just don't know what else to say about that, but I'm I'm going to renew my motion and if that motion does not pass, then I'm going to be voting no and it's not because I do or don't like the project because I'm really not looking at the project. It is because it is not timely in front of us and I can't participate and an abstention means a yes vote and so I will have to vote no on this.

Councilmember Baker, did you want to continue your questions? A second round? Yeah, I've got some comments to make real quick. Um and again I would I would entertain that motion when it's made, but I want to get to that in in a second, too.

So in a lot of cities there are a lot of different kinds of applications that either go before an elected body or an appointed body. Um in Durham, we give huge discretion to the planning department. So this really is kind of our our last chance. It's very developer friendly.

This is really our last chance. So there's nothing mean about about trying to get it right here. It's actually very very important for our constituents that we get it right at this stage because one of the speakers spoke to you earlier, this is our last real true shot. Um I want to thank the many speakers, Professor Song, my former planning professor over here. Um I want to be clear. I hate tearing down forest.

I also think philosophically that we are changing growing city that we're going to have to tear down things that we really like and love sometimes, but our philosophy should be only if we make our city better. And part of that is being consistent, truly consistent with the comprehensive plan. We need to use the comprehensive plan to balance what is best for both the city and for neighborhoods. Speaking to the Trust for Public Land, we we're not ranking well in the Trust for for public land for public parks.

We ranked 97th out of the top 100 most populous cities. In 2017, we ranked 72nd. How could we have dropped so much since 2017? We have annexed 7,188 acres, half the area of Manhattan without including public parks. So this is a critical piece to anything that we are looking for when we are when we are at this critical stage of of annexing and rezoning properties. It is

it is vital that we are very careful and and stop making the same mistakes and inconsistent with the comprehensive plan that we have been making in prior years. So I actually think that the zoning regulations that are being requested here impose a decent number of of regulations. Some pretty good stuff in there. The commitments are are pretty good.

I think that this is going in I mean this is one of the better cases that I've seen. I served on the planning commission prior to joining city council. This is one of the better cases that I've seen in my time in Durham. However, I also think that we are at this critical stage that we need to get it right, that we're so so close to to getting there.

Um and that we need a little bit of additional clarity. And to be very specific for me, I want clarity around the park question and response from DPR. I want clarity around the variety of uses. This is over 80 acres.

It's a transit opportunity area. I think we need a mix of uses. Um

I'd also want clarity around the TIA if there is any clarity. Um and I want to maximize the potential of future transit on this site. So I think that those are I think that those are clear. I think that those are fair.

I think it's going the right direction. I would entertain Councilmember Cook's motion. However, um I would also if if there's a I know that there are folks on up on this dais who want to approve this tonight and I think maybe that there's a happy medium between the two if we continue the public hearing. And if that's something that the council would be on board with, just to make sure that we get this right before we no longer have any more leverage on the site.

I didn't call on you earlier. You want to go? You. Do you have a comment?

>> Yeah, just a couple. Um on this issue of transit again, um Mr. Baker, if you'd come up, the I think there's a commitment to providing a bus pad if the rail like GoTriangle or GoDurham. So where would that be located? Uh well, it depends on the the

how it develops out, um but every every site plan will be routed through GoDurham and GoTriangle to have that transit infrastructure built. So if even if they deem it to be a potential, then the development team will have to put in the the pad, the shelter, the CD area, all everything that goes into making a transit system work. I was I'm having PTSD all over again because I was the chairman of the bus system from I was the longest serving chairman of the data board. And it drove me crazy how many of our bus stops are just an iron post in the dirt.

And so Lee Village Center will implement what transit riders deserve. And it'll be every site plan just like the TIA that Mr. Sandor referred to, will be submitted to GoDurham and GoTriangle. If they say, yep, we we got to have the the the shelter, pad, the

pullout, the the all the everything that goes with a successful transit system will be implemented at the site plan phase. That's both in the compact urban design standard of the UDO in article 16. It's also a text commitment of our zoning. Thank you for that.

And just the last comment on parks so like my colleagues are right. We ranked very low in public parkland per capita. DPR will look at any parcel that folks offer to be public land. That doesn't mean they're all high priority to be accepted.

I talked to DPR director today. We should not be surprised for DPR to come back and say, this is a low priority for parkland in Durham. Given where it is, location, given the size, given the visibility from the road. So this is not a high priority park.

I want to let you all know. And and we should not be surprised if if DPR director says that. At the same time, DPR will look and evaluate every site. If we on this council are interested in working with developers to proffer land

for parks, that conversation should start way before the weekend before the hearing, okay? We need to have a serious conversation. I appreciate the proffer, but I think the way we should do this as a as a body as a as a government is to do this in a way that we can engage a proper departments who work on this stuff every day and are working their darndest to increase the quality and amount of parkland in Durham. I think we've pushed the developer.

We've asked so many things. You've been so from the from the planning commission meeting to tonight, we've asked more, you've given that. I'm prepared to support this tonight. This has so much to recommend it.

I appreciate the neighbors here. I hear your comments. I read all the emails, responded to some. I know it's difficult making room for more neighbors in a growing community.

I think there's so much here to recommend. I'm prepared to support this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I would be interested to find out if the applicant is interested in continuing. That that is often up to the applicant. So just out of curiosity. There's no point in going down that if I'm not mistaken, Adam attorney, that's usually

with the continuance, the applicant has to say. We have historically observed the applicant's request, but it's not required. The council could continue it without the applicant's consent as well. >> Can I make a quick asterisk to that?

Um we have the power to send it back to planning and to send it back to planning commission, which is more onerous. This would not This would be a lot less onerous. So that's why I'm saying it would be a happy medium, I think. You wouldn't have to re-advertise and do the other things that you need to do when you send it back to planning commission, do all the other meetings.

That is my preference. It is late. It is 12:26. I don't particularly love continuing cases.

I apologize to the applicant. I don't think anything useful is going to happen tonight. Can Just can you clarify so to continue what to to answer which questions?

What will be the purpose of the continuance? >> Yeah. Uh for me, I want to figure out I appreciate everyone's thing on this TIA. I think I have an opinion on it.

I want to um ask the questions that I need to ask around it. Um And it is 12:26. I'm I'm I suggest we move for a continuance, colleagues. That's my suggestion.

Yeah. Yeah, I do. I want clarity around parks and the response and conversation with DPR. [clears throat] I want clarity around what's possible for a variety of uses, and I want to maximize the potential future transit, and I'm open to exploring what clarity looks like around the TIA, but those are my Those are my uh my requests. And I think it's fair. I mean, it's a very very You know, as I said, in other cities, other applications, subdivision

applications, site plan applications, in some cases, go back to the planning commission, go back to the elected body. Once it's done here, the rest is all to to staff here in the city of Durham. We're unique that way, and so I do think it's I think it's fair for something that's over 80 acres. We're running out of these very large parcels.

I think it's fair uh that we continue the case, get our final questions answered, but I do think that we want to make sure that at this point right now, tonight, that we there is clarity around what are those questions that we have remaining. So, I Just a question. I need to I need to get a I need I need clarity of what we're referring or continuing to. Is it back to the planning commission?

Is it to staff? Is it So, for us And my question, Mr. Mayor, is a timeline. Like, can we When will it If we are going to continue, when? Thank you. So,

you're suggesting leaving the public hearing open until Uh Aaron Cain with planning department. So, uh staff's suggestion, if you are to continue the case, would be to continue to your February 16th meeting. Uh that would allow us about 3 weeks. We would need some material You know, whatever materials or additional commitments or questions that give us about 3 weeks to get them before we need to start processing things for the on-base uh deadline.

I have a follow-up question. So, that would be my motion is to continue the case to February 16th. Okay, I'll entertain that motion in just a moment. Remember that.

Thank you. I have a question for Council Member Colleague. When you say with the around the transit, what what are you anticipating or expecting there? The other ones I I I got it.

I understand what you're trying to get clarity on. That one is Sure. Understood. Understood. I just want to know if there's anything that we can do to maximize the accessibility of

future transit. That is, if we can determine where a site for a bus stop would be, and any other potential commitments that might be around is maybe we say the maximum density is around that location for transit, maybe the connectivity is greater. Uh it's kind of open-ended. Um the the more I think the the more clarity here is around the question of the response from parks, variety of uses, but I also I I do want us to just kind of take a critical eye to making sure that we are maximizing potential future transit.

It is uh transit-oriented in in the place type map. Uh it is transit the the request for rezoning is for transit-oriented development. So, I want to make sure that we are doing everything that we possibly can that in 10, 20 years, we are going to get the best use of transit on this site. Thank you. Um I appreciate that. I would say that that honestly is very much beyond the scope of this application or

applicant. A lot of what the issue is is is funding for transit. Um for those of us who are on the TPO or on GoTriangle, the the plans are there. It's not about that there's not anticipated plans or designs or aspirations.

It's that that there's not sufficient funding to get it in the ground, and the best way to get it in the ground is density. So, you want the money from the feds to build a thing, you got to have the people there. That's the first thing that they're going to look at in an application. So, I appreciate the transit question.

I will say that is not where I need clarity. I know I were lacking transit, it's because we don't have good federal and state partners who are helping. That's This is it's a three you know, it's a stool. You got to have funding from all three, and the reason we keep failing at transit in Durham is because we don't have it.

Um You can thank your general assembly for that. Yeah. No, I So, that's that's all Just a very brief response. We're confusing transit-oriented development with planning for transit. Yes, we need to plan for transit. No,

that's not going to be on the on the developer to do, but we can do transit-oriented development. Make sure that the orientation of the buildings, the design of the buildings are are maximized at the location where any future potential bus stop might be, and we don't even know when that line is going to come. We wouldn't know when that line was going to come, but one day we know we know that we will extend transit out to to areas like this, especially if we see ourselves not no longer as a monocentric city, but a polycentric city. Thanks.

All right. Thank you. And this I don't know if this is staff, the applicant. Um My understanding is when we're getting into some of that specificity, we don't have it based on the the that it's that it's a textual development and plan, and also it is not a a project that's coming to us with a set developer. And so, some of the specificity that you're asking for, Council Member Baker, I don't know if we're going to be able if it's going to be met. I think I just want If we're

going to do a continuance, I feel like the questions that get answered between now and February February 6th are the TIA question and the parks question, because that's to us. I don't know about the other parts, because I The mix of uses. Mix of uses. Thank you.

I think we start getting into the the tension, right? Which is To me, the tension is there is some lack of clarity that can be solved, in my opinion. And there is parts of it that can't be solved due to the nature of the application. And uh I understand the residents are upset, but I'm I'm just going to say this, if you live in a street or you live in a neighborhood where there's giant red signs that's a stub out, it's going to connect.

Your street is going to connect to something. If we didn't want it to connect, we would have put a cul-de-sac. And this gets We're not sorry. You're out of order.

Don't do that, please. And so, it it's it comes up often with residents, right? So, I just want to say that around the connectivity piece. So, for me, I think the parts that we can

get a little bit the the park part, yes. The TIA part, I don't know. And the other parts, I think we're going to run into the same thing that we are tonight. But I'm willing, since we are a new council, um to extend some grace on some of my council's council member questions.

And if there is a motion to continue to I think the date was February 16th, I will second it. Thank you. >> Was Was the date February 15th or 16th? 16th?

Uh 16th. All right. So, the the the motion is to leave the public hearing open and continue this case until February 16th, 2026. All right.

Madam Clerk, you got that? Let's um And I'll reserve my comments until that evening. So, um please open the vote. Was it properly seconded? I'm sorry, you're right. I second it.

Okay. All right. Please open the vote. Thank you.

Please close the vote. And the motion passes 6 to 1 with Council Member Cook voting no. Thank you. Colleagues, just really quick to the public, we are actively implementing a white flag night tonight.

Uh so, um please uh view the website for those um instructions, and please spread the word. All right. , colleagues. m.