City Council · Regular Meeting · May 18, 2026

Good evening everyone. Good evening and welcome to Dorm City Hall. If we can >> It's good. Okay.

Testing one, two. All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to Durham City Hall.

m. Madame Clerk, will you please call the role? Oh. Right.

This is not a work session. My apologies. Um, if you all will please join me in a moment of silence. >> Thank you.

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

I pledge algiance 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. >> Now, Madam Clerk, will you please call the role? Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Williams, >> I'm here. >> Mayor Prom Cabayro >> here. >> Council member Baker >> here. >> Council member Burrus >> here.

>> Council member Cook >> here. >> Council member Copac >> here. >> Council member Rrist >> here. >> Thank you.

>> Thank you so much. Colleagues, I had uh my Okay, good. Had my staff uh put the proclamations out. Great.

Uh, council member uh, Copac will start with you and the ceremonial items. >> Yes. I'd like to welcome Miss Linda

Shek. >> Yes. Welcome. >> All right.

This proclamation is in honor of Clinical Trials Day and we have here representatives at the Association of Clinical Research Professionals RTP chapter. So glad to have them with us today. Proclamation. Whereas Durham is a city that believes in the dignity and worth of each individual regardless of color or creed.

Durham desires to promote and maintain an excellent and sustainable quality of life. And whereas Durham continues to strive for the betterment of its people and to provide a direction for the future by creating and opening doors of opportunity and affording each individual equal educational opportunities, decent housing, gainful employment, and unbiased treatment. And whereas clinical trials support these

values in that they are crucial to contemporary medicine, offering valuable insights into the safety, efficacy, and appropriate use of new treatments. They contribute to public health improvements, uncover new understandings of disease biology, and facilitate the development of therapies for rare conditions. And whereas the result from clinical trials allows researchers and healthcare providers to understand how they can detect and treat a variety of health conditions from cancer to chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease. Now therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, mayor of the city of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim May 20th, 2026 as clinical trials day in the city of Durham and urge all residents to take notice of this observance. Witness my hand at the corporate seal of the city of Durham, North Carolina on this 18th day of May, 2026. Signed, Mayor Leonardo Williams.

>> Hi. I'm just going to check. Oh, yes. That works really well.

So, thank you to the mayor and the city council for recognizing May 20th as clinical trials day. It's actually the day that the first clinical trials was run back in the 1700s by James Lind. I think it's really fitting that we recognize us here in Durham because we're the city of medicine. You might be wondering, what is clinical research and what's clinical trial?

Clinical research is an area of medicine that focuses on evaluating potential new treatments or medicines to determine if they're safe and effective. And a clinical trial is a research study where human volunteers agree to test these new treatments or medicines. And these volunteers are heroes. Here with me tonight are my colleagues who represent multiple Durham institutions including the Association of Clinical Research Professionals or ACRP, Durham Technical Community College, North Carolina Central University, and Duke Health. We all contribute to clinical research by conducting clinical trials,

training research professionals and providing clinical care to patients. So I have Susan Landis who is the CEO of ACRP, Crystal Fushi who is our RTP president of our RTP chapter, Denise Snyder who is the associate dean for clinical research at Duke, Willlette Wilkins the chief strategy officer at DCRI and Matthew Healey the chief operating officer. My name is Linda Burris and I personally represent the ACRP chapter here in RTP, but I also represent Durham Tech Community College, which 26 years ago launched the first academic program in the nation to train clinical research professionals and now partners with Durham Public Schools and Duke in the Durham Early College of Health Sciences or DEX, which again is the first early college to include a clinical research track. I'd also like to point out that Durham is home to a third clinical research academic program which is housed at NCCU.

Now, I'm going to read the statement from my colleagues at Duke Health and hopefully I get it right. At Duke Health, as Duke Health continues to expand clinically, we have an opportunity to make research a core part of care, not just a parallel activity. Today, fewer than 3% of our patients participate in clinical research, not because of lack of interest, but because of gaps in access and awareness. By integrating research into care delivery, we can expand participation, improve outcomes, and drive meaningful clinical and financial value.

We're deeply grateful to the thousands of patients who have participated in Duke clinical trials. Their partnership has shaped our science and accelerated new treatments and cur cures through our clinical and translational science award and partnerships with NCCU and Durham Tech. We are also building the next generation of clinical research professionals and ensuring our workforce reflects and serves our community. Together, we have

an opportunity to ensure every patient has access to research as part of the standard of care. And finally, as clinical researchers, we are all dedicated to ensuring that our community, our neighbors, and our loved ones have access to safe and effective medical treatments. So, thank you. Good evening everyone.

It is my honor to read a proclamation tonight recognizing Huntington's disease awareness month. I'd like to call forward Betsy McFarland from HD Reach. Nets is here. There we go. And anyone else you want to bring with you?

>> Nice to meet you. >> Whereas Huntington Huntington's disease is an inherited progressively degenerative neurological disease that causes total physical and mental deterioration over a 10 to 20 year period. And whereas the prevalence of Huntington's disease makes it a rare disease, there are over 10 million citizens in the state of North Carolina with Huntington's disease. And whereas there's a 50% chance of for the children of Huntington's disease patients to inherit the disease and continue to pass it down generation after generation.

And whereas stigma, genetic discrimination, and fear prevent many patients from seeking care. There has been great progress in medical research. However, there is still no cure for Huntington's disease. Whereas Duke Hospital's Movement Disorder Center is recognized by the Huntington's Disease Society of America as one of 55 centers of

excellence in the US. Since 2009, Huntington's Disease Reach has been working to improve the care and quality of life of those affected by Huntington's disease in North Carolina through care management, referrals to health care, and financial resources, family support, education, and anonymous genetic testing. And whereas the month of May is recognized as Huntington's disease awareness month. Now therefore I Leonardo Williams, mayor of the city of Durham, North Carolina to hereby proclaim May 2026 as Huntington's disease awareness month in the city of Durham and urge all citizens to observe this month with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

Witness my hand in the corporate seal of the city of North Carolina Durham, North Carolina this 18th day of May, 2026. Leonardo Williams, Mayor. >> Good evening. I'm Betsy McFarland. I'm the executive director of HDR Reach. And it is my privilege to serve Huntington's

patients not only in Durham, but throughout the state of North Carolina. Um, I brought with me Dr. Burton Scott, who is the medical director at the Duke Huntington Center for Excellence, and I'm going to turn the rest of the time over to him. >> Thanks. So actually I'll piggyback a little bit on our clinical trials friends who just spoke because u at the at the Duke Center of Huntington's disease um we uh participate and u carry out clinical trials for folks that have Huntington's disease in our multiddisciplinary clinic there's about 1,400 people in the in North Carolina that have this inherited thereby genetic illness that causes people to have trouble coord coordinating their movement um with it has trouble with their behavior and um uh and with their cognition with their thinking. It's a progressive disorder um and families become their resources become depleted because the treatment of

this is expensive. Um like I said, we're participating in clinical trials. We're helped out by the HD Reach folks, which is a an advocacy group for people with Huntington's disease. And uh there's a lot of hope in the research world, in the clinical trials world for this, but it's going to take more time and effort to get to the point where Huntington's disease is a is a condition of the past.

But thank you for this acknowledgement. Good evening. I'll be reading the National Public Works Week. So, if Director Marvin Williams, please join me.

>> You all don't have a mascot. No basketball. >> Okay. All right.

Okay. Cool. All right. Didn't want to be caught off guard with that.

All right. Whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities, and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to public health, high quality of life, and well-being of the people of the city of Durm. And whereas these infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public work professionals who are engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government and the private sector who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation's transportation, water supply, water treatment, and solid waste systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens. And whereas it is in the public interest for the citizens, civ civic leaders and children in Durham, North Carolina to gain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities. And whereas the year 2026 marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works

Association. We celebrate National Public Works Week as time to recognize the vital, often unseen contributions of public works staff, engineers, and managers who sustain our infrastructure and strengthen our city. By celebrating our public work professionals, we also aim to inspire future directors to join us in this essential profession. Now therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, mayor of the city of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim May 17 through 23rd, 2026 as National Public Work Week in the city of Durham and urge all residents to join in the events and activities that celebrate our public's work professionals and their contributions to the city.

Witness my hand in the corporate seal of the city of Durham, North Carolina this 18th day of May, 2026. Thank you, Council Member Burrus, uh, Mayor Williams, Mayor Mayor Prom, Kabio, members of council, Marvin Williams, Environmental Street Services. Unfortunately, Supercan could not join

me tonight. The heat was preventing them from being able to attend. But just on behalf of Environmental and Street Services, thank you all for the recognition. Uh, National Public Works Week is the one week out of the year where our work is acknowledged.

We usually do that in the background without much fanfare. Uh but this is the week that all of our staff get recognized for the work that they do and I think there's a few of them actually in attendance tonight. So if they are here I wouldn't I would ask that they stand right now just to be formally recognized for all the great work that they do. So again, thank you all on behalf of the department and it really goes beyond environmental street services.

It goes to general services, transportation, water management. All of those fall within the public works realm. So thank you for the recognition.

And lastly, I have the honor of recognizing our go Durham transit system. So, uh, Director Egan and all associated, will you please come up as you're walking up? You ready? >> All right.

I I had to give them some wall cutup music for this proclamation. So, whereas Go Durham is the recipient of the North Carolina Public Transit Authority 2026 Urban Transit System of the Year Award. We got to clap that up right there. Now you can see why I played the music. Uh and whereas Go Durham serves as the

city of Durham's public transportation system, providing safe, reliable, and accessible transit services to residents, workers, and visitors throughout the community. It plays a vital role in advancing mobility, economic opportunity, environmental sustainability, and quality of life for all who live and travel through Durham with a strong focus on customer engagement and innovation. And whereas the Durham County Transit Plan approved by Durham County, Go Triangle and the Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization provides unprecedented levels of investment investment to enable Go Durham to modernize facilities, expand routes, and improve frequency. 7 million trips was the highest in Durham's history. and God Durham recently launched Durham's first 10-minute transit corridor serving Holloway Street in the village in East Durham. And whereas Go Dorm's commitment to equity and accessibility ensures that

all members of the community regardless of income, ability, or background have access to essential services and opportunities. North Carolina Public Transportation Association has recognized these outstanding efforts by awarding Goorm the 2026 Urban Transit System of the Year Award, a distinction that highlights excellence in transit operations and community impact. So now therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, mayor of the city of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby celebrate the recognition of Go Dorm as urban urban transit system of the year and honor the dedication, professionalism, and hard work of the Goorm staff and partners. So witness my hand in the corporate sale of the city of Durham, North Carolina this 18th day of May, 2026. Uh thank you, Mayor uh Mayor Prom and

members of council. Uh this is a real honor uh to be here to represent. So uh I want to start by introducing uh Toana Williams and David Root. Miss Williams is the president of NCPTA and uh will be presenting this plaque.

Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tim, members of city council. My name is David Rue. I'm the current executive director for the North Carolina Public Transit Association. Our association represents 95 public transit systems across North Carolina and our 67 business partners.

Each year, our association recognizes one uh rural or small market transit association. That was Ruford County Transit. And obviously Go Durham is our recipient for our urban transit system of the year. As the proclamation indicated, Go Durham has uh continued its excellent work in this region. We're very proud of the work they have done uh in 2025 with the

expansion of the routes, the versatility of their fleet, their ability to work toward innovation, and their dedication to the North Carolinians in this region to provide access and equality of life. We're very proud to be here tonight. And on behalf of the association, Toana Williams will present the pro proclamation and the presentation and the plaque. Good evening.

We are honored to be here tonight. My name again is Toana Williams. I'm the the president of the North Carolina Public Transportation Association. Honored to serve in that role.

But even more honored, and I'm sorry, prior to me going further, we also have with us Don Willis. Uh and he is over our member services committee which works towards this awesome awesome accomplishment. So without any further ado, we are honored, more than honored to present to Go Durham the transit system of the year, urban transit system of the year. Give it up for him, y'all.

Good job. Uh, good evening again. My name is Sean Egan. I'm the city transportation director and I just wanted to say a few words of thanks uh to the NCPTA, to David Rue and President Toana Williams.

I want to recognize our outstanding city transportation staff in particular uh Nate Baker and Jenny Green. Uh as well as our contractor R&TP Dev represented here uh behind me by the leadership team uh with Robert Smith and Mike Quuattowski. our local team, our general manager

Ashley Cole, along with Brenda Jones, Matt Ren, Morris Cook, and most importantly, the nearly 200 essential workers responsible for delivering 20,000 trips Durham residents count on each day. Uh, as the proclamation said, uh, we're the beneficiaries of unprecedented levels of support, uh, from our partners in the Durham County Transit Plan. Uh, so I want to say a special recognition also, uh, to the Durham County Commissioners and Director Ellen Beckman, to the GO Triangle Board of Trustees and staff represented here, uh, by Matthew Clark, uh, and to the Triangle West transportation planning organization board and staff represented here tonight by Executive Director Doug Plinsky. Thanks so much to our partners.

We couldn't have done this without you. So proud to be here to accept this for Go Durham tonight. Thank you.

I think I've started something. I think now I have to provide walk up music for every department that wins something. I just got a few text messages. All right.

Congratulations to our transit team. That's amazing. Amazing work. All right.

At this time, I am going to uh refer to my colleagues for any announcements. Council member Copek, I'll start to my left. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Good evening all. Thank you all for being here. this evening for the budget and other important uh items on the agenda. Your presence here and online uh matters deeply.

So, we thank you. Uh I want to start by wishing Durham Community Land Trustees a happy 50th year anniversary. I was proud to receive a partnership award on behalf of the city on Saturday. And so, I look forward to sharing that to the mayor uh and staff uh for being a critical partner for work with land trusts and other affordable housing across the community. Uh I want to thank organizers and attendees including all the youth uh for putting together the

annual youth and family forum on gun violence this past weekend. My heart goes out to all youth and families affected by gun violence. And I want to reiterate that we will be having a summit on gun violence reduction this summer bringing together the listening that's been done across the community and collection of research from across the country to look at the most effective investments we can make to reduce gun violence. Um, I want to give appreciation to Durham Parks and Wreck, uh, and the city manager for moving forward with an independent analysis of our five parks with lead and other contaminants, uh, in the face of some delays from our, uh, state department, uh, Department of Environmental Quality and recognize residents who continue to advocate on this issue. Uh, I'd like to mention I attended the National Adaptation Forum last week in Pittsburgh, uh, learning from leading cities about how we can help support our most vulnerable residents in the face of extreme heat and flooding and look forward to bringing back lessons from that uh, conference into those cities to the city of Durham. Uh, I want to congratulate uh, our graduates uh, especially our NCCU graduates uh, a couple weeks ago as well as Duke and UNC

and and wish them all the best as they set off for the next phase of life. Uh and finally, thank you to our public works workers and go Durham team. Congratulations. So, thank you, Mr.

Mayor. >> Thank you. >> Look forward to continuing to partner with our uh folks over at Community Land Trust. It's great work.

Council member Baker, >> uh good evening to all who are in the building and watching at home. Appreciate you tuning in. Um, I do want to use this opportunity to uh raise what I think is um something concerning coming out of Raleigh, um, which is there are going to be a number of constitutional amendments that we'll see on the 2026 ballot. One of the ones that I just read about a few minutes ago is, um, putting right to work, uh, also known as right to work for less on the ballot in 2026. uh that wouldn't actually change anything but would actually make uh it much more difficult um to expand workers rights uh in the state of North Carolina. Of course, um

that law was put into place um as part of Jim Crow in 1947. Um and I think it's safe to say that we are entering we are in a new guilded age on steroids. We are also entering um I think a new era of Jim Crow uh in in the US. Um, a lot of people here for the budget and the CIP, which we will be seeing uh delivered from the city manager in not too long.

So, I'm not going to steal the show from him, but I do want to uh note that there are going to be a couple of work sessions um from council later this month. Uh the second public hearing on the budget is going to be June 1st and then we'll we'll move on to a vote from there. And then lastly, I just wanted to um say thank you to the Lakewood Monasuri uh middle school students who did an amazing job uh putting together their own work for uh the small area plan kind of in parallel to the current small area plan that is being conducted by the city. um the the

third small area plan of recent um that the city is moved forward moving forward on and and encourage people to participate in that um as as the city continues to uh do that kind of community planning and and subsequent small area plans u moving forward. And that's it for me. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Burus.

>> Good evening everyone. Thank you all for joining us for our Monday night meeting. Um thank you all for those are joining us in chambers as well as virtually. I'll be brief because we were together not too long ago.

Um last week got the chance to participate in a groundbreaking ceremony for the villages at Hay Thai with several of my colleagues and this is very exciting work for me as when I first started off as a young organizer. I work very close with the grant street leaders um when I was with Durm K and I called them the Grant Street divas back then. But I'm so excited for this community and this shows what persistence hard works look like when you are determined to make sure that your community reflects the values you have deep inside. Also pleased to announce that next Tuesday at Holton Career Center, I'll be co-hosting a town hall with Representative Zack Hawkins starting at 6 PM um and at 7:30

m. So to invite everyone in W 2 to come out as we share critical updates regarding our state legislator, but also some updates that we have regarding our city council as well. And I know not to start a short show tonight, the city manager is. So I'm going to go ahead and end here so we can get closer to his comments.

>> Thank you, Council Member Rrist. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Prom, colleagues, staff, residents here in person, and those online. Good to see you all.

Um, I've got a three um quick comments. Um, thanks for council burst for mentioning the groundbreaking last week at the villages of Hayai. This is a huge development in the city of Durham. We talk a lot about affordable housing.

This has been an important project that's been in the works for many years. $17 million in city bond funds are going into this project. Ultimately, there will be 500 affordable units on that site. The first phase will be 252 units of affordable housing for families between 80% and 30% AMI. The ultimate phase again will be 500 units that include some home ownership opportunities affordable as well as some some commercial. Um the Durham Housing

Authority has come to the city extensively for our support. We've and we've and we've responded to them. I also want you to know that the Durham Housing Authority of which I'm on a board member is an amazing partner for us. this kind of development at the villages of Hayai, others you've seen around town are transformational for public housing in this community.

And so they're a strong partner for us. They've also reserved, I think about 40 units now of public housing for folks who've come through the continuum of care, which is our homeless services uh um service. So we're aligned with the housing authority and I just want you all to know about this great work that's being done at the housing authority as we revitalize and renovate all our public housing in the city of Durham. Uh second thing is I had the honor after that to go out to Arkansas for the annual meeting of the Congress for New Urbanism. It's the premier gathering of designers, planners, architects, uh developers who are all working to build more walkable, dense, livable communities like we've committed to in the city of Durham. Um what was really interesting this year at CNU is a real focus on bikeability and bike planning, bike paths, even sort of bike oriented

development. Um, this com this conference took place in Bentonville, Arkansas. And I kid you not, if you Google on your phone, best places in America for mountain biking. Number one is Bentonville, Arkansas.

Kid you not. It's not because there's big mountains like there are in Moab, but it's because they've invested deeply in the connectivity, urban connectivity of sidewalks, bike paths, even single track mountain bike trails. It's amazing. It's the closest thing to Europe I've seen in this country with folks all hours of the day, morning, noon, and night.

Young, old, everyone going to bike to biking to school, to work, and to play. Phenomenal. We've got a lot to learn from Bentonville, Arkansas. Um, the last thing I want to say is Council Member Baker did refer to to Raleigh.

We always have to be aware of Raleigh. We are a creature of state government and so how we operate the city is definitely impacted greatly by what happens in Raleigh. Um, I had the honor earlier this month at the League of Municipalities meeting in Raleigh to be elected to the board of the League of Municipalities following in the in the footsteps of Mayor Williams and before that Mayor Prom, former mayor prom Mark

Anthony Middleton. It's a key role that we play on that board because we have greater power together as municipalities as we work to address some of the challenges from Raleigh, whether it's like right to work laws, as Council Member Baker mentioned, property tax limits. These are all things that affect our ability to do government well in Durham. And so I'm honored to be on the on the league board and we'll work well I'll work with my colleagues around the state to make sure we're well represented before the legislature.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Council Member Cook. >> Thank you.

Good evening. I want to just say a quick appreciation for all of the city staff, um folks that are present in the room, folks at home. Um and we heard two amazing recom uh recognitions for folks earlier. Um, and just a shout out, I did earlier today too, but the PDR staff um for an amazing event at um, Bimbeay over the weekend.

Um, yeah, a couple things that I think we're all paying attention to in Raleigh. I also want to note that we've got some things that are going on nationwide as well. We've seen a gutting of the Voting

Rights Act and then um southern states sort of falling in line uh actually unfortunately following what we've done in North Carolina with pretty intense gerrymandering and redistricting. I grew up in Memphis um watching that city be divided. I know that everyone says that it's not about race, but we know that Memphis is a majority black city and we have eyeballs and we can make decisions on our own. Um so pretty hard to watch that stuff going on.

Um, and also just a reminder of how important your vote is and if it wasn't important that they weren't wouldn't be working so hard to take it away. Um, I also want to give a shout out to all the mothers. We had Mother's Day since we last met and all the graduates. Um, I know we had a special shout out for NCCU.

I just finished my first year at Duke and graduated several students and it was so happy and also extremely sad. Um, but I'm sure they'll be on to doing amazing things. Um, hey Tai Village has already been talked about. I'm not going to go back to that. Um, want to congratulate the Durham Bar on their hundth uh,

anniversary. Another interesting organization that was created because um, our bar folks in the early 1900s did not want black lawyers to be part of their bar. So, we created a special bar to allow um, black lawyers to uh, go elsewhere. And it's been an interesting divide in history uh which we got a nice presentation on by the former bar president um and some grappling with some questions about what we do moving forward and whether we combine these bars and and what is the function of having dual bars um currently.

Um finally I just want to recognize a community loss. Michelle Keenan was uh killed in her home. She worked for the 5K Foundation and created the Play Games Not Guns initiative. Um, I want to read a quote from her organization. Um, this is part of a really beautiful statement. I hope you'll go read the whole thing, but this section says, "As we grieve, we also recommit ourselves to the mission Michelle supported, creating safe, positive, and meaningful opportunities

for our youth and standing against the violence that continues to tear families apart. Um, I appreciate Council Member Copac talking earlier about the summit that's going to be happening this summer. This is something that weighs on a lot of our hearts, mine particularly. Uh and so I just want to recognize that major loss the community and look forward to having some real framework moving forward so that we can do better.

Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um mayor prom.

>> Thank you. Good evening everyone. Good to be with y'all. Um thank you to my colleagues for lifting up several events.

It was good to see y'all and community out at them. Uh I have no further comments. Thank you. Thank you colleagues for all of your comments. U many of you all stated what I was going to state u from graduation to Mother's Day to um to what's going on in Raleigh and the federal government. You know um this in Durham our percentage of a single party is very high which is um all the more

reason why we need to pay closer attention to what's happening outside of this bubble and make sure that we show up to do our part civically. and I'll be proposing some actionable steps uh and uh ways that we can inform folks and remind folks to get out and vote as we get closer to um August in the last leg of this election cycle. Um again, we earlier today we received a presentation uh and in our work session about uh the community engage from the community engagement department and the work they're doing. Uh, and it was an update to uh, what's happened with uh, Hurricane Shantel.

Uh, I spent the weekend in the mountains this weekend. I had to go up there for something and I saw some of the lasting damage of Hurricane Helen and how I saw I mean, I just saw entire towns that were ripped apart and even right here at home, how communities were just torn apart. Uh, and I look forward to the

policy talks that we're going to have to take on as a not only as a council, but also as a community and how we respond to what's happening with this crazy climate of ours, this crazy uh from climate change to all of our sustainability efforts. I'll be spending this week um at Duke University with the Shanetta conference where we'll be talking about this specifically. Council member Kopac, thanks for joining. saw that you were res uh you reserved to come.

Um but we'll be talking about what Durham is doing, our partnership with Duke University and and some of our environmental organizations. Um we we do have to look at things differently than we have. Uh and we'll be taking a look at the public policies that we have in place. I look forward to, you know, conversing with my colleagues on what that would look like.

Uh but yeah, please make sure you're paying attention to what's happening federally and statewide. I mean, they're not hiding it anymore. It's right in front of our face. So, uh, we're going to try to do what we can here locally, but local governments

cannot continue to fill the gaps and pick up where the state and federal government should be doing their job. And it's making it really, really, really tough, and it's causing infighting and everything else. So, I hope that as we go through this uh as we go through this budget year, this budget cycle, and as we go through the years ahead, you know, um that we we really work on our um ability to work together here locally and look upward uh upward up the uh political ladder and how we can um stand in solidarity together and support one another. Especially if you've been to the gas tank lately or just gone out to eat, it's unreal.

So, thank you all so much and look forward to a great meeting tonight. All right, Mr. Manager. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Prom, members of council. The city manager's office does have two priority items this evening. First, for agenda item number two, that's the fiscal year 2627 proposed budget and fiscal year 27

through32 capital improvement plan. This item does include a presentation. And then for agenda item number five, that's the resolution adopting the city of Durham and voluntary commitment transportation plan agreement. Uh the resolution has been updated based on council's feedback from the work session earlier this afternoon.

Additionally, information regarding historical data on the number of involuntary commitments has been attached under agenda item number five. Those are the manager's office priority items this evening. >> Thank you, madam attorney. >> Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim Cabierro, and members of the council. It's good to see you. City Attorney's Office has no priority items tonight. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk.

>> Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Madame Mayor Prom, and city council members, the city clerk's office has no priority items this evening either. Thank you.

>> Thank you so much. As I prepare to read the administrative items here, I do want to uh highlight there. I do have three speakers, two in person and one online for the budget presentation tonight.

I'll be entertaining comments for the budget at the budget hearing. Uh tonight will be just the presentation and after the budget is pres uh presented tonight. That is when it starts that it becomes the council's budget and we'll start doing our um deliberations amongst one another. Uh I it will not be the back and forth tonight.

Uh we'll just receive the budget as anyone everyone else in here will as well. And um from there we'll we'll have the first budget hearing on June 1st and >> I'm sorry the second budget hearing on June 1st and then we'll have uh the next hearing on uh June 14th I believe June 15th and that'll be the night where we make the final decision on it and it'll have the final version. The budget is not final yet. Uh we still have to do our uh once it comes over into the council's hands, we'll have to do our um back and forth and see what it see what comes of it. All right, I'll now read

the administrative items. Item number one, approval of city council minutes. Item number three, grant budget ordinance accepting an African-American Mayor's Association and American Beverage Foundation for a Healthy America nutrition access affordability and education large city grant. I won't pull it, but I will say that's one of the grants uh out of the mayor's office where we Oh, no.

Actually, I do have a pulled item, Miss Peterson. Um, so we'll we'll we'll pull that one out. I'll give comments at that time. Uh, number four, city council governance retreat.

Just do I have any? Okay, good. >> All right. Um, item number five, resolution adopting the city of Durham and voluntary commitment transportation plan TRA uh agreement.

Number six. Number three. Okay. Number two, three.

Okay. All right. Number six. contract

with Volunteers of America of the Carolinas Incorporated for the provision of coordinated entry with diversion services. Number seven, utility preliminary engineering and construction agreement for Technica Parkway and Red Mill Road TIP number H007B. Number eight, amendment one. Number one to contract 19963 with WM Recycle America LLC for processing and marketing of recycled materials.

Number nine, acquisition of 1860 Forest Road uh REID number 239900 for guest road multimmoal project coordination with SW72. Number 10, proposed planning and development department fiscal year 27 work program. Number 11, utility extension agreement with Jasmine Norwood

to serve 607 East Gear Street. Number 12, utility extension agreement with Jamie Tjo Denza and Alejandria Lorenzo Altazar to serve 1824 East Gear Street. Number 13, utility extension agreement with Magnum Street Partners LLC to serve Greenhouse Durham. Number 14.

Number 14. Construction contract with Housing and Urban Development HUD funded pedestrian crossing improvement at nine locations with LMJ Pavement Marketing LLC. Number 15, second amendment to contract 21565, supplemental agreement number three to master agreement number 18919 with Stantech Consulting Services Incorporated for design of a two-way conversion of Roxboro and Mingum Streets. Number 16, regional information center services agreement for fiscal year 25 through 27.

Number 17, proposed water and sewer rates for fiscal year 2026 2027. Number 18, design bill services contract with Garnney Companies Incorporated for the Western Intake Partnership Intake raw water facilities design bill project. Number 19, professional engineering services contract with Kimley Horn and Associates Incorporated for the Goose Creek Outfall project. And under GBA general business agenda number two, fiscical year 2026 2027 proposed budget and fiscal year 27 through 2032 capital improvement plan CIP as well as public hearings.

Number 21, consolidated annexation 4802 Chick Road. Number 22, consolidated annexation Sharon Road assemblage. Number 23, place type map amendments evaluation and assessment report. And those are all of the items that I have here

with item number three being pulled and then we'll move to our public hearings. All right, Miss Peterson. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.

>> So moved. Second. >> It's been moved and properly seconded. All in favor, Madame Clerk, uh, please open the vote.

Please close the vote. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. Having work session and general body meeting in the same day confuses the order a little bit.

Welcome, Miss Peterson. You have three minutes on item number three. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and city council members.

I hope everyone is doing well. I have a little concern about this one here. Number three, Mr. Mayor, since it is addressing the African-American community and they use the word beverage uh foundation, I'm just hoping that um

in our community, in my community, we do have some issues and some concerns about alcohol as well as drugs. I'm hoping uh that these dollars will also mainly be shared to educate persons particularly persons in the African-American community as well as the Native American community where alcohol also has a devastating effect also on their community also that some of these dollars will be used to to to educate persons about the danger of drinking alcohol. I have never drank alcohol ever cuz I found out when I was growing up my foster father was in the military. And Mr. Mayor, you may not be know you may not know about this because you're very young. A lot of folks in the military years ago was told to drink out uh to drink beer

because beer would help to heal their bones if they had broken bones. And that's what the military would do years ago. I don't think they do that now, but a lot of African-American men during that time became alcoholics because of that. And my foster father became an alcoholic.

I do not drink any kind of alcohol. Another thing a lot of persons are not are are unaware is that alcohol also kills thousands and thousands of your brain cells. Did you know that, city manager? thousands of your brain cell that you never get back.

Never. Ever. So, and I see here in Durm and part of the African-American community, we have so many of our young folks uh that have been using alcohol and particularly the drugs is devastating our community. So, I'm hoping, Mr. Mayor, that some of these dollars will also be used. I see here about health

and all that but we also need to make sure that we are going to encourage our children about about other kind of beverages that could be very dangerous if they start drinking and using and thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. This is uh I serve as a board of trustee member for the African-American mayor's association which is a national organization and um one thing that is prevalent in the African-American community is uh there are a lot of health complications from obesity to diabetes you name it. Um and so one thing we do is we work with our corporate partners to ensure that they are paying it forward. uh in regards to beverage in this instance it's regarding soft drinks uh and even some soft drinks have been daming to uh people's health uh with the heightened amount of sugar in them. So

what we've done is we've asked them to support us in making that right. And so the American Beverages Association is just a corporate partner that supports the work of the African-American Mirrors Association. And Durham just happened to be the largest uh award winner in that in that grant pool of $175,000. And the money is going toward food banks that are here in Durham to help close um uh the gaps in nutritional access.

And so that's what we'll be working on. This is what I announced at the state of the city as well. Um and um so so thank you for your concern, but you don't have to be concerned with alcohol in this case. It'll it'll be focusing on nutritional um access as well as the uh the benefits uh access coalition that Mayor Cook is working on uh which was $25,000.

So my I want to really give a a shout out to my office staff who've been working really hard to identify uh funding resources that are available. Uh this is money that does not have to go in competition with anything in the city's budget. This

is outside money taking care of things that we need to address here in Durham. And so we're going to continue to do that. Uh Emanuel and Cam has done a great job uh at applying for grants and fellowships and um yeah, more to come. Right now we're a bit over $200,000 in just grants out of the mayor's office and there will be more to come.

Thank you. All right, I'll entertain them. I'll entertain a motion to adopt the African-American Mayor's Association and American Beverage Foundation for a Healthy America Nutrition Access Affordability and Education Large City Grant Budget Ordinance in the amount of $175,000. >> So moved.

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

And please close the vote. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. That's $175,000. We don't have to pull from taxpayers here, right?

All right. All right. First, you want to get to it? >> Nope.

And I just want to reiterate uh I'll be I'll be entertaining uh comments and and dialogue on this item at the uh official public hearing. Tonight is for us to receive the presentation. There is nothing for us no action for us to take tonight. There is nothing for us to address other than to receive the presentation.

Thank you. >> No walk up music. Mayor, >> you too. You got to win this budget first.

You got to balance this budget first. >> Good evening to everyone here in person and to those joining us on Durham Television Network and online. I'm city manager Bo Ferguson and I'm honored to

present my proposed budget for fiscal year 2627. I want to begin tonight with a reality that shapes everything you will hear in this presentation. For the first time in many years, we project that we will have less property tax revenue next year than this year. Our general fund revenues are smaller than last year's.

No city of Durham administration in recent memory, and no city of Durham city council has ever built a budget under these circumstances. This decline is driven almost entirely by a one-time factor. the unusually large volume of successful property tax appeals following last year's revaluation, particularly of major commercial properties, which resulted in substantial refunds. These refunds reduce both the current year's revenues and next year's revenues. While this creates a difficult

reset this year, we expect revenue growth to resume in future years once this budget adjustment is behind us. We are also navigating inflation, rising fuel and operating costs, and increasing service demands from a growing city. Our position vacancies are dropping, which is a great trend, but that also adds to the cost of providing public services every day. In a year like this, our responsibility is to practice careful stewardship to protect core services, to care for our workforce, and to invest where our residents need it most. This proposed budget reflects that stewardship. Even in a challenging year, we have made careful choices so we can maintain essential services, continue progress on our top priorities, and be transparent about the tradeoffs required to do so.

Our strategic plan remains our roadmap. It reflects what Durham residents tell us matter most, and it ensures that our decisions align with our shared values. This budget is also shaped by what we heard from our residents and city council through retreats, surveys, and community conversations. We approached this work with discipline and care with a focus on fairness and long-term sustainability.

Tonight, I'll walk you through the key numbers and more importantly what those numbers mean for our neighborhoods, our services, our employees, and our shared future. I want to begin tonight by thanking Mayor Leonardo Williams, Mayor Pro Tim Javier Caviierro, and council members Nate Baker, Shannetta Burrus, Chelsea Cook, Matt Copac, and Carl Wrist. Your leadership and guidance have shaped a

responsible budget in an extraordinarily challenging year. Earlier this year, city council and our staff spent time in two retreats discussing the path ahead. This proposed budget responds directly to that guidance and to the real challenges that Durham is facing. By the end of this presentation, I hope you'll see that this proposed budget reflects Durham's values and positions us to navigate the coming year with care, discipline, and prudent stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

This is a responsible proposed budget for a challenging time. Families are feeling the strain of rising prices and city government faces same pressures. Inflation and increased fuel prices are putting a pinch on everything we do. Durham continues to grow, but this year our costs are growing faster than our revenues. This budget protects the

essential services that our residents rely on. from public safety to clean water to safe and well-maintained streets and sidewalks while making targeted investments in our highest priorities. We asked every department to propose up to 5% reductions so that we could redirect limited resources towards these highest priority needs. While not all of those proposed cuts were incorporated into my budget, departments identified many substantial reductions that did help us balance this year's budget.

I want to thank our department leadership, many of whom are here tonight, for helping us achieve thoughtful savings through this process. But one word does stand out above all others as we announce this year, and that is unprecedented. As I mentioned earlier, for the first time in many years, our revenues are smaller than the previous year and our general fund is smaller than last year.

That reality required difficult, disciplined decisions. Our revenue picture is more constrained than we expected and several factors shape this year's budget related to that. Pay and benefits costs are up and the cost of benefits continues to rise while vacancies are trending downward. Sales tax revenues are growing more slowly than in prior years.

Inflation is driving up costs for fuel, equipment, and supplies. And most significantly, property tax appeals reduced our revenue this year and next. After last year's countywide revaluation, more than 10,000 appeals were filed. Many appeals were granted, including several involving large commercial properties. 6 billion, requiring the city to issue refunds totaling roughly $5

million in the general fund and $9 million across all funds. These adjustments will reduce our property tax revenues for next year as well. And yet, it is important to underscore that this is a one-time correction related to the unique timing and nature of these appeals. We expect revenue growth to return in future years as these corrections work their way through the system.

While we have no control over the property tax appeal process or inflation, we do control how we respond. We acted quickly. We sharpened our assumptions and we took a more conservative approach to balancing this budget while still making meaningful progress on our highest priorities. 2 million last year. But our general fund,

the core of our operating budget, is smaller than last year, proposed at only 326 million. This is a de decrease of $489,000 over FY26. Despite the loss of property tax revenue, I am proposing a budget tonight with no property tax rate increase for a median value home of approximately $424,000. This results in a city tax bill of about $1,853 next year. 71 cents per $100 of assessed value is a significant accomplishment and it was a key priority identified by the city council in our February budget retreats. 4 million.

3 million in large part thanks to the hard work of our departments to find cost savings, allowing us to protect core services and maintain a balanced budget without raising taxes. Water and sewer rates will increase by 12% for the average customer. Our goal is to have modest annual sustainable rate increases to minimize the impact on our customers while also covering our increasing operating, capital improvement, and regulatory costs. Storm water and parking rates remain unchanged.

Fee adjustments are proposed for development review services and certain parks and recreation rental use fees and programs. Despite all these challenges, our financial footing remains strong. 2 million of that fund balance for one-time departmental needs from

this budget. Because this fund balance is strong, we continue to hold a AAA bond rating from all three major agencies, saving taxpayer dollars on long-term borrowing. Even in a year of constrained revenues, our priorities remain clear. Protect core services and invest where it matters most so our investments have the greatest impact.

Public safety is one of our most essential responsibilities and one of our residents one that our residents value most. The city has made significant investments in a range of public safety efforts both traditional and non-traditional over the last 5 years. Our commitment to public safety and the employees who provide these life-saving services remain strong. I'm proud that this budget includes authorizing 16 new fire department positions to staff Ladder Company 8, ensuring strong response times as our city grows. These positions won't be brought online until later this year

when existing firefighter vacancies are filled. But we are committed to activating Ladder Company 8 to meet the needs of our growing city. We are also funding firefighter cancer screenings, improved station security, necessary equipment and furnishing replacement, and an significant increase in overtime. We also remain committed to a comprehensive evidenceinformed violence reduction plan, a joint effort with Durham County to measurably reduce gun violence using a communitywide approach.

This work is underway now and will continue throughout this coming year. While this budget does not identify specific resources for this initiative, we stand ready to roll up our sleeves to find ways to respond quickly when our plan is formed and receives council approval. Our employees are at the heart of everything we do. They keep this city running every day and we remain deeply committed to caring for them responsibly. This proposed budget includes 2% raises

as a result of structural adjustments to all pay scales. The budget also fully funds the Durham minimum livable wage, which increases 14%, the largest amount ever this year to $259 per hour. Unfortunately, this budget does not include pay for performance or step increases this year. The revenue loss we absorbed due to the property tax appeals made it impossible to identify the resources necessary to fund pay for performance and step increases.

Despite that disappointing news, we are funding a new classification and compensation study next year to ensure our pay structure remains sustainable and in line with the market. While merit increases could not be funded this year, the market study will give us critical data to help us ensure our employees remain paid commensurate with their market value. We are continuing our 5% employee contribution for eligible employee 401k plans and we are uncovering increased

costs for the state retirement system which ensures stable lifetime income for eligible employees. We are also absorbing nearly all of the 8% increase in health insurance and 3% increase in dental insurance with only modest increases passed on to employees who have co-pays. Uh I'm sorry, who have pay a share of their premiums. These investments demonstrate our continued commitment to offering a strong competitive premium benefits package.

We are making a major re-imagined commitment to addressing homelessness in this budget. Together with Durham County and our partners across the Durham continuum of care, we are completely rethinking how homelessness services are delivered in Durham. Our new strategic framework to prevent and end homelessness calls for a $13 million community investment in the first year alone, including 9 million in direct rental assistance. 55 million of those

dollars in one-time federal and ARPA interest dollars to support the first year of that effort. We're making a large initial investment in this work. And we're calling on our partners in Durham County, Duke University, AJ Fletcher, the Durham Continuum of Care, and our philanthropic community to do so as well so we can fully fund our year one commitment. If fully funded, by next summer, we aim to reduce unsheltered homelessness by 30%.

Youth homelessness by 50%. And make meaningful reductions among senior, veteran, and families experiencing homelessness. Our long-term goal is simple. When someone becomes homeless in Durham, they obtain housing within 30 days. This proposed budget also provides $100,000 for emergency home repairs and continuing $725,000 for eviction diversion assistance. Reliable public transit remains

essential to our city and the progress we've made is being noted. As you heard earlier this evening, Go Durham has been recognized by the North Carolina Public Transportation Association as the urban transit system of the year for 2026. This recognition is a testament to the commitment of the city and our partners in the Durham County Transit Plan to improving our services and our infrastructure, generating record-breaking wrership along with improved customer satisfaction. That same partnership will make it possible to continue fair-free bus service for another year. 2 2 million one-time contribution to our transit fund from the Durham County Transit Plan to make this happen. However, the long-term sustainability of fair free transit will require serious discussions amongst all of the funding partners, and we look forward to that

work in the coming year. Alongside the investments I've just outlined, this budget also requires us to confront some difficult trade-offs to keep our resources focused where they matter most. This budget does include a small number of staff reductions. Nine positions are being eliminated in this proposed budget.

Four of those positions are currently vacant. The remaining five employees have been notified and in most cases we are working closely with them to identify opportunities to transition them into comparable roles elsewhere in the city organization. These decisions are never easy, but thankfully they represent a very small part of our overall workforce of approximately 3,000 employees. At the same time as these reductions, we are adding or repurposing 59 positions in key areas such as planning and

development, water management, fire, and community safety. Only 18 of these position 18 of these positions are fee supported. Only 21 are tax supported. 10 of these are being funded with one-time money and 10 are repurposed from other roles within the organization.

These workforce adjustments reflect areas of growing service demand, including the continued investment in our youth with a new position to support our youth works program so more young people can gain career experience and build pathways to economic mobility. While we are proud of these promises kept in next year's budget, we also need to consider prudent service reductions to ensure a balanced budget. One such difficult decision is the proposed early closure of Forest Hills Pool. Originally slated to close permanently at the end of this year's season in August 2026, but now proposed not to open this summer at all. Nearby

Hillside Pool is ready to welcome additional residents this summer due to the closure of Forest Hills. Another reduction is the pause in install installation of new speed humps, which now will only happen as part of street resurfacing projects where called for. This coincides with an internal review of the best of the best traffic calming methods to ensure the safety of Durham's neighborhood streets. We are also eliminating or reducing funding for several partner organizations.

All these partners do great work in our community, but when faced with constrained resources this year, our proposed budget recommends reducing or eliminating our assistance to many partners to help focus our resources on core city services. This year, $927,000 in outside agency funding is being proposed to be redirected to protect and enhance essential city services. While

we strongly support the missions and work of these organizations, we simply cannot propose funding them at prior levels in next year's budget. Capital projects often represent the signature projects and investments that define our community and support key services. But the reality of funding these major investments is harsh. Rising costs and competing demands make it challenging to deliver the projects our community is asking for and expects and this is not the year to overpromise.

So we used three criteria to prioritize projects in our CIP. Completing work ahead completing work on projects that is are that are already underway. maintaining existing assets and addressing health or safety needs. Skyrocketing construction costs are putting significant pressure on our 10-year CIP, and we have carefully evaluated projects so that we made sure

we are funding those that are critical or already underway. 4 $4 million in projects across transportation, storm water, water and sewer, fleet, and general capital needs. Examples of some of these projects that received funding include our annual pavement management program and our annual sidewalk repair program, both of which are supported with voter approved funds from our 2024 Connect Durham bonds. Funding is included to support our new emergency operation center in in conjunction with Durham County.

Planning is going to be underway for our next fire station in southeast Durham. And a number of trails and multimmoal street improvements for safer driving, biking, and walking will also be advanced. We also included projects to improve storm water infrastructure, including the South Elerby storm water restoration project, as well as watershed planning. We also have several water and sewer projects including importantly the

Jordan Lake water treatment facility, sewer collection system rehabilitation, sewer extensions and improvements, and water regulatory improvements to address PAS. Looking ahead, future capital needs may require additional bond programs as our city continues to grow. Now that I've shared highlights from the proposed budget, it's time for our elected leadership and our community to take a closer look. gov/budget.

m. in the committee room on the second floor of city hall. These conversations will help the council, our community, and our employees better understand the choices and tradeoffs within this proposed budget. We invite everyone to tune in on

the Durham Television Network, our YouTube and Facebook live streams, or on our website. m. So, as I close tonight, I want to return to what guided every decision in this proposal. Stewardship in challenging times.

This year demanded difficult choices, choices that were not comfortable for any of us to make or recommend. But because of these choices, we are still able to deliver meaningful progress on the priorities that matter most. We are investing in public safety. We are advancing a reimagined homelessness response.

We are caring for our employees. We are providing fair-free public transit. We are protecting essential services. We are delivering critical infrastructure. And we are doing all of this without a proposed property tax rate increase in a

year when our revenues have actually declined. We're being transparent about the trade-offs I'm recommending, disciplined in our approach, and committed to focusing our limited resources where they will do the most good. That is what stewardship looks like in a year like this. staying disciplined, staying focused, and staying true to our values even when the numbers get tough.

But stewardship is not just about what we hold back. It's also about where we move forward. And tonight, you've seen that we are moving forward in a number of key areas. Even in a constrained environment, we are making shared progress project that reflects the voices of our residents, the leadership of our city council, and the commitment of our dedicated employees.

Durham has navigated challenging economic times before. What carries us through is our ability to stay true to our values, make good choices, and keep our eyes on the long-term well-being of our employees and our community. This

pro proposed budget follows that tradition. I want to thank our city council for your leadership, our employees for your service, and our residents for your trust. Together, we will continue to move Durham forward thoughtfully, responsibly, and with a shared commitment to the people we serve. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr. Manager. Thank you for your presentation and just want to reiterate that the first um public actually starting after tonight you can uh and I'm speaking to the general public as well as those who are in the room. This is now our budget as a council. um you want to speak with us, you schedule meetings or speak with us

and you know you can just inform us on you know what you care about most and we will listen as best we can and consider all of the things. Um I can tell you right now not everybody is going to be happy. Actually no one is going to be fully happy with this budget. Uh there are a lot of tradeoffs.

Um, I think I made it pretty clear how I feel uh to my colleagues, but we have a lot of work to do and we are dealt an imposs impossible uh deck of cards here. Um, but I do appreciate your effort, Mr. Manager. Um, getting us started here.

So, over the next two weeks, we will take time to del deliberate amongst one another and and with the public and then in on June 1st, we'll have public engage engagement. We'll have a little more time, another two weeks, and then we'll be making a decision on this budget as we move forward. All right.

I'll now go ahead and move us to item number 21, consolidated annexation 482 Cheek Road.

Just give me just like 30 seconds. Thank you. Uh we're ready for the staff report. >> Awesome.

Thank you, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tim Cavier, and honorable council members. Good evening. I'm Andy Lester with the Planning and Development Department. 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 and affidavit of all notices are on file in the planning department. A request for utility extension

31 acres and located at 4802 Cheek Road. The annexation petition is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits but continu continuous to the satellite portion of the city. 748 to allow up to 190 town houses, single family detached and single family attached houses. The property is currently designated rural and agricultural reserve and recreation and open space on the place type map and is located outside the urban growth boundary of the comprehensive plan. The annexation outside of the UGB is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. If the proposal is approved, staff recommend a change to

the place type map to designate the rural and agricultural reserve portion of the property as mixed residential neighborhood but retain the recreation and open space designation. If the proposal is approved, the comprehensive plan would be automatically amended to extend the urban growth boundary to incorporate the parcel. That extension of the UGB would also include a another parcel read 170508 that is not part of the proposal. Thank you.

Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. >> Thank you very much. Colleagues, there are any questions, technical comments, questions to staff. Council member Cook.

>> Hi, thank you. I have a couple of questions. Um I just want to start with the last thing that you just said about the annexation of the other or sorry the >> inclusion of the other property in the urban growth boundary. >> Correct.

>> I think I understand it from the map but can you just explain that so that we have a why that would happen? >> Sure. Um so in between this parcel

um and the current UGB there is a small parcel that's sort of tucked away in between the UGB and this parcel. So when we extend that boundary to 48 Cheek Road, that small partial that's tucked away would automatically be included within the UGB. Hopefully that makes sense. >> Okay.

We don't because it would be a full satellite outside of the urban growth boundary, which we don't do otherwise >> because the line is wiggly. I know that we've done it where we've included like specific parcels, but we couldn't potentially include this in the urban growth boundary without that other parcel. Is that right? >> Um, am I understanding that right?

>> Maybe not. >> Council member Cook, Eron King with the planning department. But I mean in theory you could essentially create a donut hole of UGB for this very small

parcel which is it's not even an acre, right? It's it's a pretty small and it's basically sandwiched between the existing city limits and enveloped by on three sides by the requested parcel being included. So it would be yeah this one very small parcel of non- urban growth boundary completely surrounded by urban growth boundary. We've never had that before.

In theory we could do that but it really doesn't just doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense from a utilities um service perspective. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I also want to ask about the commitment to not generate trips exceeding 149 trips at peak hour. Um, I thought that this was a calculation that we did to determine how many trips were going to be generated based on the development. I'm not sure.

I just don't understand how it's a profer to limit traffic. >> Sure. I think Javiera Caballero will handle that one. >> Javiera Caballero Thomas, planning and development.

So, because there is a variety of unit types, theoretically you could exceed um the TIA threshold for requiring one with of more than 150 peak hour trips. So we have calculated the trips based on that limit the applicant had indicated that they are profering to stay under that threshold. So that the mix of units that they ultimately choose to build would not be allowed to exceed that. So, do we use a calculation or do we not?

>> We do. Yes. >> But they are allowed to overcome that calculation by profering a limited amount of rides.

>> They would need to profer a specific number of units for a specific unit type in order to um not include that profer. So right now they don't know what that unit mix would be. >> I see. So that's they have to do some combination that would yield to not over 149 trips.

>> Correct. >> Okay. Um let's see. The profer about the Holly Heights drive constructed to the city of Durham standards.

Why is that not already a requirement? >> Sorry, making you get back up. >> Staff, you guys might want to just stay up closer to the mic so we can get all the questions answered. >> So, Holly Heights Drive, um, I believe it's gravel currently. So, it would be paved and with sidewalks provided on

both sides as utilities may be extended in that right of way as well. >> And that's not a requirement. >> No. So we have we have city of Durham standards but we don't require new construction to have that.

>> Well, this is an extension, >> right? So they would they could theoretically connect to that existing section of Holly Heights um and use it in its current form, but since they will be using it as an access point, we'd want that um improved all the way. Okay, thank you. Those actually are all my questions for you, but I this is going to be another staff question.

Um, there were conversations between developer and staff about potentially changing the urban growth boundary to include this parcel. There was some communication at the um planning commission hearing wherein it seemed like staff had said we will recommend this. I didn't really read that, but I

just wanted y'all to have an opportunity to speak to it. That was not my read of the of the text that I saw. >> So, there were conversations between staff and the applicant or the applicant's representatives at some point about why this was not originally included in the UGB back in 2023. And um members of staff did reply that um further information may have swayed um a a potential discussion about including it or not.

Um but that ultimately the decision was made to not include it and therefore it is it is not it. >> Thank you. Those are all my questions for staff. >> Any other questions colleagues? All

right. At this time, I'll declare the public hearing open. And we have a uh the applicant. How much time do you think you need?

>> Oh, sorry. >> And uh thank you, Mr. Lester, for your question. >> How much time do you think you need?

>> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh 10 minutes. >> All right. Please.

12 minutes on the clock, please. >> And good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tim Cavayo, and members of the city council. I'm Neil Go, an attorney with the Morning Star Law Group at 700 West Main Street here in Durham. And also with me tonight is Tim Cyers with CUNI.

We are here on behalf of the applicant for this annexation and resoning application, Mike Foley with Humilt. Um the property is located at 4802 Cheek Road, which might not be an area you're familiar with, but it's really only a 15-minute drive from here. Uh currently, the property is in the county and it's essentially undeveloped. There is a large transmission line easement which runs through the property as you can see on the slide and the property is 69 acres in size or thereabouts but because

of some choices the applicant has made only about 45 acres of it would be available for development which is about uh twothirds of the acreage. Notably, the property is outside of the urban growth boundary or UGB, which of course was adopted as part of the comprehensive plan in October of 2023. At that time, it was indicated that the UGB limits will be re revisited every two years. Uh Tim and I got involved with this project in about April of 25, which also is when we started talking with staff about the UGB.

It was explained to us that staff was trying to determine the process by which they would revisit uh the limits of the UGB. I was under the impression that staff would be revisiting the boundary itself uh periodically and during the course of our conversations, staff determined that instead um it was going to allow property owners to present new information to the department to consider adjustments to the UGB and that's exactly what we did. The new information we found is that

there is a nearby subdivision called Fletcher's Mill which was zoned or reszoned uh around 2017. It it was going through site plan review in 2020 or thereabout and the city required the developer to do a sewer study. Uh the image on this slide is from that sewer study. The black line or dashed line rather represents the drainage basin which is what the city required the developer to size and design and build the lift station to serve.

As you can see our project area is within that service area. This is the new information we shared with staff at the time. In our conversations with planning staff, they acknowledged that this was not information they considered, but it was pertinent information that should have been considered when drafting the UGB. And you can see in this email that after considering all the relevant information, staff agreed that this site ought to be included in the UGB. We were

pleasantly surprised by that and we understood this analysis would be included in the staff report, but that did not happen to our dismay. Um, and this is especially so because there are five comp plan policies with which the staff report indicates we are inconsistent. Three of which deal with the UGB, but there is no indication of the previous conversations we had with staff related to the UGB. So, in putting together the SUS or these are the policies by the way that deal with the UGB and you can see there's different criteria for them on uh that should be considered when adjusting the UGB.

Uh, in putting together the the suds, public works found no utility services issues. The fiscal impact analysis found no issues with the ability to provide other city services to the property. The property was and still is in the suburban development tier. There was a significant change, namely the requirement of a previous developer to serve and build a lift station to serve

this parcel. Um, this parcel is not within the critical watershed. So, we meet all the criteria for a change in the UGB, an attenant change in the place type map, and for the reasonzoning. I would argue that we were at least led to believe that the project met these policies well before the planning commission hearing.

It also is worth pointing out the two inconsistent policies not related to the UGB deal with public parkland and public amenities. So, really, this project is very consistent with the comp plan. And we also have been very responsive to feedback we heard from surrounding neighbors. As noted in the staff report, we added a fair number of commitments uh at and since the planning commission hearing.

The project includes a mix of housing types. At least 10% of the units will be accessible units for folks that might have mobility issues. We've offered 7% of the units as affordable units. And we've also committed to having at least 3% of the units be affordable what's 100% AMI level. In addition to that, the

developer has committed to giving a completed town home to the Wounded Warrior Project or other similar nonprofit. We have monetary contributions to DPS. Uh the project also has some great commitments regarding the amenities. It has a minimum 20,000 square foot park, 1,000 linear feet of walking trails internal to the site to connect at all the common areas and publicly accessible EV charging.

On the environmental front, we also have committed to 25% tree covers well in excess of the UDL requirement. We've committed to native plantings and limited our impervious to no more than 50%. In addition to the UDIA required boundary buffer, we also have committed to an additional 50-foot undisturbed wildlife corridor along our eastern property line and extending from there along our southern property line up to the power line easement which obviously is already clear-cut. Um, and we have limited land disturbance in the FEMA mapped floodway fringe areas to only infrastructure improvements. We

have prohibited any dwelling units west of the power line easement. We also have eliminated any streets from crossing the stream. We will design both the temporary and permanent storm water measures to the 100red-year vent. And where sil fenc is required, typically the UDO requires a double row of sil fence, we are requiring three rows of sil fence.

And we have made a commitment to provide $30,000 to the nearby volunteer fire department. I've also got a couple of things to add. We are going to increase our affordable commitment from 7% to 12%. And then we want to make one additional commitment related to road improvements.

This project intentionally stayed under the threshold to require a TIA, but neighbors indicated that this was not to their benefit because there were existing traffic issues already. So we looked more into that and believe an additional commitment is warranted here. Uh, basically this commitment and we've run this uh by staff this language by staff already, but this commitment

basically requires us to add an eastbound shared through right turn lane on 98 from Sharon Road or to provide a monetary contribution for this improvement if we're unable to build it ourselves basically due to lack of of uh existing ride of way. The review criteria for any reasonzoning are outlined in the comp plan of the UDO. I think this project meets all the criteria. We are consistent by my count with 28 out of 30 applicable policies.

This is a residential area and yes, it's rural and even agricultural in some places, but we're proposing a compatible residential use. The project will improve the balance of uses out here by introducing a new housing type, town homes, in addition to single families. Um, and based on the staff report, there's adequate infrastructure in every regard. This is a thoughtful, conscientious project that is consistent with all the relevant review criteria.

So, we hope to have your support tonight. Our team is available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your presentation. I'll start online. I have several speakers, right? Uh, Shanetta Burris.

You see Penny M. Do you see Penny? >> Yes. Hello.

Can you hear me? >> Yes. Uh, welcome. You have three minutes.

>> Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you for allowing me to speak. my um address is um is on uh recorded and I just wanted to mention that um this project is um is so much more dense than the rural surrounding area or even the nearest development. Um, there's six streams on this property that are immediately

upstream from a conservation easement. And finally, this area doesn't have the infrastructure to meet the increased need. We've mentioned this many times, uh, my neighbors and I, adding 190 housing units is not going to help an already very needy area concerning emergency services and traffic infrastructure. and I truly urge you to vote against this annexation and development.

Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Burris, for your comments. And I'm glad you didn't take three minutes because I am actually going to offer two minutes for this case. All right. Um, next up, I have Wanda Allen. What's happening?

>> Can you hear me you guys? >> Yes, I can hear you, Miss Allen. Welcome. You have two minutes.

>> Thank you. Uh the 4802 Cheek Road property remains outside the adopted urban growth boundary where infrastructure and services are not planned planned to be extended. The UGB was adopted nearly four years of planning public engagement to guide where the urban growth and public investment should occur. Approving a annexation outside the urban growth boundary without the necessary infrastructure in place raises concerns to Durham's adopted growth policies. On March the 2nd, 2026, the planning department stated reconfirmed that the urban growth has not been moved since it was adopted in 2023.

Prior requests to modify the boundaries were denied both, listen to this, both by Durham County and the joint city county planning committee has advised against initiating any changes. I said any changes citing the recency of the adoption on this particular concern is because of lack of supporting infrastructure including fire MMS and whether the city can reasonably provide these services if the annexation is improved. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you Miss Allen.

Next I have Julanda Braramlet. >> Mr. Mayor, Miss Braramlet is not in the queue. >> All right, keep an eye out for her. Next, I have Chaz Clayton. Chaz Clayton.

>> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Welcome.

You have three uh two minutes. >> Okay. Uh yes, my name is Chaz Clayton. from a farmer in the area uh approximately not even a quarter mile from this uh property that we are discussing.

Um I have major concerns on the aspect of uh even more traffic in the area. Um I have little ones so of course on the farm. This is a family business and uh traffic is a big concern. It's a concern.

I have people pull out in front of me every day. Uh with uh this being a continued family business, I ask that you would uh consider and to think about the people who put food on your plate every day and how this would uh affect my family and affect other people because we do sell to the public. So just keep that in mind and uh I thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Clayton. Next I have Jacqueline Jack Jquelyn Wagstaff.

>> Can you hear me? >> I can hear you. Welcome. You have two minutes.

>> Okay. Um well, I'm not going to say much about this case because most of what I want to say was said by the two previous speakers, but I did want to point out that um just looking at how these developments are being approved and knowing that you have a planning commission where you select people that are supposed to have expertise on plan certain areas of planning and they make recommendations and when I looked at the supporting document to this case, the planning commission recommend recommended unanimously that there's a no. Then I also looked at the county commissioners comments and I saw that three of the county commissioners recommended the same thing. No to this.

Plus, you're violating the urban growth boundaries. So, but knowing what most of us know about these these projects and the people that present them, it will be approved tonight by poor people. So, I would just advise the voters to take

that in consideration when they go to the polls next year. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Swagf. Next, I have Malora McCall.

>> Good evening. >> Good evening. Welcome. You have two minutes.

>> Thank you. My name is Malora McCall. Address on file. This request does not meet the standard of being reasonable or in the public interest.

Exceptions to the UGB are not without consequence. They create lasting precedents that affect not only the adjacent rural areas and surrounding voluntary agricultural district working lands, but also the integrity and future application of Durham's growth framework countywide. The UGB is not an arbitrary line, and the mere proximity of water and sewer infrastructure is not on its own sufficient justification for expansion. It's one of the city's primary policy tools for concentrating infrastructure, protecting watershed resources, preserving rural character, and balancing urban growth with agricultural

preservation and long-term stewardship of Durham's rural and environmental resources. Durham County agriculture is already under significant development pressures. Policies related to rural areas and conservation such as 89, 120,65, 165, excuse me, and 168 exist for a reason. " End quote. And at the same time, Durham is increasingly having to balance the cost of extending infrastructure and municipal services outward with the need to maintain and strengthen the areas already served. This proposal does not align with county goals and investments aimed at preserving rural and agricultural communities, and it extends future infrastructure obligations and long-term municipal costs further outward into

areas the UGB was intended to protect. Durham deserves a planning framework that maintains its integrity rather than being rewritten case by case. Expanding the UGB and restructuring place types here is not truly in the public interest, but instead conflicts with policies and goals intended to be preserved through the established UGB. Thank you.

>> Thank you. >> All right, Gelinda. Gelanda Bremlet. I got your message, Madam Clerk, but were you able to communicate with them?

>> Mr. Mayor, Miss Bramlin isn't responding. >> Can you hear me now? >> Uh, yes, we can hear you.

Welcome. You have two minutes. >> Okay. Okay.

Awesome. Thank you. Hold on one second. Okay. According to the geotechnical reports, rock has already

been confirmed of on this property and based on the history of similar developments in this area, blasting is likely. This is not a sign of concern for nearby residents. Blasting has been associated with damage to private rail systems, foundations, and homes. Residents in other areas and nearby communities have also reported increased noise, air pollution, groundwater impacts, and sediment runoff.

Many of the homes surrounding this site rely on private wells and sector systems. Some families have even experienced costly repairs with little or no reimbursements after damages occurred. For example, my parents house located at 1010 Patterson Road has a septic tank that collapsed after blasting on Baptist Road. After reporting to the blasting company's representative, a third party was sent out to inspect the damage. My parents received a letter stating that collapse was due to the age of the septitate and not the blasting that had taken place within 1500 ft of their property in the

previous weeks. My pro father had met with a representative prior to the blasting. At no point was he told that any damage to this septic tank would not be covered due to its age. In fact, he was assured repeatedly that they would be compensated for any damages that occurred to their property during this blasting.

Also, when he received the letter and report and included the fee that was paid to the third party consultant of over $1,000, my father was not looking for much more than this in compensation. A large number of the properties that could be affected by blasting for this project are on whales and septic tanks that are as old or older than my parents. Current homeowners should not have to risk losing access to safe water, damaging their property, or facing expensive repairs because of nearby blasting activities. Thank you for time and consideration. >> Thank you. I'll now move to our in-person speakers

and I'll call about five names at a time. First I have Pam Williams followed by Chelsea Cook, Tom Freeman, Tina Burris Pearson, and Gary Mlean. and Donna Stanach and Chaz Clayton and Bonnie Finch and Talmage Leightton, Deborah Taylor, Jalanda Braramlet, Tanya Taylor, Emily Walker, Lillian Walker, Vicky King, Justin Lawler, Pamela Andrews, Tammy Sawya, Jennifer Mayer, Harry Rodenheiser, Betty Hamilton, Thomas Hamilton, Mimi Kesler, Pablo Freeman, But do please state your name at the microphone.

>> Let me find this. This is cancel that. Okay. I'll just let you do this.

Oh, that's Where's the main one? No, the main presentation. That That's him. Maybe it's in >> just making sure I'm not crazy.

Chaz Clayton is not in the room, correct? >> Okay. >> Is that just >> And Jalanda Braramlin is not in the room. >> It should be that one.

No, that's Morning Star. Yeah. It should be on that one. >> That's it.

>> Okay. >> Just on the wrong page. >> Good evening. I'm Donna Stanbeck, a volunteer agriculture district owner near 4802 Cheek Road proposed annexation.

This pro proposed site is outside the UGB and conflicts with the adopted comprehensive plan growth policies. Planning staff determined that the proposal is inconsistent with several key UGB policies, especially 167, 168, and 118. 168 says there is no demonstrated community need for expanding the UGB. That's per the staff's input and per and policy 167 there is no significant changes since the 20 23 plan adoption to justify the move in the UGB

and per the planning staff's on October 20 25 and being reviewed tonight evaluation and assessment review the policies 166 identified other locations for future UGB expansion, but not this site. And so this was later than what was presented from the picture. The Czech non city land is in the um future growth area. And this site is further out.

Um there are several serious concerns about infrastructure, environmental impacts, and land use compatibility. As county commissioners have stated, this project does not meet the required criteria for changing the Irving growth boundary. Approving this annexation would undermine responsible growth management and contradict the community vision established through public input and adopted policies. Next slide. The annexation of 4802

also fails to meet comprehensive plan policy 165. That Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah, you're right. >> No, that there.

Yeah. >> Thank you. >> That's it. >> And that's for non-ontiguous.

It is non-ontiguous. >> Thank you. >> Is this one yours? Good evening.

My name is Rebecca Freeman and my address is on file. Southeast Durham needs fire service, police, EMS, and infrastructure to match the development taking place. So policy 122 is designate future growth areas on the place tech map where infrastructure and service upgrades are needed. Development in these areas would require following public infrastructure and services in the future. These all require fire service and they u many of them require u additional EMS services and in other infrastructure. Uh we know that this area as many people have said that that

this uh particular um um parcel is is contiguous to is out just outside the urban urban growth boundary and is contiguous to an um an area of future growth. This was part of the pro uh Durham comprehensive plan adopted uh October 23 and the growth management strategy contain contains three different items. Um this is a um the urban growth boundary um is um um is very important because it was stimulated that that there there would be um no uh is an area beyond which annexations and utility extensions should not occur limiting significant development. The urban growth boundary protects rural characters, drinking water and environmental lands. According to this plan, the future growth areas on the map are within the urban growth boundary and uh are currently um um not um sparsely developed and need critical in

infrastructure. Policy 122 says that infrastructure service grades are needed development in these areas would require the following public infrastructure and services in the future. 4802 Quit Cheek Road is outside the urban growth boundary and is adjacent to the urban to the growth uh growth area. Police shortage is one of those areas that there is a problem with and it would take a 13-minute drive to get to this particular um uh parcel from a police uh area.

>> Thank you. Okay. Pamela Andrews, there are two city of Durham fire stations in Southeast Durham, Station 8 and Station 17 along with Redwood Volunteer Fire Station. These two units will respond to calls to over 68 plus new de subdivisions along with the current residents. County Commissioner Jacobs wrote, "Durmount

County EMS impacts are not assessed or included any of these reports. City Fire Service is not close by and County Redwood Fire Department across the street will be expected to respond. No assessment has been made of these doubling residential response services increasing from 90 to 190 housing homes or units. Redwood Volunteer Fire Department is close by but does not have a ladder truck at all needed for these tall town homes.

Next, in October 2022, the fire department audit recognized the higher response times than the national standard dictates. The fire response times is 6 minutes and 30 seconds per that policy. The nearest city fire stations are as such in non- peak hours. 3 miles 8 minute drive.

8 miles, 13 minute drive. 6 minutes or a 12minute drive. These neighboring fire stations would not meet the standard of 6 minutes and 30 seconds. This growing area lost a ladder truck of from station 17 along with three firefighters in January when

things were reshuffled and distributed differently. And even after a graduating class, there are still not four firefighters per shift at the station, which still relies on overtime a lot to staff the shifts. Chief Kam Kamowski stated at the JCCPC meeting that EMS is a decade behind. Staff has been increased, but not the number of units.

One ambulance is half a million dollars and takes 32 to 36 months to receive. 9 miles or 1418 minutes. 8 miles or 13 to 14 minutes. m.

m. but nothing at night. We are putting people's lives in jeopardy. We cannot do this.

Thank you. Thank you, >> Tammy Sua. Uh, my address is on file. So, as Pam just quoted, we don't have

the infrastructure to support this uh proposed annexation. So that others know, 41 city fire trucks exist, but only 19 ambulances. We are a decade behind on EMS. We are have police that are not built out and we have added population to the size of population of Wilson.

There's been a recent stud uh article that came out in C17 that looked at our medical services. Um Duke has the longest medical wait time of 7 hours and 34 minutes. Duke Regional has six hours and UNCC a little bit less. On the national average is two hours.

So, we can't serve the population that we have now. We're at least maybe 50% built out. Why would we add more when our medical services cannot handle what we have now? Yes, we have more

acute bear beds to be requested, but that's not going to be till 28. and you're adding 495 people and you're only going to ask for 135 more beds. It the math just doesn't add up. Also, uh the other impact for this annexation is the lift station.

We know that it is at 67% capacity. You've heard in the budget presentation that uh water costs are going to be going up at least 12% to 14% all the way up to FY31. The reason why we have so much uh capital improvement plans is because of this growth. But the growth is not covering the cost.

And we all know that we all have hardships of cost uh taxes, food items. And here is another cost increase. >> Thank you.

>> Good evening, Mayor Williams and the city council members. My name is Gary Mlean. I'm a lifelong resident of Durham except for when I was in the service in the United States Navy. Um this is just a rural and agricultural neighborhood.

Um there is like present use value. There has 28 large farms and forest in this particular area. Per commi county commissioner Jacobs there is no assessment made of comprehensive plan policies prioritizing protection of farmland, farming and rural character. The agenda materials do not acknowledge the potential collateral impacts of removing this land from the rural agricultural reserve, including the impact to remain in adjacent rural properties and decreasing the limited amount of farmland um food produc food producing land remaining in Durham County, which is is shrinking. Um, and this also from Commissioner Cameron, this location continues to face documented and persistent challenges

including whale water disruption for existing residents, increased and unsafe traffic from agricultural uh, operations and tractors on the road, general traffic congestion that impedes emergency response times, and environmental degragation. I wanted to show you some pictures of some the tractors um, going down the road. There are also major concerns about the 60% increase of peak hour vehicles on the existing Cheek Road. Um they have a lot of farms and just people getting up hay and hauling hay up and down the road.

Also another thing that hasn't been brought up as of late, but for the last three or four weeks, I've been losing power about three days a week. And um I'd lose them for three and four hours each time. And whenever I'd get home, my clock was blinking and everything. I mean, that tells me that the power had gone out sometime during that day. And uh so it's been about three times and I don't know if the electrical grids just aren't keeping up or I don't know what's happening, but I know I'm losing power and I live within

34 of a mile from this 4802 Cheek Road. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. And Mr.

Mlan, if you will make sure Emanuel will get your address, I'll speak with Duke Energy. >> It's on file. Uh just just make sure you get it and I'll check the energy situation for you. >> Good afternoon.

My name is Pam Williams. My address is on file. Uh our water quality streams and drinking water in this area. It's at risk as you have heard us many times talk about the sediment pollution uh that's flowing down our creeks.

This uh property right here is in the protected bordershed. It's outside the urban growth boundary and it's adjacent to the uh critical watershed. There is a flood plane within this uh property and which flows into a stream restoration project and also which goes down to Little Lit Creek down here wildlife corridor uh waterline pile empowerment and little lick creek is u uh impaired

on the 303D list. Uh approval of this project would increase erosion and sediment nutrient load into an already stressed drinking water supply. Uh and um this uh property right here, even though they say they will not be crossing the creeks, they will have to cross this creek and flood plane to get to Fletcher uh Mill uh pump station from their proposed pump station location. uh the flood planes and wetlands repairing buffers.

Uh the the minimum buffers are are just not working in order to filter the sediment. Uh we need more buffers, wider buffers, undisturbed buffers to handle this. Already the creek in this property is eroded as you can see by the vertical banks on this uh picture of the creek that's within this property. This property has wetlands in it and a perennial stream. And then the Walker pro uh project or property that

has the uh uh conservation is down here. Um minimum buffers are proposed along the streams and wetlands. Um the national uh wetland inventory shows that there are wetlands in here. This will be flowed into the national wetland inventory and wetlands are very uh necessary for our health.

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um good evening. My name is Tina Burris Pearson.

My address is on file. So as you can see here, sediment pollution is not hypothetical in Durham. It's visible in our creeks today. The repeated images of muddy creeks, including Martin Branch Creek off All Branch Road, the area involved in the Southern Environmental Law Center lawsuit, show the same troubling pattern, mass grading and rapid development followed by severe erosion and sedimentation. In Durham's TR basin soils, this outcome

is not surprising. Even when developers make efforts to contain sediment on site, these fine soils are extremely difficult to control once disturbed. Why does this matter? Well, sediment is recognized by the North Carolina Sedimentation and Erasion Control Program as the number one source of water pollution.

Excess sediment fills rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, reducing drinking water storage capacity, harming aquatic life, and increasing the cost of water treatment for consumers. According to the January 2026 Environmental Affairs Board meeting notes, Durham's TRI basin soils can remain suspended in the water column for weeks or even months, worsening turbidity problems throughout our waterways. And approximately 85% of Durham's active land disturbance permits involve these underlying triassic soils. 85%. At the same time, only five staff members are responsible for overseeing

erosion control projects across the county. With the scale of development currently underway, it's unreal unrealistic to expect sediment problems to remain under control without stronger protections in place. Durham may not have the authority under state preeemption and the Clean Water Act to directly regulate turbidity, but Durham absolutely can regulate sediment and land disturbance impacts through the UDA or LDC and stronger environmental protections. This is not anti-development, it's responsible stewardship.

Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Good evening. My name is Thomas Freeman.

I'm a lifelong resident of Durham County. I'll begin uh by break by get going off script immediately and just commenting on how absolutely outrageous it is that we would assemble here tonight uh to consider this. All right, I'll return to my script now. Slide,

please. All right, there you go. Thank you. uh the natural heritage program uh is a there is a site downstream of this sign this site and you'll just draw your attention to the creek that's flowing uh eventually to Little Creek and eventually to this natural heritage uh program site and this site is uh the value is rated as very high by the natural heritage program uh the riparian buffers for stream that flow into aquatic natural area should be at least 200 f feet.

Why is this important? Because of responsibility. The massgraded sites uh that we are so accustomed to and seeing in Durham County. This causes downstream uh degradation and it's going to happen here again.

Uh next slide please. Uh there must be a commitment to undisturbed buffers. We preserve Earl

Durham has been before you many many times talking about preserved uh undisturbed buffers. Uh what we're talking about is truth in zoning. Let me draw your attention to the center slide to our friends on Doc Nichols Road, the the the uh Ellen family. uh what you're seeing where that excavator is in the buffer zone and uh that is hardly a buffer but that's the kind of lies that we hear routinely.

I draw your attention to the uh to the far right of the screen. This is a sewer easement which is a buffer but the variance you can see what the variance did to this site. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

Okay. What? That's yours? Oh, okay. Sorry.

>> Good evening. Deborah Taylor at 6112 Cheek Road. My family has a farm directly beside this. It's a 90 acre tract um that my brother, nephew, and my son live on and it sits directly beside this.

The proposed site is located in close proximity to protected lands, designated wildlife quarters, a land conservancy site and restored stream systems, inadequate environmental buffers and continued habitat fragmentation in this area pose significant risk to biodiversity and may undermine the stream restorations investments. The site is situated less than6 miles from the Butner Falls of East Gameland in Waterfell Empowerment and within one mile of the eastern Durham Open Space Wildlife Quarter, which connects to Little Lake Creek. While Durham's painting department has not formally designated a wildlife quarter at this location, the Division of Habitat Conservation within the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission has identified a wildlife quarter in the area. A mapped high wildlife quarter runs directly through the site and crosses Cheek Road from the north side with an identified higher priority quarter crossing at that location.

Development that fails to preserve adequate buffers or connectivity could further fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife movement and diminish the ecological integrity of surrounding protected lands. Habitat fragmentation in this context only threatens biodiversity but also risk compromising public investments in stream restorations and land conservation downstream. In addition, our area includes a large number of farms and rural properties. The proposed development does not reflect the agriculture and lowdensity nature of the surrounding areas.

The urban growth boundary was approved within the last few years. So, we question why there's already a proposal to expand again. With the developments that have already been approved and those currently underway, there should be sufficient housing capacity without expanding the G UGB further. In addition, before any expansion of the GGB is considered, the designated future growth area should be utilized first. There are still plenty of those areas available for development, making expansions outside UG toB unnecessary at this time. We believe the focus should remain on responsible growth within the existing boundary rather than extending a development into rural areas per

prematurely. Thank you. We ask that you vote no. >> Thank you.

Betty Hamilton from Patterson Road uh through the the woods. I'm probably a half a mile from this site and I am in the critical water site. I am also a member of the Redwood Ruran which is across the road from this site and I helped facilitate two meetings of the neighbors and people that were interested in getting information. We had uh one on January the 15th and one on January 29th. A total of 56 attendees and they were all against this. We don't feel that this offers a benefit to the

current members of this community. the safety issues, the issues with the traffic. There have been multiple approvals of different uh sites already that has not been added together to determine if this 149 would cover all of the three or four different projects that have been already approved in the same area using the same roads. that will be running past my house.

Also, um blasting damage. I have a water um sewer system and a well, and I want some guarantee that if I get damaged that somebody's going to reimburse me and fix it because that's not something I'm expecting. Uh the impact to the rural people. We are country. We want to be country. We don't

want to be in the city. We'd like to stay in the country. Thank you. >> Thank you.

>> You know, when when Preserve Road Durham comes, they kind of do their own thing. So, I don't know what order. So, you just have to tell me your name. >> Okay.

Shall I begin? What is known thanks to this hard to read map is that whomever purchased >> What's What's your name, sir? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Justin Lawren, Rogers Road.

>> Got it. Thank you. What is known thanks to this hard to read map is that whomever purchased parcel 4802 wants to maximize return on their investment property by cramming as many sellable units onto the 45 acres of buildable lot as y'all will allow. To make their application gain favor, they'll allude to affordable housing.

If developers at present truly want to sell affordably, they'd be willing to reduce their profit margins. We know profit maximization is their goal or we'd not be here today. If you build thick, they'll arrive thickly. That's more people competing for housing, but also food, clothing, wares,

entertainment, and prices will go up for all of it. The number two driver of inflation following Everest is increased demand. Let's all be aware of the ripple effect housing can have on every purchase Durhamites make. Increasing population density makes everything less affordable for everybody.

The character of rural lands are a boon to every person living in Durham today. Why? Trees increase the likelihood a moisture laden air mass will condense and fall as rain. Very important considering we are facing a record drought not seen since the records began in 1880.

We're also seeing extreme temperatures. Dense development has two major environmental detractions. One, hard surfaces and structures create heat. and two, they remove trees and green spaces that remove and nullify heat. More sparsely populated developments

mean less strain on infrastructure and a higher quality of life for all as we don't have to deal with expense, increased temperatures, which of course also drives up energy rates. Please let us grow slowly and measuredly wisely so that we give greater reverence for the needs and wishes of our current Durham residents rather than the expectations of monetary gain by a few. >> Thank you. >> Hey, I'm Tanya Taylor.

My address is on record. Um, you know, when I sat down, when I listened to this meeting for the f community meeting for the first time, truthfully, my husband dragged me to it. Um, and the biggest thing, the only thing I learned that day is this project along with others and all and within a two-mile radius, it's environmentally and publicly unsafe. We don't have the the facilities to keep us safe. We don't

have the factory store. We need more schools. um where you know we're we're stripping the land of the soil and the dirt and we're taking away nature. There's going to be more car accidents with nature trying to cross the street trying to find a place to to to live and to eat.

We're taking away the critters that eat our bugs and we're taking away the beast that put dog on food on our tables. And I'm kind of partial to that. And you know unless this we can't even cross the street without worrying about getting hit. We can't even cut the grass on the edge of the street because people don't pay attention.

And even the dump trucks, if there's nobody coming, will not even move over to make it safe for us to continue taking care of our lawns. We need the agricultural farms. We need the We need You can't keep destroying our land and keep thinking we're going to live in it. It you can't you can't take one without taking the other away. So, I seriously

hope y'all vote no. And I have 27 seconds on nothing that has to do with this meeting. You all are sitting in nice comfortable seats. Fix ours.

>> Good evening. My name is Tal Leighton. I've been here before. You know, I represent agricultural interest. Um, I at home I have several studies that were made that compared how much rural land costs the city to provide services compared to construction and housing developments and how much services cost the city for the uh type of construction that's going in nowadays. Tonight we were fortunate enough to hear a budget that says we're going broke and it it's got to be a little bit of the

fact that we're putting in too much development. We don't need anymore, especially not in this area we're living in. There's a lot of agriculture there that you're eliminating. I myself lost two farms last year to a development and I need that hay this year.

We don't have any grass out there. There's been something called water that we can't find anymore. But anyway, we would like for you to maybe study and see how expensive it is to develop land, the way constructions being done, and how many services that you have to provide. I have a friend that is on Facebook and he tells us every day, several times a day, that we don't have any ambulance service to come out to our thing.

Mr. Jerry Ray is a wonderful guy. He keeps us informed on how much uh is going on in our community and he also tells us when we don't have access to EMS, sheriff, fire protection. And years ago, I helped

build Redwood Volunteer Fire Department. Was a volunteer fireman for many, many years. And we're going to supply the service of controlling the fires on this development. bec because the city can't get there in time to save anybody.

Thank you. Appreciate >> you for your remarks. >> My name's Harry Rodenheiser. I have a farm at 2203 Patterson Road.

I'm opposed to this. It cannot possibly be argued that this development preserves the rural or agricultural character of our neighborhood. Also, as the developers representative pointed out in a planning commission meeting, this is a an exception trying to be u tagged on to a previous exception.

the the uh rules and regulations that are supposed to be followed to develop in this area are a block to anybody else that owns property because we can't get an exception. If I wanted to put a house on my property on Patterson Road, I can't do it for the very same reasons that you all have heard. what I would put there would be in keeping with the rural and agricultural character of the neighborhood. And I know there's houses because my niece wanted to build on this piece of property and she found a house with no trouble when she moved from Richmond. The mayor spoke about the environmental issues just a minute ago and seemed positive about it. you know, wants to make sure things impervious services are contraindicated for good environmental stewardship.

Finally, our families paid taxes out there for nearly a hundred years. My dad and mother paid taxes on one of these lots for 70 years. we cannot do anything with it because of these rules and regulations. I don't see why somebody else ought to be able to uh to get there.

>> Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Vicky King. My address is on file. Thank you for the opportunity to speak against development at 4802 Cheek Road.

I come here tonight to ask for a moratorum on any development in this area. Currently, there's two developments actively building that feed on into Burton Road. Burton and Cheek Road intersect. By the way, there's two more that have already been approved. Why add more development to a already overstressed

and overcapacity infrastructure? Three weeks ago, there was a wreck out on 85 with fatalities. Cheek Road became a high-speed freeway because you couldn't get past the accident on 85. Somebody has to do something.

Be the council who's willing to make change to infrastructure. Be the council to just say no. And by the way, make this math make sense. If you're going to put up to 190 structures in a development with no more than 149 trips at peak hours with no public transportation in the area, that just don't add up in my book.

Can DPS handle any more students? There's over 200 teaching positions open listed on the website. Where's the water going

to come from? Right now, Lake Mickey sitting at 7 ft below full pool. Has any progress been made to accommodate more sewer? What about the trash it's generated by all these folks?

North Carolina is one of the top states nationally for foreclosures. While Durham's civil count is only at 289 for 2025, what are y'all going to do if they start foreclosing on these houses? Thank you. >> Thank you.

>> Good evening. >> Good evening, >> Mayor and Mayor Prom and council members. My name is Jennifer Maher. My address is on file and I am speaking on behalf of New Hope Bird Allianc's 2000 plus members to ask you to vote against the annexation and resoning of this property. I want to show you some images

and I I need technical help uh that illustrate some of the things that you've heard. Uh and I want to first acknowledge that your decisions are difficult. I realize that you're dealing with what you perceive as a how housing shortage with growth competition and with affordable housing issues, but you are jeopardizing the long-term health and exponential and economic security of this uh of this community by not taking into account what happens when you deforest land. And this slide which is provided by the North Carolina Department of um uh natural resources shows you that forests actually produce and protect rainwater and they fill our reservoirs and when you pave them over you greatly reduce the transpiration of uh water up into the clouds and the interesting amount of carriage of groundwater that fills our reservoirs and further um what happens is massive runoff. So again an image provided by

the state. This what is what happens. The more imperous surface the lower the level of stream quality and it goes up very quickly after 25%. Uh, so I'm asking you to hold the line on this kind of growth outside of the growth area and in a large forested area because Durham has several areas within the city that are paved over and they've been sitting that way for years.

The shops at Lakewood, the old uh um South Square Mall, why are we not building there? Uh, push the growth inside. Hold the line. Thank you.

>> Thank you. I have a couple slides, too, but I don't know where they are. >> This This is me.

>> Thank you. My name is Emily Walker and I live at 2203 Patterson Road, which is directly south of the proposed 482 Cheek Road development. My land is forested and farmed. Several years ago, the state completed a $400,000 stream restoration project on a tributary of Little Lit Creek, which runs from the proposed development through my land and into Falls Lake.

The state funded this project because the stream was eroding and creating sedimentation of this creek and ultimately it was dumping sedimentation into Falls Lake. The drinking water source of Falls Lake serves over 500,000 people. We all have heard about the triacic um clay soils and uh how this creates a tomato soup situation because they erode easily. In order to build the highdensity housing project outside the

urban growth boundary as proposed, the developer will need to clearcut along this stream, grade the land, which is composed mostly of 6 to 25% slopes, and they're going to need to run sewer lines along the creek to reach the Fletcher Mill pump station. I've lived in that area for about 15 years and I've seen the tomato soup created by all the development including the Fletcher Mill development where that pump station is located and it's actually a lot further than what they're proposing at 40 802 Cheek Road. Clear cutting and placing the retaining ponds that they're proposing at 420 at 802 are very near the stream and running sewer lines along the stream is asking for trouble. If you don't believe me, you can call up Montgomery County, Maryland, and ask them about the sewage leak into the PTOAC. And keep in mind that at least that dumps into the ocean, not our capital city water supply.

Adding >> Is that my time? >> That's your time. Thank you. >> Please vote against this.

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hello. My name's Thomas Hamilton.

I'm at 4810 Cheek Road. I'm the poor fellow that's surrounded by three sides by this development. I thank you for this honor and uh you guys are awesome. We appreciate your service.

Uh I'm just here to see say what I see. I see the wildlife that's going to be disrupted. I see how the water drains through there and how much of the land is not suited for development to due to the utility easement and due to the uh watershed that goes through there. There's creeks that run on both sides of me and twothirds of my lot is watershed. So there's a someone needs to look into how much of this is watershed and there's creeks on both sides of me. So, it looks

like the road next to me is going to be ran through a creek. Uh, let's talk I want to mention the Holly Heights neighborhood. Holly Heights Road is a privately maintained road that has been privately maintained by these homeowners for years. And this road is going to be annexed and devastated and rural during a prime example of rural Durham being destroyed.

And this road that these people have maintained is going to have serve 190 homes. Uh I want to talk about the housing bubble. I've been through two major housing bubbles in my life. I've been upside down on houses for a total of about 15 20 years.

And it looks like another bubble is on its way. And uh I've seen the mortgage companies uh struggle and have special task force to deal with the defaulting uh mortgages. I've lived in the houses with 50% vacancy in the neighborhood.

And I flew up north this year and it looks like there's been a cazillion homes built. There has been a lot of homes built and it doesn't look good. Thank you. >> Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Lillian Walker. I live on my mother's farm at 2203 Patterson Road, right next to this proposed development.

I moved there when I was two and a half. I am now a senior in high school. I will be inheriting this farm someday, and I will raise my children there. This development and ones like it will not only hurt the community that has lived in Durham, but the community that will live in Durham, such as myself and my family.

Lots of developments have been approved already. Every single time one is built, the roads fill up with more traffic. Plenty of bicyclists are at a greater risk of getting hit. My mother and myself might get hit now trying to mow along the road

or drive our own tractor to the fields. New developments like this, even despite attempted traffic remediations, are only going to worsen the issue. Furthermore, our farm relies on wellwater and a septic system. Developers have done blasting around me and my neighbors properties for developmental developmental projects, and it has caused cave-ins.

Yet another development is going to cause the infrastructure built for the people already living in Durham County to collapse. Finally, putting in a new development is taking up the precious land that current and future farmers are going to cultivate. This will ruin the ecology of the land and diminish the drive for new farmers to start a life here in rural Durham. Our North Carolina agriculture and environment needs to be protected and stood up for. I am going to college in the fall to study horiculture and soil science. I intend to use my education to help local farmers profit and thrive off

of their land. With all due respect, I cannot do that if there is no land for them to live on. Thank you for your time this evening. >> Thank you very much.

>> Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Michael Harris and I'm from the Oak Grove Parkway resident area. I'm supporting this community that is basically wanting this development and like for you guys to pass a note for this development. And I asked the the representative of the developers who are representing the person that is trying to purchase this land.

There are lots of land in North Carolina. Why pick on Durham? You have over at Apex, you have Chapel Hill, you have Garner.

At this particular time, Durm is overdeveloped. My suspecting that I think the development feels that they could probably develop more profit in developing this property that they want to purchase because it's cheap. Leave Durham alone. We do not need any more development.

Look at Oakrove Parkway. There is so much traffic in that area. Most of the time in certain times of the day, we can't even get to the supermarket trying to get up Min Springs Road or Sharon Road. It is bumper-to-bumper traffic. And once this development, if it comes through, hopefully it does not, it's going to cause another factor in that area, which is traffic and more traffic. We don't

need it. We don't the the middle school is overpacked. Like the person that mentioned, we don't have enough teachers. >> So, what you're doing is you're basically causing total destruction in that area.

>> Mr. Harris, if you will please see the clerk so that we can register you as a speaker. I don't have you signed up. >> Uh, I am on I'm on I'm I'm on your list, Paris.

Uh, I Just see the clerk. I don't have you on my list. >> Well, I I've signed up several weeks ago. >> Okay, that's fine.

Just make sure she uh get your get it for tonight. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening.

One, it's outside the UGB. Please don't mess with it. Two, it's not contiguous. Three, we're going to need more farmland. I can imagine a future where getting vegetables from some other part

of the country or the world can't happen. So, we need to preserve this land. And lastly, have you driven down Cheek Road lately? It's terrifying.

Thank you. All right. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Prom Cabayto, city manager, members of council, and the millions of folks who care about good governance.

Um, in the strong traditions of former mayor O'Neal, I want to start with some praises. Uh, thank you, city manager, for pleasantly surprising us with that budget. So, thank you. Um, I also want to praise the uh the developing team because some I've se I've seen some things in this uh proposal that I have not seen before.

Um, $30,000 for a volunteer fire department, a commitment to do improvements on traffic or making a contribution of $250,000. I hope as we talk around expectations for developers, these now become the expectations moving forward for every development request that comes before council. We should see profers around the fire department. We should see profers around traffic commitments.

We shouldn't have to herang developers to make these commitments to the public good. I want to use the balance of my time to talk about um the profer for for the public schools because a couple meetings ago, a couple months ago, we started at a baseline 500. It incrementally went up to 600, a thousand plus, 3,000 plus. And I feel like wow, we've regressed in the report.

And I recognize the numbers that they had tonight are a little bit different. We looking at $875 per net pupil. With the revised numbers, it went up to 938. I just want to remind you all for the Morgan Farm request, it was about $3,500

per net pupil. If you do the math on that correctly, you should be asking for a prof of around $28,500 for public schools, not $7,500. Um, I think we can do better around preserving the public goods and making sure all of you who fight for progressive values actually legislate on progressive values. Thank you.

>> Okay. Okay. Uh, thank you all so much. Do I have a Bunny Finch, Donna Standback in the room?

>> Okay, got it. Thank you. All right, those are all the speakers that I have for this uh item. Before I

allow the applicant to respond, I am going to take a break, a 10-minute break for the council, and we'll be right back at 9:48. Now I recess.

All right. Uh, we are back. Can y'all hear me? Can you hear me out there?

Hello. Testing. Oh, there we go. >> Lots of paperwork and popcorn in the way.

Sorry. All right. Uh, welcome back. We've heard all of the public comment that, uh, that was registered for tonight and public comment not registered, but I hope we got registered.

And now, uh, Mr. Goch, uh, would you like a response? >> Sure. Um, want to pull up this slide.

I don't know if it can be seen. Um, just to show you kind of what some of these profers are that that we have made just to remind you. Uh, the orange here, so this is a project site. You can see transmission

line going through here. The orange here represents the project boundary buffer. Um, and then the green area represents the the additional 50oot wildlife corridor. You can see there's this stream on the property.

I think it's been referred to as six streams, which is technically true. You can see these little fingers that come out. Those are identified streams, but this the stream on the property, we're not crossing this stream uh vehicular for any vehicular purposes. The wetland areas are in light blue.

As you can see, it kind of creeps up into this area. So, we do anticipate some impacts under the threshold amount to those wetland areas because we're this is where the road is going to have to come in here somewhere. But ultimately your developable area is kind of down in here. We've prohibited any units or dwelling units west of the power line ement. So in this area. So you know we we've really hemmed in what we're talking about developing on this property and try to uh you know develop

we've tried to leave the environmentally sensitive portions of the property alone as best we can uh and while still providing housing. I want to remind you that we have made a commitment here to have 12% of the units be affordable at the 80% AMI level under the UDO terms. We've made a commitment here to have 3% of the units at the 100% AMI level at a minimum. Um, and the other thing that came up a fair amount was about infrastructure.

you know, schools specifically. The stat report indicates that the area schools are are, you know, fairly well under capacity in this location. So, I just wanted to point that out. And it's also worth repeating that the other infrastructure components have been uh analyzed by uh various departments through the fiscal impact analysis and through the suds.

The there is no lack of infrastructure in this area. There is adequate infrastructure. there is in fact infrastructure that has specifically been sized and designed uh for sewer treatment of this property. Uh

and so that's really I mean I don't I don't think those are those are fair assessments of what's going on on this particular parcel. Uh th this is a challenging piece of piece of property. There's no two ways about that. But this is a responsible development that is trying to check as many boxes as possible.

Um despite the the some of the uh issues that persist as a result of it being technically outside the UGB. Although as as we've said there there's new information here that if you're willing to consider it, I think is pretty clear why this should have been included in the UGB in the first place. And uh and secondly, you know, there this is kind of a you know, I think the comment was made, we're picking on Durham. I mean, I think you all know I'm from Durham.

I'm not picking on Durham. Uh I picked Durham a long time ago, or rather Durham picked me and I stayed. Uh I'm not picking on Durham, but there is development pressures everywhere. There's no part of the city or county that's insulated from these development

pressures. And this is a project site that can be built responsibly with a fair amount of affordable housing. Um, and I think in a way that is very very much consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you very much for your time.

>> Thank you so much. All right, those are all of the speakers I have for this case and at this time I am going to declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Council member um Baker, have any comments? >> You just looked straight at me with me.

Sure, I'll go first. >> It was randomized. It was randomized. >> Sure.

Uh I'll go first. Happy to. Um look, I think what has been happening in Southeast Durham is a tragedy. Um, I think the past

eight years of uh some of the proposals that we've seen out there, I heard some people say it was overdeveloped. I would tweak it to say it was poorly developed, poorly planned or even a lack of any plan at all in that area. Um, and I think that we're starting, I don't think we're starting to, I think we're seeing, I think we're in the middle of seeing what that ends up looking like, the consequences and impacts of people who live out there and people who don't even live out there. Are we're all going to feel the impacts of what has been allowed to happen out there. Um, I've been in the fight against those cases, case after case after case, and the very large um corporate uh real estate developers who have been leading the charge out there um whose largest shareholders are some of the largest investors, institutional investors on on the planet and are doing very well for themselves. Um, while we're feeling the the negative impacts, I'm feeling um

optimistic about this case. I don't um I I don't think that this um this case is very strong. I don't think that it uh is um I I think I think council can look at this case and see that it is not in our best interest uh to to approve this. It's not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The planning commission was overwhelmingly against it. the county commission weighed in because it is outside of the UGB and spoke um forcefully against it. Um so I do feel optimistic that um that the case makes itself uh that that this uh should not get approved. I encourage um colleagues to to vote no on this case.

Um and I don't have much much more to add. I think a lot of been has been said this evening about this specific case. Thank you. All right. Yeah, man. Volunteer

volunteer. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. You're looking for folks to speak.

So, um I'll be brief on this one. Um as always, I appreciate all the residents who have come out to speak. Pam, you've organized almost better than ever. It was great presentation you organized with all the speakers.

So, well done. Um I also appreciate the the applicant. I mean, I think the commitments you've you've put forth here in terms of affordable housing, park, environmental features, all these addressing traffic also appreciate all those commitments. Um, ultimately we need housing.

I think we had a presentation at the joint city county committee meeting in February. We're like short 18,000 units of affordable housing. So, I'm for affordable housing for housing. I'm also for consistency, y'all.

Um, and so I'm willing to support affordable efforts to get closer and higher within our urban growth boundary. Folks tonight talked about pushing the growth inside, holding the line. I'm all about that. Um, I think right now I am not willing to move the urban growth boundary. So I'll also encourage my colleagues not to vote for this case. Thank you.

>> Anyone else? Yep. Go ahead. >> Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to give thanks to all the residents who came out this evening to speak on this case. I also want to give thanks to the applicant.

I think as one of our residents said, there are a number of good uh proposals uh in this case, whether it's the boundary buffers, the wildlife corridors, the affordable housing commitment, um efforts to mitigate traffic, um a number of environmental commitments that our environmental community often advocates for in other cases. So I do think there was a good faith effort in this case uh to rise to the threshold of of of passage before this council. However, as I see it, we have not revisited the comp plan priorities that seek to preserve the UGB and protect the rural character of the community outside this boundary. Um you have concerns about the critical watershed. Um does not fall anywhere near our transit infrastructure to reduce the need to completely be dependent on cars. Um like the planning commission and county commission were forcefully against I'm not ready to take

the step on the UGB. Uh and I believe we can do more to pursue our goals of fighting displacement and promoting affordability while having more sustainable growth patterns uh within the UGB at this time. Thank you. >> All right.

Thank you all. I want to express gratitude for the applicant um especially your commitments around affordable housing and how you try to mitigate environmental harm. It's not going to be any surprise to you. I am weighing heavily for the young lady who is a high school senior.

I believe congratulations um on your I think about what world you're going to inherit in the world your children will inherit. And I I think the reality for me right now is a I think I'm an elder millennial, but I'm thinking about it as in terms of like what it's going to look like in a not even a couple years, our immediate future in access to water, in access to food. And if we are eroding our farmlands, we are going to be in put in put in put in put in put in put in put in put in put in put in a desperate situation. Especially think about the cost of gas and transportation right now and how it's impacting our bottom line and think about Durham's culture of we want to support local and we want to

make sure that we are buying local a farmers market. So to think that we um I'm consider that as we continue to grow. I understand I'm a native North Carolinian. I've grown up playing in the woods.

I got lost in the woods go by the mountain. So I think that I do have a deep appreciation for our environment, its impact. But as we continue to grow, we must think about as we're seeing streams dry up in some parts of the state, as we're seeing our water quality being impacted, it's vital that we think about this as a city moving forward because why don't a spider sit in this seat forever? Got about three and a half years left.

I want to be able to sleep at night thinking about the votes that I've taken on this council and how it's going to impact future generations. I want you all to inherit a world much better than I've received. So, thank you all this evening. >> Thank you, Council Member Cook.

No comments. Mayor Prom, >> I'm good. Thank you. >> All right.

Thank you all so much. Um I actually think this is a decent case um with considering all things. Um

however, I I too want to be consistent. this is um it is outside of the urban growth boundary and I you know there have been some cases where I've really really really wanted to push forward and it was outside of the urban growth boundary and I think that's one thing my colleagues and I said we'd like to be consistent on uh because we are trying to ensure that we are um densifying inside of that boundary that being said uh considering uh there are over you know 85 counties in this state. That's rule. I'm from one of them.

And I I I I just got to say it. Durham is not one of them. It's not, you know, it is it's people are moving here and it's densifying like crazy, you know. And I I don't want to pretend that, you know, we're going to put up some wall and folks are going to just stop doing what many of you done or did. That means move here at some point in time.

Um also we talk a lot about infrastructure. How do we pay for infrastructure? We pay for infrastructure through the tax base. And if we restrict that then how do we pay for the infrastructure?

And when it comes to EMS, that is a county responsibility. I hope that you all show up to the county and ask them when are they going to invest in EMS more. I don't know how that works. I don't know what they're doing over there to not invest in more EMS, but I cannot take responsibility for EMS when there are folks that are actually in when the population is increasing.

Now, we make whatever policy decisions we can such as making sure that our firefighters are trained as EMS, but that's about as much as we can do. And I'm not going to pretend that my responsibility is not to be an elected official for the city of Durham. That also doesn't mean that I'm insensitive to what's happening in rural Durham. I do care, but I have to make decisions based on what our responsibility is on this DAS.

And so if if the population of the city and the county are growing and we need more EMS, then I hope that you're organizing to the county to say you need to invest more in EMS. And that way Jerry Ray can tell you that we have EMS. But as of right now, we're going to make sure we have buses. We're going to make sure we have firefighters.

You saw tonight in the budget, there's 16 more that we're going to hire, right? We're putting we're starting the design and study and planning for the new fire uh firehouse out there in East Southeast Durham. That is following the data, but that's also because we've had tax revenue to pay for those things. And it's just not going to happen by osmosis.

It's just not. And I know that everyone knows that knows that. Um, but it's really simple. You know, government is a jigsaw puzzle. You know, you're always robbing Peter to pay Paul. But we we we generate when people when we're

building and you you see a new structure, that is more money coming in. 7 million that we're getting in tax revenue is help helping to make sure we have buses that are staying fair free. That that is just simply how it works. I remember when people said they didn't want South Point, but it's 17% 15 to 17% of our entire sales tax revenue.

That's paying for a lot of things. So, we can keep things like they are and get nothing or we can continue to follow the evolution. And this is what we have. will pay for that infrastructure.

And I just want to make sure we're always being honest with folks. When it comes to the public schools, it's per pupil spending. Durham public schools has been literally taking hits annually because charter schools have been taking the kids. And then when the kids go back to the public schools, the money does not follow them back. But if we don't have kids, then we don't

have the spending to invest in our children. So, I'm not going to speak to emotions. I'm not going to speak to make people feel good. I'm going to speak very honestly about how this works.

And this is not me lecturing. This is just me stating the facts. So, uh I think in isolation the case is a decent case. It's just in the wrong position and I will not be supporting it.

>> All right. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Just to jump in on one point. Uh, and so in addition to the recommendation for the manager this evening around fire, I do want to give a public service announcement and acknowledge our county counterparts who did recommend the county manager recommended a pretty significant expansion of support for EMS. Uh, and so as you go forward and advocate, you know, in the coming weeks, you can keep that in mind in your advocacy on the county side.

Thank you. >> There it is. There's there's some action happening there. All right. Thank you.

Um All right. So, this is item 21, consolidated annexation 4802 Cheek Road. I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing 482 Cheek Road into the city of Durham and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with Horizon Land Group LLC. So moved.

>> Second. >> So moved and properly seconded. Madam clerk, please open the vote. >> Please close the vote.

>> Motion fails unanimously. >> Thank you so much. >> All right. Awesome. Oh, uh, actually

>> no, I I I know I I know I know folks. Item number 23. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you all.

Andy Lester, the planning department. 31 acres located at 1921, 2007, and 2013 Sharon Road. This annexa annexation petition is for contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits. Um, >> yes.

>> Are you on item 23? I skipped 22. I'll come back to it. >> 23 >> 23

colleagues. I'm just skipping over to 23 to get that one out of the way. Uh I have two speakers and then we'll just get back to 22 where I have a a good amount of speakers. >> Item 23.

>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I'm Aaron Kane with the planning department.

Um, as directed by the comprehensive plan and the unified development ordinance, staff has been preparing the first bianual evaluation and assessment report or e of the comprehensive plan. At its April 1st, 2026 meeting, the joint city county planning committee directed staff to bring forth proposed changes to the place type map to the elected bodies to the for their consideration. There are six total proposed PTM changes included in the E, two of which are in the city's jurisdiction. One proposed change which is in the county's jurisdiction involves a change to the urban growth boundary and is also being brought to the city council for its consideration. The first of those is of those three is

A25002A which is for four parcels within Treyburn Corporate Park. The majority of Trayburn is zoned industrial light with the remainder either science and research park or commercial center. The four parcels in question are zoned either SRP or SRP and CC. The DARM comprehensive plan approved in 2023 removed those four Treyburn parcels from the UGB and reclassified them as rural and agricultural reserve due to the existence of conservation easements on portions of those properties.

This renders them unable to access city and water and wastewater services per city code. In the prior comprehensive plan, these parcels were all within the suburban tier and classified as research and research applications. Of the 193 acres under consideration, only approximately 66 acres are developable. The remaining acreage has conservation easements held on on them held by the Triangle Land Conservancy. The Durham County Economic Development Department

has requested that these parcels be included in the UGB and that the 66 developable acres be designated employment campus on the place type map. The remaining 127 acres retain their current designation of rural and agricultural reserve. The planning commission recommended denial of this place type map change on a 5 to4 vote at its October 14th, 2025 meeting. Because this request is in the county jurisdiction and involves UGB, it also went to the county commissioners for their consideration.

The county commissioners approved this change on a 5 to zero vote at its May 11th, 2026 meeting. The next item, A25002C. This parcel is on the east side of 751 south of Massie Chapel Road and has been acquired by the city of Durham for a lift station staff. Since it will not be

used in the future for multif family housing, staff recommends changing the place type from apartment and townhouse neighborhood to utility and public works facility. The planning commission recommended approval of this change on a 9 to0 vote at its October 14th, 2025 meeting. The final one is for one parcel just north of 4218 South Alustin Avenue. As a result of the council's approval of a zoning map change for Z240031 4218 South Alustin Avenue, one solitary parcel remained designated as general industrial on the west side of Alustin.

During the discussion for this case, council members opine that this designation would no longer be appropriate upon adoption of the zoning map change. This parcel is currently used as a medical office, which is an intended use in the neighborhood services place type and is adjacent to existing neighborhood services parcels to the north. Therefore, staff

recommends, following the city council's direction, that this parcel's designation be changed from general industrial to neighborhood services. The planning commission recommended approval of this change on a 9 to0 vote at this October 14th, 2025 meeting. Staff requests that you hold one public meeting for these three changes, though we will need the three votes and the three motions to be on separate votes. Um, staff is here to answer any questions you may have.

um including planning staff and staff from the uh Durham County Envir um economic development department. Thank you. >> Just for clarity, you said I will need to >> There are three motions before you and we'll make each of those motions be a separate vote. Yes.

Yes, sir. All right, colleagues, any questions to staff? Council member Cook.

>> Yeah, I think I feel more confused than even when I read this about why it's all included in one thing. >> The the E has always historically just been one item that we bring before you. Um that's just historically how it's been done. This is the first time we're doing one of these since adoption of the new comprehensive plan.

This is something we can consider doing in a different way in the future. This is just how we've we've done it in the past under the previous comp plan a dozen or so times. >> Yeah, it feels really tricky because we've had different bodies voting on the different items and we've had different votes on the different items even within the same bodies and then like keeping them all >> is it's undigestible I would say. >> Okay. in its current form. I'm not sure if I have an idea of how it could be better, but this feels really burdensome and difficult to make a decision on.

I think part of that is um the way that we are structured uniquely in having you all having to go to two different bodies and the JC and the joint city county planning committee and the joint city county planning commission makes it all very confusing. So there are three different place type map change proposals in front of us. Correct. >> Um, two of them supported by the planning commission, one of them not supported by the planning commission.

>> Sorry, >> that is correct. >> Yes, that is correct. >> The one that's not supported by the planning commission was voted on by the county commission and unanimously approved. >> Correct. >> What happens if we don't approve that that one in particular? Well, we've had this issue before on our old future land use map where the um county would have one place type

designation and the city would have another. Um in this case, I think the more important issue is the urban growth boundary since the city controls city water and sewer. If you decide not to approve the urban growth boundary change, then by code, you would not extend utilities to those areas and that site for future economic development that the county has identified would essentially not be able to be developed. Again, we're not changing any of the underlying zoning.

This is just the place type map and the movement of the urban growth boundary. Okay, three proposals here. two of them not controversial. Let's just say that uh don't actually change they're they're just place type changes.

The first one there was a split between the planning commission and the county commission. County commission was unanimous. Um and that is a place type change and a UGB change. >> Correct. >> Wrapped up into one.

>> Council member Baker in I'm sorry, Council Member Burrus in Quebec. Oh, use okay. Council member go back. >> Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Um, and thank you, Mr. Kaine. So, I'm trying to get an understanding of the history of this Trabber site.

So, I'm wondering if you can help me understand why it was that these parcels were left outside of the UGB. Um, I have members of county commission who seem to believe or characterize it as perhaps an oversight and that the intention was for it to be included. Um, members of the planning commission who voted against but once they got more information now say that they would have been for which would have made it like a majority support. And I think everyone's just sort of trying to figure out >> um where we came from and how we should think about kind of if it is bringing it back into the Trayurn Park.

>> So, so it has never those four parcels have never left Treyburn Corporate Park. They have been included in Trabber Corporate Park um this entire time. " And then when you drill down to a finer level, you can see, oh, there's actually some area here that's not under a conservation easement that is within Traver and Corporate Park. And as county economic development has uh determined may be a good site, there is no incoming site. There is no um and and I can let Matt Filter of County Economic Development um explain that further. Um, but yeah, that this may be a future potential future site for an economic

development. Matt, I'll >> Good evening, Matt Filter with Durham County Government. Um, I think Aaron did a fine job. Uh, I just would um encourage you to think about Treyburn Corporate Park corporate boundaries similar to the boundaries of RTP, for example, or perhaps the downtown bid.

there are kind of legal boundaries that govern um by the land owner what can be uh what can be done there and the comprehensive most recent comprehensive plan just kind of shaved off the top of the corporate park. Uh how that happened I don't know exactly. Um and so we're just asking for that to be uh reinserted as it was prior. I mean, I think you've said this pretty clearly, but I just would like to to to hear it again perhaps that drilling down in these parcels, there were areas that were identified as intended for conservation and those areas continue to be conserved and there

are areas that were intended to be part of Traburn Corporate Park and that's what this request would be allow the potential for development of in the future as part of this industrial site. >> Yes. So, there are four parcels um excuse me that we're discussing. Um those four parcels are all within Treyburn Corporate Park.

However, some of those parcels have conservation easements on them or parts of them. So what what we're uh respectfully requesting um is to uh include the full park um in the urban growth boundary. Uh utility service to the park is provided by the city. It's governed by an agreement from the 1980s.

it's been long-standing uh city uh policy to uh provide water and sewer to that area at a double rate um because it's unincorporated and then um reclassify the future land use map um for the parts that are developable. There's kind of like a kind of like an L on the side to be uh contiguous with the uh place type designation to the south. and we said

you can leave the remainder that have easements on it as a future land use map designation of uh agriculture and rural reserve I believe is what it's called. Uh those easements are held by the triangle land conservancy. The property owner still does retain some rights though. So it is not like it's forest preserve or there's going to be kind of public trails throughout.

They just kind of traded away some of the development rights uh to the land conservancy. Thank you. I appreciate um that information. I just find it odd because I was a council member and on JCCPC and we did a lot of back and forth on what was in and what was out on the urban growth boundary.

It was not straightforward. It was several rounds of conversations. I mean, I think it's just a bit odd to be taking this up, especially after our last zoning case where it was literally rural agricultural reserve um which is what this is. So I find it a

little interesting that our county commissioners were as strident as they were in their comments on the previous case when this is actually applicable in the same way. Um so I'm just going to point that out. And as I said, I like consistency. >> The current zoning of this site is in industrial.

I think I not to put these two side by side. I probably wouldn't have scheduled them. >> You can't get the the water and the sewer that you need. So, it doesn't really matter what the zoning is in this case because the conversation here is on the is on the uh urban growth boundary.

It's not on the zoning. I understand what the premise. I'm just raising the philosophical argument. >> Understood.

>> Uh based on the previous case and the fact that this council, as far as my recollection is, um has voted every single count case down. This council, the seven of us now and the seven of us previously that have moved the urban growth boundary. And so I'm a little bit, you know, I know it came to JCCPC. I don't remember it coming to JCCPC, but maybe I I know I missed two meetings and so it might have

been one of the ones that I missed. >> Okay. Um, so that's maybe why and I would have probably raised it there had I been at that meeting. Um, so the other two cases or the other two, yeah, the other two motions I should say seem pretty straightforward and I understand why.

Um, so I'm just wrestling with that idea of moving a thing for economic opportunity, which I get. I understand the the county spends a lot of money. We also need housing. So it it just seems pretty a pretty interesting moment to find ourselves in.

That's all. >> I would just in my own personal opinion, I see it more of a correction than kind of a change of policy. Perhaps you don't see it that way and that's totally fine. That's your prerogative as council members.

>> Yeah. I just remember the amount of of the scrutiny. I think the the what was in and what was out the urban with the urban growth boundary I went think it went to planning commission at least twice if not three times certainly went to council a handful of times and there was lots of lobbying from land owners to be in or out to be future growth. So I'm just surprised that again neither the

county staff or anyone or the property owner themselves caught that they were going to potentially be part because this was a pretty long and detailed conversation. So I'll leave it alone at that colleagues. I'm just I'm just wrestling with the decision specifically after the the last one. Um and you know, consistency is consistency.

>> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I appreciate uh Mayor Pertim's comments. Yeah, it it does seem somewhat ironic that we just went through a big deat battle about this about the urban or not a big battle, but a big conversation about the urban gut boundary where the county commissioner's comments were featured pretty clearly, pretty pretty prominently in that debate.

And now we're saying now they're saying like they're unanimous to like add like to put stuff back in or to increase the room growth boundary. So I find that somewhat um yeah confusing. I believe in consistency. I I understand as Mr. Filter saying that this is like on the place map identified as at least part of it. Sorry screen back um was moved out.

Maybe you want to put it back in as as employment campus. I think the larger principle here is that like we've created the urban growth boundary because we we've said we want to extend our infrastructure to that boundary and not beyond. And so whether that's for housing or for jobs to me like it's still infrastructure we need to build out there. I'd rather have dense housing within the city and dense employment pattern.

So I don't think I will support this one. But yeah, the other two seem pretty straightforward to me. >> Council member Baker. >> Um technical question here.

So uh what exactly was the thinking behind the the fact that the uh proposed change to the place type and the proposed change to the urban growth boundary are not aligned. >> I'm not sure if I f Oh, you're saying why? >> They're not aligned. Yes.

>> Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying, Council Member Breaker. You're saying why are the green parts in the urban growth boundary? Is that what you're saying? Um it's to um to provide if we if the um the development needed

to tie into utilities based in topography and have the utilities cut through those properties which they're allowed to do uh in the uh conservation easement. And we we didn't want any confusion to for someone to say well there's a force man or there's a gravity sewer line cutting out of the urban growth boundary therefore it couldn't go there. So that's why It's a good question. I Yeah, I'm sort of wrestling with the consistency thing here as well, but you do resonate you do resonate with me on the um correction component of it.

Um I was on council as well and I'm just trying to think back. There were, I believe, five areas that we >> I think I was at the city at the time, ironically. So, I don't think >> Yeah, we had five areas where there was a lot of back and forth and then the

entire process, this is a pretty big oversight and I'm not understanding how we got here. Um just for the sake of my um clarity, could you give me the analogy again? Just but tell me more about Treyburn. Um the park this the the parameter.

You're saying that the parameter is in whole but there is a component that like there's a body and then there's an arm that's cut off. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. I mean think of trigger and corporate park like a big subdivision, right?

you know, there are kind of legal boundaries. You know, the parcels make up the the subdivision. And so the the most recent comprehensive plan just took the top four parcels out um of that boundary. Um Treyburn has probably 3,000 to 4,000 jobs.

Be willing to bet a lot of them are filled by people who live in Durham. Um Merc Nordisk, a lot of manufacturing jobs. So when we talk about kind of those uh career pipelines

at the county, I think you all share the same values there. it trying to find jobs for folks to come into out of high school or with a technical degree. A lot of those types of jobs in life sciences manufacturing occur in Research Triangle Park, but they also occur in in Treyburn. And so there's no plan at this time for this area, but we're just trying to keep this subdivision, if you will, intact the best that we can.

So I I don't know what happened a few years ago. Blame me, I guess. I don't mind. uh you know if it makes makes it easier on planning.

>> Good evening. Sarah Young with planning and development. Um maybe I can shed a little bit of light into what happened. >> Please do.

>> Back then as you know one of the big things that staff was really being directed to do was to try and u make our development pattern as compact as possible. We ended up retracting the urban growth bounder by more than 10 square miles. One of the criteria that we looked at were areas that were in conservation

easements or that were just not going to be developable. These parcels, you know, when we when staff um looked at them, they came up as having conservation easements. Staff was not resourced to do a deep legal dive into like the bounds of each easement and how much of the property it covered. um because when you're looking at 154,000 parcels countywide, you know, even in a four-year project, that's not something that um we were resourced to do.

So, we made the assumption that they were covered by those conservation easements and therefore should be taken out because they were not developable. We did not do the deep dive to pull each easement and see exactly what was recorded um for them. And that's why now we've come to find out that they're on some of the parcels they're partial easements and they don't cover the full property. So I hope that that gives, you know, a little more background.

>> That that actually does help. Um because I think what we're wrestling with is philosophical versus practical. And

okay, that helps me know. You guys took a very high level look at it, a general search, and now you're getting more detail. And it sounds like you would have made a different recommendation if you know. >> Okay.

Yeah. >> Thank you. And I just wanted to say my commentary is not I I remember how much work the comp plan took. It was more about a little bit surprise that um either the county or or whoever's been offering these econom you know Trayurn's important to the county.

So I it's just a interesting that it got missed. Um I appreciate that. um um the clarification on the the easements and it's partial easements uh that is helpful. Um in general I think that it's at some point I know we we are in an interesting place with the LDC. I do want us to have a conversation on the urban growth boundary because we are starting to get into some interesting conversations around it. Um, I will say the previous case having that very clear demarcation that that was very much around agrarian or agricultural reserve

made it pretty straightforward. " We're we're several years out from it getting passed. So, I just I do want to raise that right now. So, um, colleagues, I I don't love it.

I do appreciate that clarification from Director Young. um it helps me understand that a little bit better. Um but I do find it ironic. >> Any other comments?

Yeah. Uh Mr. Kopac. >> Yeah, I appreciate my colleagues comments and the clarification from staff.

Um and so this is an interesting one to wrestle with following the last. I mean, you know, there's the balance between philosophy and pragmatism and that can be a difficult line to walk sometimes. I hesitate being too intensely ideological about some of these decisions uh as we try to work through the puzzle that's development and sometimes there's an exception that can prove the rule. Um so I'm trying to

kind of square these. I mean the last one it was like you know thinking about impact on this you know rural uh agrarian area outside the UGB when we have the potential to still meet housing needs within the UGB and in this one it's you know industrial uh where we have difficulties meeting the needs for these sorts of economic development projects in other parts of the city which makes this site unique and I'm hearing from our colleagues in the county including colleagues in JCCPC that they support it despite typically viciferously opposing anything outside the UGB and I think it's in part because they invested $30 million in this park um you know for economic development purposes and so you know it's helpful to get the the clarification it seems like this is distinct and so I am considering it but still trying to weigh this question about the the UGB uh more broadly >> and colleagues just so you all know um we're still in the technical questions areas haven't opened a public hearing yet but we'll get there >> my apologies >> no worries

No, it's all running together at this point. Um, just a question for someone on planet. I could anybody direct. Yeah.

Yeah. Hey. Um, I thought and just like so I'm just trying to make every I know we have like this philosophical ideology all these words with three syllables happening right now. Wasn't it argued in the last case though that someone felt that the or that property should include an urban growth boundary?

I could have sw heard that during the last case we had that was the same argument. Yes, I think during the last case uh the applicant talked about how they had uh reached out to the staff that worked on the comprehensive plan, although I'm not sure that part was clarified um to kind of get their feedback and they said that the feedback had been generally positive like oh this is you know um we could rethink this. Subsequent to that, when we started the E process, we went to JCCPC who as you know guides us on city county land use matters and one of the questions we posed was do we want to

entertain kind of privately brought up changes to the UGB and at that time the JCCPC said no we do not want to entertain those. That is why that was off the table. Um, and we've gotten several questions over the course of the past year from folks that wanted to, hey, can we hop on the E and get a UGB change and staff has said we've been directed not to do that. >> Okay.

Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for that question, that clarifi clarifying question actually. Um, all right.

Thank you all colleagues for your technical questions and comments. Uh does Tom declare the public hearing open and what staff you or the uh applicant I guess. Okay. Uh are there additional comments beyond the memo?

>> No, we can go ahead and move to public comment. Thank you. >> All right. I have online Katie Ross.

Katie, can you hear me? >> Can you hear me? Um, say it again. >> Hello.

>> Yep. There you go. Welcome. You have three minutes.

>> I hope you can hear me and not my dog. She's barking now. Okay. So, I'm gonna start with uh just answering what has just been said.

I'm in North Durham. Of course, I live in Baha. The UGB is very important to us up here. Um, I I watched the uh county commissioner hearing and one of the commissioners just brought up this idea that this uh parcel was overlooked in 2023 and so it was just overlooked and oh be quiet. So, but that is not true at all. This parcel was espec was distinctly considered and I have a memo from the planning department dated June 7th, 2023 to the JCCP on dated April 5th which the date is

June. So uh what it says is these properties are part of the Traburn master plan parts of which date back to the 1980s are currently suburban tier. Trayburn has been built out at a lower intensity than originally envisioned and some developer committed upgrades to the sewer system were never completed. The staff recommends removing these properties from UGB because of the sewer limitations and the lack of planned city fire service in this area.

In addition, much of this property on the east side of old Roxford uh old Oxford Road is in the fallite critical watershed and protected. So all of that was considered back in 2023. This was not overlooked at all. But four of the five commissioners didn't know that.

They just thought it was overlooked. So that's one thing. The second thing is, as I've just said, this is very important to people in North Durham. And there's a problem with transparency here. Do you think people

really know that when you have something on the agenda entitled evaluation and assessment report that moving 193 acres into the uh urban growth boundary uh that that's going to be considered under that title. That is not transparent at all. And when you're going to consider moving the urban growth boundary, that's a big deal. As you just illustrated in your previous case, I would recommend that this item, if you're going to continue with it at all, be separated and scheduled for some future date under an appropriate name, which includes moving the urban growth boundary, 193 acres into the north county.

uh so that the people appear and they're very next door I saw a lot of comments. They're very concerned about it but they don't know what to do. Um so I would ask you to be

more transparent especially in this age when we have no transparency in our national government. Uh the other thing is that the artificially including the conservation um >> thank you miss Ross >> into the 66 acres is also not not transparent. So thank you. Thank you, >> Miss Kesler.

>> Hi, my name is Mimi Kesler. I think I forgot to say that earlier. So, I feel a lot better because I was very confused about this whole thing and and clearly I was confused on the same level that you were confused. So, I think that council should be able to vote on on the Treyburn things separately that the other two.

I think there should be three votes. That's just my opinion. So I want to know what the difference is in terms of what can be developed if it's part of incorporated Treyburn but outside the

UGB versus if it becomes in the UGB. I don't understand what the economic benefit is of this change to the residents of the county and the city of Durham. >> Thank you. >> Except that I don't want to change the UGB.

>> Thank you so much. Those are all the speakers. Staff, do you want to respond? Fair game.

>> Sure. I think the qu quick answer to Miss Kesler's question is that including those 66 acres and and the rest of it in case it's needed for the provision of water and sewer um would allow for water and sewer to be brought to that site. Um the zoning's not changing. It's already zoned for some sort of industriallike

development. um it simply doesn't have access to water sewer which makes that difficult to do um on any sort of large scale. If it had water and sewer it could that's the quick answer to that. >> All right.

Thank you. Those are all the speakers I have. So at this time I declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Council member Burrus.

>> I just have a question for Director Young. No worries. Um, just to clarify, Miss Ross, like I mean I'm just trying to like land in like in the spirit of transparency has been the theme tonight. So, initially it was an oversight because you all didn't have uh capacity, right, to uh look at the easements and all those things. But then now she read an email um that basically so I just want to clarify like where like what actually happened and how do we

contribute to this oversight or is there any way we can like just unpack that that email happened? >> Sure. So uh the oversight relates to kind of not being able to deep dive on the conservation easement. The thing that I believe she read was related to when we went to joint city county and I think planning commission to the governing bodies we brought a series of I don't remember how many they were six seven eight whatever of these changes and each had like a little analysis of where we were retracting and you know um kind of the pros and cons.

One of the main reasons why we looked at retracting in a variety of areas was indeed where there was um no identified provision for utilities. So that part is true that was not an oversight and that is still the same today. That condition has not changed. So it was it was multiple things but the part that was the oversight was not

being able to deep dive into conservation easements. Does that help? Council member Baris mayor. Um, Miss Young, also if you another question.

So, so we're and I'm sure there's a reason for this, but like for example, on the Cheek Road case, we get that cover memo from staff and we're used to seeing like a like a costbenefit analysis, right? And a fiscal impact thing. We're not seeing this on these place type map changes. Is that because you only do that for an annexation?

>> Correct. That's only done for annexations. So remember this is place type map is a part of the comprehensive plan right it's a visionary >> future right now right >> yeah so it is you know to the to the resident comments it is a little bit on this one to say well what's the fiscal impact and I appreciate Mr. Kane saying well there's a chance there could be more jobs there which could generate you know property tax revenue you know and so forth but I think it it does feel a little bit like for other things we're looking at a very careful costbenefit analysis here it's just kind of like

yeah like sort of back the envelope or not even back the envelope just kind of rough guess so um yeah thank you all right any other comments No. >> Yep. Council member Baker, >> are there economic development deals that are being worked out in this area right now? Is there is this coming to us?

Is there an imminent reason? >> I am not working. The county is not working on any projects. >> It's just a you looked at it.

You said this. >> Yeah. It actually came to my attention because I get um planning sends out, you know, weekly updates of submitted development plans and plats that go through and I just >> saw this probably over a year ago at this point a plat for the transportation network in the park and I saw that it the boundary went farther north and I knew to be and we had some conversations

with planning with the land owner with some folks at the county and it just kind of evolved from there. So there's no to the director's point, you know, at this time there's water line nearby, but sewer is still a bit off. So it's not a site I think that anyone's looking at today. >> I'm just asking because um I feel the heartburn up here.

I do fundamentally see a difference between what is being proposed here versus a private sector uh partner coming in and proposing to do something on on land that is inconsistent and therefore we have to change this is coming from the public side saying this is for a public purpose and a public good uh and we want to change the vision. Um, I also I also see our I feel our desire to stay consistent to and true to the UGB. So,

the reason why I asked that question was um whether we want to send it back to JCCPC for discussion with county commissioners and then and then bring it back. I mean, I serve on JCCPC. I'd be happy to hear it again and have a chance to discuss it with my uh county colleagues. And I also think that it'd be worth to look at this question of potential cost benefit and what we think could be um the result of allowing this for future development and to better understand the public investment that's already happened in this area in order to support future growth and economic development.

And it's just hard for me to really evaluate that effectively this evening is sort of I wrestle with attention is what you know how council member Baker has has uh has framed it. And so I would I would be supportive of that. And and I also just

want to highlight of like you know all the comments I've heard like this is a big decision. And so I do want to acknowledge and hear the resident comment about this being part of an E process where it was not easy to track and follow that this is kind of what we were talking about uh of like the list of six that we were looking at as part of this you know um you know two-year update to the comp plan. It feels a little bigger than just a technical change. So, I wouldn't mind hearing it again.

>> Council member Rrist. >> Yeah, appreciate the com comments from my colleagues. I guess on this one, um, for me, like we talk a lot on this council about car dependent sprawl. I hear that all the time.

Like, I don't see why this is not car dependent sprawl. This is jobs, not housing. We know from our MTP analysis we're going to grow in the next 30 years by like 90% in jobs, right? 50% residential. So like it seems like we talk about jobs and all of a sudden wait a minute, you know, to

me like this is car dependent. I'd rather have a denser pattern for my jobs as well as my housing. So I'm not in support. Thank you.

>> All right. I um >> Oh, go ahead. I just wanted to say >> that I'm comfortable with sending it back to JCCPC. That seems to be the place where we can have that conversation with uh county commission colleagues.

Um I hear what you said, Council Member Ris, but I I don't think it's a bad idea and lets us move forward on the two other ones that it seems we're all agreed on. >> Yeah. Staff, did you all capture that? Yeah, I um I mean I I see I see the the the technicality here. Um but I I I also don't want to, you know, just just graze over it like it's uh I mean we we've been very, you know, v vocal about this UGB. I see it now with much more

clarity and I could make a decision to say, okay, I understand this was a, you know, just I'm going to call it an oversight. I'm going to consider that somehow it dropped through the process and and here we are. It's an easy fix to make everything good. It's a it's light industrial.

Is that right? >> I believe that's the underlying zoning. Yes. >> Yeah.

It is a it's contiguous to what's already purposed as light industrial and and just a job zone, employment zone. Um but at the same time, you know, someone who's partially paying attention, it's like, wait a minute, so the city council is inconsistent on these things. >> Yeah. Um, as Matt said, there's no um there's no imminent project on this site.

So, we're happy to take it back to JCCPC so they can have another discussion about this. >> I think that would be best. Uh, just so that we can just >> put the full context around it. >> Uh, colleagues, are you all okay with that?

Sending this option back? >> Thumbs up. One, two, three, four. Okay.

Right. So, we'll send this one back. We'll exclude this from the motion. All

right. Madam attorney, you're going to have to help me through this. >> Okay. Yeah, that's right.

Yep. All right. So colleagues, at this time I'll entertain a motion to adopt the resolution amending the place type map by taking property identified in attachment G out of the apartment and townhouse neighborhood place type and establishing the same as utility and public works facility place type. >> So moved.

>> It's been moved. Can we also like identify which parcel like by road name because we're just talking about attachment whatever that's is that the Olston one or is that the 751? >> That is the 751. >> Okay.

Thank you. >> So 751. This is motion two. >> It's been moved and properly seconded.

Madam clerk, please open the vote. >> Thank you Council Member Kopac for that. >> Motion passes unanimously.

>> Thank you. And motion three to I'll entertain a motion to adopt a resolution amending the place type map by taking property identified in attachment H out of the general industrial place type and establishing the same as neighborhood services place type staff if you can identify the >> that's also right >> south south Austin >> so moved second >> it's been moved and properly seconded uh mad clerk please open to vote please close to vote Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. And just let the record reflect that uh motion one in item number 23 has been referred back to JCCPC for further discussion.

All right, back up to our last item number 22. I thought 23 was going to be quick. That's why I tried to get it out of the way. Um, to my surprise, it was much more interesting.

All right, ready for the staff report. >> Thank you, mayor. 31 acres and located at 1921, 2007, and 2013 Sharon Road. This annexation petition is for contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits.

426 and commercial general with a development plan to allow up to 294 apartment units and non-residential uses. The properties are currently designated highway commercial on the place type map. 426 zoning is generally inconsistent with the designated place type. Because the

proposed CGD limits autooriented uses which are intended for the highway commercial place type. If the proposed zoning is approved, staff recommends a change to the place type map to the entire site to designate the property as mixed residential neighborhood. Thank you. staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

>> Thank you so much, Colle. Council member Cook. >> Um, couple of questions. My first is commercial uses that we keep talking about that's like throughout the literature on this project >> when as far as I can tell the commercial uses are driveways and storm water resoff to facilitate actual commercial uses next door. So, I'm confused on what counts as commercial use and why we've designated it non-residential >> for the CGD portion >> or >> for the portion that's not

>> right. So, okay. It allows up to 294 apartment units and non-residential uses. >> Correct.

So, any use allowed. So the way this textual development plan works is that they have um textual commitments that apply to both the PDR and the CDD portion. And then further down there are specific text amendments that only apply to the PDR and the CGD. Under the CGD portion of the textual development plan are list of prohibited uses that restrict what can be done on the CG portion of the site.

So everything else that's not listed would be allowed on the CG portion, >> but there's no plan for non-residential uses. And so I'm confused why there's that section. All right. So I think part of the

confusion is that CG strip, right? The reason we need that is because that is where the shared storm water pond is going to be. There is a lot of case law in the world of land use planning that is established that infrastructure specifically storm water infrastructure has to be in the same district or in the same set of allowed uses as the thing it is serving. e.

a non-residential and a residential. They had to find a zoning district that allows both sets of things and let the storm water pond live in that. Does that make sense? >> Yes.

>> Okay. And so I think they've tried as best as possible to write it to narrow things so that people don't, you know, get the wrong idea of what's going to be there. But that's where the storm water pond is and that's why it was done that way. >> Okay. Yeah. I think that the when we say that there's non-residential uses on the site that that is confusing because

there are none. I understand the reason for the zoning. Um but that is that's like pretty consistent through the documentation and doesn't really make sense but that I get what you're saying. Okay.

Um, and then there's this is a again another major issue because there's almost 300 apartment units and we're saying that we can't determine if a TIA is needed or was there no TIA done? So, Erling Thomas. So, no, we did do the calculation. This site did not require a TIA >> with 300 apartment units.

We calculated and there's not going to be 150 trips. >> Correct. Not for um mid-rise apartments, which is three or more floors. I mean, four.

So, more than three levels. And these trip rates are established by the IT or Institute of Transportation Engineers. Each use um tri uh generates a certain amount of trips and even within the same use. So residential uh single family, town homes, multifamily, um all generate different trips at different rates.

And so there is a specific rate for one that is three stories or higher apartment units. Yes. Even though in our in our proposal we have maximum of four. So we have the potential for there to be under three floors as well. >> Does that change the calculation? >> So they I think they

So you may want to explain that component. So when they did um inquire about the TIA, they have to express to us how many levels will be in in the buildings. And so we give the determination based on that and they would not be able to exceed um or do something that would trigger a TIA at the time of site plan. Otherwise, they need to reszone.

>> Okay. Thank you. And those are my questions for right now. >> All right.

Thank you so much. At this time, I'll declare a public hearing open. Mr. Gos, how much time do you think you need?

>> Um, like 10 minutes, I guess. >> 12 minutes on the clock, please. >> And, uh, thank you, Mr. Le, for your presentation and good evening, folks. Once again, Neil Gos, the Morning Star Law Group, 700 West Main Street, and I'm representing Middberg Communities for this proposed annexation and resoning request. Um,

Middberg Communities is a residential developer. So, I think the first thing I want to touch on is the reason why the request includes a non-residential district. Um, a request includes two parcels, which you can see highlighted in the slide here, but the uh, southern parcel has already um, got some development on it. So, it's a little bit close up.

You can see the the U self storage unit and then our parcel the other parcel right north of it. These facilities um it's so it has a driveway on it and what appears to be a storm water facility. These facilities serve the existing self-s storage use which is what you can see on this picture and we intend to use that parcel for the existing driveway and perhaps storm water pond as part of our residential development. You can see the UDO section that's copied here basically says that if you want to use infrastructure on one parcel to support a principal use on another parcel um then the underlying zoning must allow

the principal use to begin with. That's why we have a non-residential zoning district here. This is a way for us to utilize existing infrastructure for residential development. Um so even though Middberg is only building a residential development here that explains why we have both requests.

I also want to touch on the place type map which is highway commercial. Our project is inconsistent with this designation. But uh even the description of the place type in the comp plan notes that while highway commercial places are present in the community today, this is not a desired future place type. You can also see the kinds of uses uh that place type contemplates. Gas stations, convenience stores, even fast food, things which are much more traffic intensive and impactful than what we're proposing here. And I think this is in part why the staff report actually finds the project to be consistent with 22 of 24 applicable policies despite it being inconsistent with the place type

designation. The other reasons why this project is found to be consistent with the comp plan are the great commitments that have been made. We have committed to using native plantings and meeting the Energy Star multif family new construction program certification requirements. We have cap the height at 60 ft.

So that could be, you know, four to five stories generally for a building that tall. For accessibility, we've committed to having elevators. For what it's worth, uh I think our shortest building is four stories. Um, for accessibility, uh, we've we've committed to having ele elevators.

We've reduced our impervious to 60%. We have a significant monetary contribution to Durham public schools of $40,000, which makes sense because this project is expected to generate potentially 80 additional students over the current zoning. We also have committed to building the portion of the Lick Creek Trail that is on our property, which will enable that trail to continue to be developed with future properties. And you can see on the slide here how that trail is planned through

this site on the on the uh adopted trail plan. Um and finally, we've committed to 5% of the units being affordable at the 80% AMI level, which is roughly 15 units. Uh I'm happy to report that we are going to change that commitment from 80% AMI level to the 60% AMI level. um which I think we all know is where there is more of a need.

Uh now I want to talk about the main thing that came up in our neighborhood meetings and public hearings which was the con concern over uh traffic. Bright Leaf at the park is just north of us and has an unusual situation. Um there is what can only be described as a rather large entrance to that neighborhood off of Sharon Road just to our north, but for whatever reason there's no light at that entrance. You can see that uh in this upper right hand corner. This is a huge full uh movement entrance point at uh Bright Leaf at the park right here at Golden Bell Parkway

and Sharon Road. But there is no light at that entrance and because of that during peak hours left turns out of Bright Leaf are difficult. Now, if you compare that to to the situation where our entrance point is, you can see the self- storage sign there, and you can see there's a traffic light at this intersection, which is kind of a much smaller intersection, and this is a much smaller driveway, but there is a traffic light there. Um, and that's what makes our site even feasible for frankly any kind of development.

And you can see that while our site does back up to some of the houses in Bright Leaf, you know, this is the site here and it backs up to these houses here. The way that Bright Leaf was developed, we don't actually have any opportunity to punch the road through to Bright Leaf to give them access through our site so they could actually reach a light. Um, and so we can't really provide further connectivity to that Bright Leaf at the park subdivision. And it's important to know and you can see it in your staff report that both roads have excess capacity. So this is

not a capacity issue and I'm no traffic engineer but in my mind this particular issue is may is maybe a design issue but the numbers in the staff report show the project is not causing a traffic problem. And keep in mind as I mentioned earlier other uses that would be supported by the highway commercial place type designation could very well generate more traffic than what we're proposing. You know gas station or fast food or something like that. At the end of the day, this is a dense residential infill project with affordability commitments, greenway and connectivity infrastructure, green building techniques, and more.

As is the case with infill projects, we are coming in after the fact and trying to do the best we can to respond to existing issues. The traffic concern specifically exists already and really can't be addressed through anything we could do on our site. Outside of that concern, I think we've addressed every concern which has been raised and frankly put together, you know, a sensible project that capitalizes on existing infrastructure. Our team is available to answer any

questions and we hope to have your support tonight. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. All right, I'll start with my online speakers.

Melissa Plum, can you hear me? Do you see her still? Okay. Melissa Plum, Arie Plum, Kristen Shook, hear me?

>> There you go. Hello. >> Hi. Hey.

>> Hey. Hey there. Welcome. You have three minutes.

>> Thank you so much. Thank you so much for the time um to speak on this behalf. Um

I am a resident of Bright Leaf at the park and um speaking in terms of you, Mr. Mayor, I think this is not about um feelings, but more about just uh objective and the traffic that um Mr. Goch uh commented on um as someone who lives here is um not an accurate reflection of reality. If you look at the maps, yes, there is a traffic light, but those that are coming off of um Mineral Springs Road currently um with the traffic light cannot turn right in the mornings.

So, when the traffic light is green, there is so much traffic that cars cannot turn right. Um, so I do not think that a traffic light with an additional 297 apartments can safely and effectively turn left. And while I respect the traffic pattern analysis rules, I think that what can't

be understated is the impact of all the developments on Mineral Springs Road and Sharon Road. that are all going to be coming to that singular stoplight where now we will have 297 additional apartments. Um I counted there are seven in development right now between those two roads that are multif family homes that haven't been fully developed. So while the rules don't make that we need a traffic pattern analysis for this project independently unfortunately it doesn't take into all the other individual pro projects down share and down uh mineral springs and then the final point about it being a commercial um ability for someone to could build a gas station or a fast food um I also disagree that there's not a difference between apartments and that we all go to fast food and gas stations that are conveniently on our route. I don't suspect 20 the same equivalent of 297

apartments to magically appear that weren't already going down Sharon Road to come no matter how great of whatever establishment could use that there. So, I would really um respectfully ask for you all to decline this. I think it doesn't objectively make sense and I think that there is a public safety issue with uh trying to put that many people into that area um without any changes to the road um being widened um or any other way to accommodate those people safely in that area. Thank you so much.

>> Thanks for your comments, Miss Shook. Uh next, Trina Hines. I'm here. Good evening everyone.

>> Welcome. Good evening. Yes, you have three minutes. >> Excellent.

Yes. So, I'm actually wanting to speak to you about the same um issue with the Sharon Road assemblage. Um this

combined property sits entirely within the Falls Jordan watershed protection overlay district B and it sits on the triacic basin soil. So thinking about annexing his land and granting a a PDR zoning change, you have to look at the cumulative reality of the on the ground. So you you have the Sharon Road project to the east, you have the 5502 Wake Forest Highway, which is in technical review to the north, and then you have the upcoming Palmer Edge to the south, which creates a devastating triangle of environmental risk. I'm speaking specifically about the Grove Park Lake.

So these are not isolated projects because they drain into the exact same watershed. So just as our to the west sits Gro Park Lake which feeds directly into Little League Creek and ultimately into Falls Lake, this is a primary drinking water source for this entire region. 1 million of private money to fully restore and protect this lake. The EAB

has repeatedly warned that the standard UDO protections are functionally useless against the basin soils. These soils kind of act like a flower and when they're disturbed, they suspend in water indefinitely, choking aquatic life and permanently burying downstream water bodies in sediment. So, if this is approved without strict watershed guard rails and safeguards, our million-doll private investment will be destroyed by runoff from this combined corridor. I'm certain that the applicant will will insert that even by packing more homes closer together that their erosion controls are foolproof.

And if so, they should commit tonight to legally to a legally binding written profer in this PDR zoning ordinance that mandates third party turbidity testing and a zero sediment discharge standard to the Grove Park uh lake. I would also add Highway 98 coming making that left was as the previous speaker noted would be almost impossible. The traffic already is deplorable right now. You have a light

at Sharon and Highway 98. The next light isn't until the Grove Park subdivision. So, I would ask that this uh council vote no. Thank you.

>> Thank you so much for your comments, Miss uh Tom Campion. Tom Campion. >> Mr. Mayor, Mr.

Campion is not responding. >> All right. Uh Melissa Plum or Arie Plum? >> He he just um he just responded.

>> Mr. Campion. >> Mr. Campion, can you hear me?

>> Yes, I can. >> Welcome. You have three minutes. >> Thank you.

Um just to kind of reiterate um what past people have been saying. Uh we have the traffic pattern. There's also the issue with emergency services getting to

people are taking unnecessary risks uh in the way they're driving to get around traffic to get through there. Um often times on Mineral Springs making that right hand turn um they don't really stop for red lights. When coming down Sharon you have a green light they just continue to go because they need to get somewhere and there's so many people. Um, with that backup of traffic, if actually something does happen, it'll be an an issue for emergency services to get down there.

Um, I guess other than that, it's everything else has been said for me. >> Thank you. Do you see the pause? >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Okay, moving to inerson speakers.

I have Pam Andrews and Pablo Freeman. Welcome. You get three minutes this time. >> My name is Pamela Andrews, Wake Forest Highway.

Um, okay. So, we often request a cumulative impact study be completed in Southeast. Looking at individual TIA studies does not tell the whole story, especially when numerous small parcels do not require a traffic study. Sharon Road, like doc Nichols Road, has been inundated with annexation cases.

There are four cases pending at this time. On top of this one, four large developments were completed before the NC DOT traffic count. Ravenstone, Bright Leaf Trails, Bright Leaf at the Park, Orchard Ridge

are massive developments. But in 2023, this is the new NC DOT numbers there for you. Um, in 2023 it was 23,83 A a 1,91 developments listed on the right hand side will impact the vehicle trips per day by 15,638. This totals to 39,521 vehicle trips a day, not including those vehicles that use this two-lane country road as a cutthrough from Wake Forest Highway to the Research Triangle Park.

Trust me, I do it every all the day. All almost every day. 39,521 divided by a 12-hour period would be 3,293 cars per hour. This is a perfect example of the need for a comprehensive study. Several annexations did not require a traffic impact analysis, but the locals will be left to deal with this daily. The infrastructure is not is not

adequate to handle this volume in 2023. We've been promising that fire station. There's no police station out there. There's no EMS chief has already told us there is no footprint on the east side for EMS.

No station. A station is desperately needed. All those things, but the traffic, as they've told you over and over tonight, is unbelievable. We need a cumulative impact study desperately in Southeast.

But Sharon Road, as you can see, this is not all of them that I listed. This is just the ones that have come on since 2023 when this last NC do capacity. We are way way way over capacity. 23,883 per NC do in 2023.

Add up the new ones already there. 39,521. This is what the speakers called in and told you. Have a good night. Thanks.

Peace out. Welcome. You have three minutes. All right.

Good e the millions of folks still left in this meeting and those watching at home. So, uh, in again in the spirit of former mayor O'Neal, I want to begin with praise. Um, thank you, Mayor Williams, for allowing us three minutes to speak tonight and not giving us one minute. So, thank you very much. Um, I want to talk a little bit uh about the profers and since we have three minutes, I want to circle back to some topics that have been flying around regarding um some of these cases before you tonight. So for this particular one uh while it was mentioned that it was significant the profer of 40,000 which is pretty significant the number of net

students to the school system is 82 and if you do the math that's about $488 uh per student which is significantly below some of the profer estimations we've been getting at. In fact to use the academic or performance metric we're below expectations right now. I I think if we're going to lowball it, I think it's got to be a minimum $1,000. But going back to what I said earlier, the Morgan Farm one, which you all denied, was $3,500 per net student.

So, if we're doing the math on that correctly, you should be getting a profit of around $300,000. And that's money that's going directly into public schools. And I think earlier there was a reference to things that are out of your Bailey wick like for example EMS services but just like there's profers to the school system that you all don't touch. I think you all need to start setting some expectation around emergency services specifically same law firm previous case made a profer around the fire department. I'd like to see

some profiters on emergency responders. today. Whether you agree with this development or not, there are moments, thanks to some of our citizen journalists, where you call for an emergency uh for an ambulance and they're on Eastat, you are not going to get an ambulance taken to your house. If we're going to add more development, more residents, the minimum that can be done is making sure we have enough capacity with the EMS.

And I understand the county funds that, there's no disputing that, but we have precedents for profers being made to things outside of the city's jurisdiction. Let's set up a trust fund for EMS for profers and let's make sure developers pay into that so we can begin to address that. Right now all our tax rates are going to go up by two cents. Okay, which is a pretty significant amount when you look at the current assessed rate at the county level.

And yet developers don't pay in right now or development resoning requests don't pay into that. And I think we've got to change that expectation. Again, lean into that progressive legislating muscle. Don't just speak progressive vibes. govern progressively

and I hope this is one that we can all agree to. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. Those are all of the speakers.

Madam clerk, do you see the plumes plums? >> Okay, >> Mr. Mayor, there is someone um Carolyn Aras, but she's not on any list that I have. >> She has her hand up.

>> I'm sorry. Say again. Carolyn Aras has her hand up. >> I don't have her on a list.

>> I don't have that speaker register. All right. Uh Mr. Go, do you care to respond? So, I just want to go back to uh something that was talked about with traffic. Um, you know,

I'm not doubting that there are traffic concerns that exist, but I also want to point out that, you know, the way the city, any city works and traffic infrastructure works is at some point in time if you don't have traffic on the road, then you have too much road. So there are traffic concerns particularly at peak hour times in the morning. I acknowledge that. But this is this you can turn left out of Bright Leaf at the park when everyone isn't getting out of school or going to work at the same at the same time.

Right? So I'm I'm not suggesting there isn't a traffic problem, but it's one that the numbers bear out there's capacity in the road system, which suggests that it's not really a capacity issue. It is a design issue and we have done what you I think the responsible thing to do here. Well, what what would have been responsible for brightly at the park is for there to be a light or at least some other way uh to get out on Sharon Road than what they have there. That is a large entrance. I think one would expect some kind of

light or uh facilitated movement there, but that's not what exists. So, at this location, we actually have the light. that's, you know, that's the way that it's supposed to work as part of the development. I don't know if this is spelled out in the um uh zoning document or not, but we will have to uh adjust the signal timing on there.

So, I think someone mentioned that as it operates now there people coming from I think it was Mineral Springs still will have trouble turning right onto Sharon even with the light. Well, that's something that we'll have to adjust that signal timing uh with this development. So, that should alleviate that problem while addressing the traffic that would be uh generated from the site at the same time. So, I think that actually it's very likely that the movements will get better um if there is in fact a signal timing issue because it's something that this development would correct. Thank you for your time. >> Council member Wrist.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, thanks again to for all the comments from the residents and the for the applicant. Appreciate your uh bringing this forward.

I just had a couple. >> I'm sorry. My apologies. >> Those all the speakers I have.

So, at this time, I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Council member, please continue. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Go, I have a couple questions. Um, thank you for bringing this forward. Um, there's a a lot here.

Every case is different. Um, I appreciate the number of things you've done around um, we didn't talk a lot about this, but the sort of the the sidewalk gap. You're filling the sidewalk gap with the five foot sidewalk to the parcel next to you. The constructing a portion of the Lake Creek Trail.

Um, this is apartments in an area where it's mostly, as I understand, single family town. >> Most single family. Yeah. >> Yeah.

Um, uh, you've limited impervious to the maximum 60. It could be 70, right? So, I think you've done a lot of nice things here. I have So, I do want to ask you about housing, which I care

about a lot. We need affordable housing in this community. Um, you've increased the profit to like 5% at 60% AMI. I'm wondering if you consider additional affordable housing to meet the needs we have in this community.

>> Um, well, my client is right here, and if I can have some time to confer with them, I'm I can answer that question. Um, you want me to do that now? >> Yeah. Okay, cool.

Well, so I'm going to pose a question back to you. Um, my my client believes they can do 8% of the units at 60% AMI. Right now, we're at 5% of the units at 60% AMI. So, they believe they can go to 8% of the units at 60% AMI or do an additional 5% of the units at 80% AMI.

And honestly, I don't know which one of those sounds better. Um, so you know, obviously this is all coming out of what they're what they believe they'll be able to charge for rents. So I think the idea is they could Right now we're at 5% of the units >> at 60% >> at 60% AMI level. Would it be better to increase that to 8% at the 60% AMI level or would it be better to keep that one right where it is and then add another 5% of the units at 80% AMI? That's that's

I don't really know the answer to that question, but I I would uh >> that's a that's a >> great question. >> It's a great question. Thank you. >> So, I'll let you think on that and then you tell me what you think sounds best.

>> Let let me ponder that, but I I do appreciate that offer. Um appreciate that. Um, the other one I was wondering about was the tree coverage and I know you're right that was there any potential to go to the tree coverage beyond the UDO? So, all right, you uh I don't know if this is up there on your screen.

You can see some of the site as it exists. Now, we're we are in a sense over the tree coverage amount because part of this is is non-residential, part of is residential. What we're what we've shown in our application is that we're just above not 20 not we're just above 20% tree preservation. What would be required here on the residential component would be 20% tree coverage. Um and I

I think 18% tree coverage on the non-residential side. And what we're actually showing is something like it's it's not even 21% tree coverage. But the reason I wanted you to see this because part of the issue is that some of this has already been cleared. And so in order to meet our our tree preservation requirement, I mean we we're going to have 20% tree preservation.

There will be more than that on the site, more tree coverage than that on the site. there are some UDO requirements uh with respect to u dimensions and I guess I'll say area for tree coverage areas and I don't know that we're going to meet those. So will there be more than 20% tree preservation on the site? There will be is it going to technically be you know something like 21% tree coverage under the UDO?

I don't know. But there will be more trees than 20% tree preservation on the site. >> I appreciate that. >> I It's just kind of tight. So, it's

really difficult for us to make that commitment. I will say as it stands, our application does show we're actually slightly above the tree preservation amount >> slightly. >> I appreciate that. So, yeah, thank you for that.

Um, appreciate the profer for additional affordable housing. I may look at my colleagues to see if we have a preference there. But I will say and I I appreciate you addressed the transit or the traffic concerns that that this is a concern. There's no perfect case.

I will say and I think you know if you compare this case to the the previous one we looked at at Chic Road. Our residents have said we want to push the growth inside is what they said. We want to hold the line on the UGB. And so what you've given us here is a case where you're well inside the UGB.

Um this is right now is not super transit friendly. The closest transit stop is a half a mile away, right? >> Gotta get across 70. Not easy, right? But this is like I talked when I in my comments earlier, just got back from the Congress for new urbanism. One of the one of the sessions I went to was planning for the transportation future,

right? >> So, by building an apartment complex here on a quarter that will be it's going to get BRT at some point. That's that's one of the quarters we're looking at, right? It's also the kind of place where someone could live a couple with the with kids without kids could have one car instead of two, drive one person over across 70 to the bus stop that's only a half mile away and have a car.

So like this you can see reduced car use in this kind of development because you're close to transit networks. I think that's all really valuable. Um I yeah so on balance I think appreciate the profit. I appreciate the thoughtfulness here.

I think given that we want to get dense closer and higher in the UGB, this meets the mark for me. So, I appreciate it. >> Thank you. I appreciate my colleague comments.

I Okay. Sorry. Um I'm going to hear what other folks have to say about whether they want the 10% fi, you know, five 80% AMI and five 60% or we want to go up to 80 8% at 60% AMI. I'm at this point kind

of agnostic, which you are too. Um, >> interesting. >> Um, but I I do appreciate this. I do think that this does pose a pretty interesting um, you know, I didn't say much on the last case, the I should say the the first case, the actual zoning, not the whatever place type map changed.

Uh, partly because it was pretty straightforward to me. I have a long track record of really not approving anything outside the urban growth boundary. Um uh we there was a lot of rigoral around that around what was in what was out. Um I was kind of agnostic about the urban growth boundary period but it felt like people were really tied to that and the commitment was which is something that I find hilarious and kind of ironic.

Everything on the inside is up for grabs whether residents like it or not. That was the decision that was made. People were on planning commission. They voted for the comp plan.

they were on council that three of us voted for that comp plan either as a planning commissioner or a city council member. Those are facts. And when we made that decision, what we said is everything is on the way

on on the inside is in whether it's in the city limits or not. Now, how it goes, what's profered, what's not, what are the merits of the case, all of that is up up for discussion and, you know, are folks really leaning into things that we're asking for as a council in this case, part of a trail being built, not just an easement. Uh filling in a a sidewalk gap. You know, we had a case a few years ago that that was one of the things that the developer profered was filling a small sidewalk gap, which saves the money, the city a lot of money in those circumstances.

And so, we are seeing cases get better and better. And that's the point. A resoning really is supposed to show, you know, what are we going to get if we change our rules? And consistently cases get better.

And this case proves that, even if we're not getting everything. Um, I'm an adult. I I I've learned for most of my life I'm not going to get everything I want. I'm okay with that. I just have to know that I'm going to get enough. That did the case

get enough? Did the developer make the case? Can I see movement in the direction that council has been saying on affordability on environmental issues? And in this case, yes, that has been shown.

So, I will be supporting this. Again, agnostic on the affordability. My guess is it's probably better to do the 8% at 60% AMI because the subsidy on a 60% AMI unit is going to just be steeper. So from a dollars cent it's a better profer.

Um that's that's kind of my gut on that one. Um but I appreciate uh the developer and I think it's interesting that the the same person here. The applicants the same as on the first case and it it it matters to me. >> Oh that's actually a different applicant.

>> Oh you were just sitting next to the person. Okay. Sorry. >> You know He associates with me even if I'm not.

>> Oh, got it. Look at you. Anyway, um so I just appreciate when when folks to the best of their ability really follow our comp plan that that's the vision we set out. I get sometimes we can't hit all the

case all the things, but in this case a lot of things have been hit. Thank you, >> Council Member Kopac. Dan Cook. >> Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. So my question at this time is around the Durham public school commitment. Uh and you know this is an area seeing a lot of growth we're not quite at capacity but with the developments going in in this area I suspect we're going to be pushing that and right now you know not only we below the historical threshold but quite a bit below you know the new expectations that we've been u setting as a council. And so I'm wondering if the applicant would be willing to go to $1,500 per child. >> Oh, if you'll just give me a second. >> Sure.

Um, I think we' be comfortable moving the number up. I, you know, for what it's worth, I know it's it often talked about as a per student, uh, number. I don't know that that's how it works out for, uh, for as a developer. I mean, at the end of the day, it's kind it's more like a per unit type of thing for them.

Anyway, the point is, um, I he's he's comfortable moving this up essentially doubling it, although I think for whatever reason, we calculated it at 80 students, but the staff report seems to indicate 82 additional students, which so I think 82,000 we would be comfortable with going there from I think we're at 40,000 right now. Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. >> I'll pause for now.

>> Um, just want to thank y'all for the additional profers tonight. I have >> I want to go back to the affordable housing piece. Um, this is going to be

apartments. It's going to be rentals. >> Yes. >> Um, so we what coming in tonight didn't have anything that was affordable.

We had income restricted. Now we do have affordable. Um, and I appreciate the increase. We saw in the last case 12%.

Um what you've given us these two options would put us close if those were just both profered. Just putting it out there. Um the other piece of it is that I would be interested in hearing if y'all would be willing to profer something in the 100% AMI as well. Um I want to be really clear that we talk a lot up here about there being the need for more housing.

That's not actually the case. we need more affordable housing specifically. Um, so, uh, I would be I would I kind of lean towards what Mayor Promma is saying about the 8% at 60%. I would love to see there be a profer at all three levels, 60, 80, and 100. Um, but my priority is going to be the 8% at 60%. But I'm just

wondering if we can do anything also at 100%. Am I? >> Well, I have to go sit down with Mike. >> This is why we bring a an applicant.

I love it. Okay, I'm just taking some cues here. It sounds I think so far two people have have suggested that the 8% at 60% AMI is preferable to five and five. And then

the request here was also uh there's additional requests here or question I should say about um making some commitment to some level of the units at 100% AMI level. So just we we're putting that assuming we're having the 8% at 6% AMI we would all we could make a commitment that 2% a minimum of 2% of the units would be at 100% AMI. Um, yeah, I think that's that's where we're at. >> Okay.

And nothing at the 80% level, just to be clear >> in that in this scenario. No, there there I think we were not contemplating anything at the 80% AMI level in that scenario. >> Okay. Thank you.

>> I'm trying to hurry up. Okay. So um just a quick question in regards to like the well thank you for additional affordable housing component. I'm not going to get into the different levels. I do agree

with Mayor Pro Tim said I'm more of a mixed income type of person. So when I think about that particularly think about college population from my hour how we have a housing crisis there. Um but what I am curious about is the bedrooms. So like will you all lot for these affordable units like a certain amount of I don't know if they're like one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedrooms.

was just trying to think about the diversity and family size and like if we're really trying to address the affordable housing crisis, making sure that we have those people who need larger units or who may not just need a one unitit um apartment available space for them as well. >> So, the way the commitment is written, it's just styled off of what you know, I I think you've seen the commitment, you know, in other cases and it doesn't refer to bedrooms specifically. So, it's a mix of units. I also don't know if u Middberg has a specific breakdown on how many of each unit type there will be. That's not that's not necessarily something that's planned at this stage. Now, lots of developers, again, I don't know Middberg specifically, have kind of like a program, so they might know what

percentage of units overall are one, two, or threebedroom, whatever the case may be. Um, but that's not something that that that we have talked about specifically on this the affordable units as I have seen well under the the zoning commitment. It's not split out by bedroom. And typically what I have seen in the implementation is it's kind of on a first come first- serve basis.

So if a family comes that meets the affordability requirement and needs a a whatever two-bedroom, then sure it could be a two-bedroom or or a threebedroom, whatever. But at some point, you know, you just run out of those units and then you still have to fulfill the affordable commitment with, you know, to get to your percentage based on whatever unit is left. But the affordability commitment is is essentially I mean in my uh experience has been first come first serve. So whichever just like all of the units are first come first serve. But if you meet the affordable requirement then that would fulfill you know one of the percentage you know some

of the commitment here for percentages of affordable units. >> All right. Thank you for that. >> Thank you.

>> Go ahead. >> Great uh great questions colleagues. Um I've got a quick question just for for staff. Um looking at the place type here place type map.

Um, of course this is currently designated highway commercial area, but I'm just kind of curious because to the north you have some residential that is also designated as highway commercial area on the place type map. To the south you have um forested land that is also designated highway commercial area. And I'm just kind of I'm I'm curious about the reasoning behind how we how we got to that. >> Sure. Um I'll address it in two ways. Um so the highway commercial place type is intended to work in conjunction with the TOA and the mixeduse neighborhood place

types where those mixeduse place types allow at least in the comp plan a larger area of the city um launch those place types which is dense walkable not auto oriented. though because of that the highway commercial place type was essentially a catch-all for all those autooriented uses um along major thorough affairs and highways. The comp plan directs us to recommend changes is when transit service um is available within those high or highway commercial place type areas. Um so when this was created um this was just sought as an area just for to accommodate those um autoor oriented uses until transit can come into that area.

I hope that made sense. >> It's a holding place kind of. Okay.

>> Yep. >> All right. Thanks. >> That's it for me.

I I appreciate the the questions that my colleagues have been posing here. Thanks. Any other comments, colleagues? Yeah, go ahead.

Council member go back. Yeah, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, just want to acknowledge that the experience of residents here around traffic is is challenging both with this site and with the developments happening uh around this area.

That's a very uh real experience uh and one that's really important to to voice and think about, you know, our future growth patterns. Um you this doesn't get us within a quarter mile of transit but as we think about future transit planning I think it's an important site that council member uh wrist made uh around the opportunity of this and other corridors uh which will also when you have more people it also gives the the opportunity for the potential of transit. Um I won't repeat the litany of things that were profered or that my colleagues have mentioned. I

just do want to say a couple more things. one, you know, in terms of the completion of the Lick Trail and the access to that trail, we talk a lot about wanting to bring parks and greenways to people, but it's also important to bring more people to to to greenways and trails, and I feel like this project does does both of those things, which is positive. Um, and I appreciate the profers, particularly around the income restricted affordable housing. I agree around the 60% commitment.

I think that's what we need most. And what we need most in Durham is that long-term income restricted affordable housing. Um, most people are still always in Durham going to procure housing in the private market. Uh, we're not going to have the budget to be able to fill that entire gap around affordable housing with what we spend with public budgets.

Uh, and so we have to look and see what our overall housing strategy is. And you know, the fact is the clear economic analysis from communities across the country shows that when um neighborhoods welcome in new housing at all price points, the number one beneficiaries, uh it's a it's a it's a decrease in the um in the rentals for low-income renters. Um you

know, otherwise everyone who's moving here is just competing for the gentrifying homes and it pushes people out faster. And so it's a whole equation um you know, thinking about housing markets, but you know, the most critical thing we need is the income restricted. And I appreciate that gives us this uh this desperate need on this project. Um and so I'm feeling pretty good about this one where it's at uh with the need um you know for driving this growth within the UGB.

So thank you. >> All right. Uh thank you all so much. I feel like I've talked enough tonight, so I'll just get to the motion.

Mayor, may I just confirm the two profits? >> Yes, real quick, >> please. >> Sure. Thank you.

Um, so we are updating the affordable or income restricted commitment to 8% um affordable at 60% AMI for a 30-year period. Right. >> Correct. There's also a 2% of the total

units at 100% AMI. >> For a 30-year period. Yeah. >> For for a 30-year period.

and an increase to the Durham public schools contribution to $80,000. Is that correct? >> $82,000. >> $82,000.

Yeah. Right. Thank you. >> There's our caption.

Thank you so much. >> None at all speakers have spoken. All colleagues have spoken. I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing Sharon Road assemblage into the city of Durham and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with Middberg Development LLC.

>> So moved. >> It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please vote. >> Please close the vote.

up. >> There we go. All right. Please close the vote. Madam

clerk, >> motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you so much. 426 426 commercial general with the development plan falls Jordan wershed overlay district B city jurisdiction >> so moved second >> it's been moved and properly seconded madam clerk please open the vote >> please close the vote >> motion passes unanimously >> thank you and lastly I'll entertain a motion to adopt the consistency statement as required by North Carolina general statute section 160D-605 Five. >> Move we have consistency.

>> Second. >> So moved and properly seconded. Madam clerk, please open the vote.

>> Please close the vote. >> Motion passes 70. >> Thank you all so much. All right.

Uh there's a grand opening tomorrow in Dreddy Fun Park next to Top Golf. You guys want to come out? m.