Good evening and welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission are appointed by city council and the county board of commissioners to make recommendations to the elected officials. We emphasize that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you are attending in person and wish to speak on a particular agenda item, please register on the signup sheets located on the table to my left.
You will be called upon to make your comments at the appropriate time. You may also call in during the meeting by dialing 1317158592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you are interested in starts. [snorts] After all of the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star 9 on your phone and when recognized, state your name and address before making your
comments. The applicant has a total of 10 minutes for their presentation. Each speaker after the applicant has two minutes to speak. Commissioners will be given five minutes for Q&A and please keep your comments succinct.
Commissioners, as a reminder, after the public hearing is closed, you obtain the floor by being recognized by the chair. The [clears throat] time to make all public statements is before motions are made. All motions are stated in the affirmative. So, if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial.
After the case you are here for ends, please exit the chambers quietly and pursue further discussion in the lobby as the commission continues its meeting. Finally, I ask everyone here and on the Zoom, the commission members, the staff and the public to conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. If someone fails to act in that manner, the chair will ask the offending person or persons to be muted on the zoom or asked
to leave the council chambers until such time they regain personal control. If decorum fails to be restored, the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to act respectful and courteous is observed. May we have the roll call, please? >> [clears throat] >> Chair Shagaras >> here.
>> Vice Chair Cameron >> here. >> Commissioner Bailey >> here. >> Commissioner Capers >> here. >> Commissioner Chicowski >> here.
>> Commissioner Hunter >> here. >> Commissioner Huarez Maldonado >> here. Commissioner Montes >> here. >> Commissioner Macyver. Commissioner Narter >> here. >> Commissioner Pontac >> here.
>> Commissioner Richie. >> Commissioner Richie has requested an excused absence. >> Commissioner Woke >> here. >> We have achieved a quorum.
Uh, item number three on the agenda, adjustments to the agenda. There are no adjustments that I'm aware of. Number four, approval of the minutes and consistency statements. Do we have a motion to approve?
>> Chair Shagaras, I move that we approve the minutes and consistency statements from the November 12th meeting. It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to approve the minutes and consistency statements. All in favor, please say I. I.
>> I. >> Opposed. The eyes have it. All right. Number five, public hearing text amendment TC25
quadruple02 RV parking amendment. May we have the staff report, please? Good evening. I'm Scott Whiteitman with the planning department.
Before I begin, staff would like to state for the record that all planning and development 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. 3 in residential zoning districts. Recreational vehicles such as boats, camper trailers, and utility trailers shall be stored off the street and shall be located to the rear of the primary structure. The intent of this regulation is to reduce visual clutter of large vehicles and residential areas and to prevent
parked vehicles from blocking sidewalks or streets. However, the provision can be severely limiting to many property owners since driveways do not typically extend behind the primary structure and many homes do not have sufficient space for RV storage in the rear yard. As currently drafted, the new UDO would remove this regulation. In the meantime, numerous violations of this provision have been identified in the last several months.
3 that would allow RV parking on a driveway at least 25 ft from the public rideway. 3E have been stayed pending the outcome of this UDO text amendment. Should this text amendment not be adopted, notices of violation will be
enforced on any property owners that are not in compliance. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Um, are there any community members in person who would like to speak on this item signup sheet?
Pat Catmore. Oh, the chair is now opening the public hearing. Go ahead. Please state your name and address for the record. >> My name is Cat Moore. Uh my address is 610 Grey Avenue, Durham, North Carolina.
Good evening, members of the planning commission. I live in East Durham and I am an RV owner. I'm thankful that the city permits us to park RVs on our property. It is one of the reasons that my husband and I bought a house in the city.
I'd like to thank the city and county for considering additional texts to allow the flexibility of RV parking. I'm happy that it will allow many households to be in compliance with the ordinance and also have increased freedom to place their RV where it makes the most sense on their lot. I'm here to ask the commission to consider a situation not addressed with the text edition, corner lots. We live on a corner lot where we have not one but two public ride ofways bordering our property. With the current proposed text amendment that specifies the RV should be 25 ft from the ride of way. Uh I would interpret this to include both rideofways bordering my property.
So we would be unable to park the RV on a driveway beside the house due to this second rideway running down the side of our lot on the only on the only side we have space to park. we could meet the requirement of 25 feet from the street at the front of our house. I support the text amendment and only ask that you consider if there could be wording to allow corner lots like ours a wonderful option to park on a driveway set back from the street at the front of the house. Again, I appreciate that this text amendment is being considered and that the city and county supports RV owners.
>> Thank you. Scott, would you city staff would you care to address? Are there any other members present? Anyone on the Zoom wishing to speak on this text amendment? Please raise your hand. Use the raise
your hand function. Nobody. So the proposal as it it's written was designed to be the kind of the minimum amount necessary. But that being said, the staff doesn't have an objection to what the speaker is requesting.
If the planning commission felt it was reasonable to measure this only from the front property line if if it's on a corner lot, we can work out the wording before it goes to the elected officials. >> Thank you. Do we need to get the official wording tonight or No, just >> just let us know what the will of the commission is and it should be a pretty easy wording fix. >> Okay.
Thank you. Uh the chair is now closing the public hearing. Do we have any commissioner comments? Commissioner Non Kirkner. I'm Diana Ninkirkner and I have one comment about this or uh this change.
Um I appreciate the public's comment about the corner lot because that wasn't addressed. Another thing that's not addressed is um the the visibility of you know the rightway and all that stuff to traffic. And if you can't see the traffic coming because you can't because that uh vehicle is in the way. So that 25 feet is seems adequate.
But what if the vehicle that the person owns for their driving is a truck, you know, and it's big and and it goes right in front of their uh recreational vehicle. So it's a block. the side the height of it would would uh be a problem, wouldn't it? Just my question.
>> So, you're correct. There's not a restriction on on where other vehicles are parked. They just need to be parked in the driveway and can't be blocking a sidewalk or >> just not the sidewalk. Uh there are also
sight distance triangle regulations for driveways and um similar type in eress and ingress um modes. Um not every house was built when we had that regulation. So there there could be quite a few out there. I would say that this does not make that situation better or worse.
This is only addressing the RV parking situation. >> Thank you. Any other commissioners? Uh, Commissioner Montes.
>> Yeah, I I think it's important to note for the property owner, which for for your corner lot, obviously the the intent is to serve everybody. What I will say is typically in the UDO the the corner setbacks are 10 feet making it nearly for any new development or new construction or assuming you have a larger lot than a typical you know 50 foot wide lot. It's going to be very difficult to push that 20 foot five to make that corner setback more than 10
feet for everybody to be to be able to develop. My suggestion would be would it be possible to do a case-bycase thing? So in this situation, your property, you have a particular unique circumstance to apply for like a variance for that specific lot and allow that to to happen and work. But I'm worried about changing a corner setback from 10 feet and what goes in that corner setback can be problematic.
But is there my two cents? Any input? Scott Whiteitman >> certainly could be that if if it is allowed closer than 25 ft on a corner lot that it couldn't be closer than 10 ft if that addresses your concern, >> right? Yeah.
So it [clears throat] generally speaking, we have those 10 foot corner setbacks where you can't put any kind of structures. Essentially an RV would be considered a structure. So if it would extend, if that would apply
for the 25 foot setback, you're pushing it all the way back in. What would that be then considered into the backyard? That wouldn't really address her concern. Do you see what I'm saying?
>> I don't know if I >> in the in the front of a house, you have 20 foot setback, front setback. >> So typically, you can push that house back and you put that RV in the front yard. That makes sense. But revising the UDO to to push that setback 25 feet into as a corner setback would be problematic for any typical development.
Does that make sense? >> Yeah. But this the setback would only be for RV parking. It would not apply to any >> I understand.
Okay. So it wouldn't apply to any >> and so the driveway could still be there and you could still park your normal vehicles in the driveway. It's just the RV would have to be 25 ft back. >> That clarifies it.
Thank you. Okay. Any other? No. May I have a motion to move case TC25
quadruple02 RV parking amendment forward with the favorable recommendation? Chair Shagaras regarding case number TC25 00002 RV parking amendment. I move that we forward this case to city council with a favorable recommendation for approval. >> Second.
>> It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. Please open the electronic voting. The motion, excuse [clears throat] me, the motion passes 11 to zero.
>> Thank you. Item number six on the agenda, public hearings, initial zoning map changes Z25 triple021A-BG25 triple013 Curly Gardens. May we have the staff report, please? >> Thank you.
Um Andy Lash here with the planning department. 678 acres and located at 5200 Kurley Road. The current zoning is residential [snorts] suburban multifamily county jurisdiction. The applicant proposes to change this designation to residential suburban multifamily city jurisdiction to allow a 36 unit existing apartment community to to connect to city water. The properties are currently designated
apartment and townhouse neighborhood and the place type map. The proposed residential suburban multifamily zoning is consistent with the designated place type. There is an associated ann annexation petition associated with this case EDG250013. This is a direct translational zoning.
A direct translational zoning is one in which the existing residential suburban multifamily Durham County zoning district is translated to the identical residential suburban multifamily Durham city zoning district upon the annexation of the property and to the city limits. A translational zoning does not and cannot include a development plan and any future development may proceed according to what the zoning would allow. Now, the aerial map shows the general location of the of the project. It is south of Mount Sinai Road and west of Forest View Elementary School. The western property line uh situates on the
Orange and Durham County um county lot. The property is currently designated apartment and townhouse neighborhood on the place type map. No change will be required for the proposed annexation. Neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with the neighborhood meeting guidelines on July 21st, 2025 and November 18th, 2025.
Three comments have been received by staff in relation to this case on the Durham Reszoning Explorer. All three are against the proposed annexation. Uh the proposal is consistent with the place type map designation of apartment and townhouse neighborhood as the translational zoning would allow an existing 36 unit apartment development to utilize city of Durham water services. The proposal is consistent with five of five applicable comprehensive plan policies. Thank you staff. The applicant are available for any questions.
>> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please? [snorts] [cough] [clears throat] Good evening, Chair Shagars, Vice Chairman Cameron, and members of the planning commission.
My name is Leah Bergman, and it is my family and my family's legal entities that have brought forward this request to you all this evening. I lived at 5022 Curly Road for many, many years of my life in childhood and adulthood. We are not here
to talk about 5022 Curly Road. I'm not messing up my numbers, but I'm telling you all this and I'm going to tell you the story just because I want you to understand how heavily we invested I and my family are in Curly Road. 5022 Curly Road is at the corner of Mount Si and Curly Road and is approximately 500 ft from the parcel that we are discussing this evening. The apartments have been there for my entire childhood, for my entire life, and I'm 49.
Members of my family and the legal entity that own 5200 Curly Road, which is the parcel that we are discussing, continue to live on Curly Road, including my mother, Ellie Bergman, who lives at 4829 Curly Road. Our family has owned land and houses located at 5022 Curly Road and 4829 Curly Road for over four decades. I make all these points so that you understand that we have a heavily vested interest in this area and
have for a long period of time. Tonight, my team with me is Patrick Biker from Morning Star and Kyle Organo from O Bowman Engineering. I will turn it over to them because they will speak your language much much better than I do and probably can answer questions better for you. But I am here and would like to help in any way that I can.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Leah. Good evening, Chair Shagaras, Vice Chair Cameron, members of the planning commission. I'm Patrick Biker.
I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm an attorney with Morning Star Law Group and I'm here tonight representing Southern Repair Service and Lee Bergman LLC, the property owners for this annexation. The principal for these owners is my friend Leah Bergman, whom you just heard from. And Leah along with her family are community leaders in providing private affordable housing for Durham residents. We are also joined by Kyle Organo with Bowman Engineering and we are here tonight to request your recommendation
of approval for the annexation of Curly Gardens located on Curly Road across the street from Forest View Elementary School. At the outset, I want to thank Andy for a superb staff report on this agenda item. And to give the commission a brief history of Curly Gardens, it was built in 1966. Curly Gardens contains 36 apartments that are providing housing at an affordable rental rate between $1,000 and $1,300 per month.
Leah accepts housing choice vouchers for all 36 of these apartments. And so Curly Gardens represents naturally occurring affordable housing as is described on page four of your staff report. I want to emphasize that there are no changes to the buildings or the parking associated with this annexation. Some persons from Orange County who attended the virtual neighborhood meeting on November 18th thought that the reasonzoning case number meant changes to Curly Gardens were being proposed. As noted in your staff report, the resoning
case Z25021A is just the direct translational zoning to go from Durham County zoning to city of Durham zoning. If we are fortunate enough to have our annexation petition approved, we will be extending the city of Durham water line from the intersection of Mount Sinai Road and Curly Road south approximately 575 ft within the Curly Road rightway to connect to Curly Gardens. In addition to the three apartment buildings, there is a laundry building in the rear that is split by the county line. There's also a grilling area and a very nice playground for the children behind the three apartment buildings. Since the water meter and the water line feed are in Durham County, our understanding is that this will be approved through the utility extension agreement. Of course, Southern Repair Service and Lray Bergman LLC will be paying 100% of the costs associated with designing and installing this new water line to serve Curly
Gardens. There will be no public dollars from the city spent on this new water line. In closing, I think this is a very straightforward case. As I mentioned earlier, Leah Bergman is a very experienced owner and manager of affordable housing, especially in regard to accepting housing choice vouchers for from her renters.
Since the current owners purchased Curly Gardens on February 28 of 2025, we have found the operating and testing costs associated with the on-site wellwater to be higher than what city water would be. Since Curley Gardens has been a city of Durham sewer customer for almost 60 years, I believe it is time to connect Curly Gardens to city water, just like the Puit Health rehab facility that is adjacent to the north and Forest View Elementary School that is right across the street. For all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval. We appreciate your time tonight. 67 acres in Durham
County into the Durham city limits. Thank you. >> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing.
I already did that. Community members in person. Uh Katherine Olive >> and please state your name and address for the >> My name is Katherine Olive. I live at 5821 Mount Sinai Road in Durham.
Thank you. Um I reside in Orange County within 1,000 ft of the Curly Gardens site. I believe that the proposed annexation will have a direct impact on me and my family, not because of a straightforward water connection to an existing 36 units, but because of undisclosed housing development plans.
At the most recent neighborhood meeting, Mr. Patrick Biker of Morning Star Law Group has acknowledged speaking with me at length about the annexation, but has characterized me as misunderstanding him regarding our conversation about his client's future plans for this site. I assure you that I am not confused and the specific details provided to me privately and directedly by Mr. PAR are inconsistent with both his own and the applicant's public statements about no new development.
During our conversation, Mr. Biker explicitly informed me that plans for a new development are underway. He specifically stated that conversations have already begun with Orange County Board of Commissioners, three of them, and the director of Orange County Planning. While these conversations are informal, he reported that they were wellreceived. But at the required second neighborhood
meeting in November, Mr. Biker denied future development plans. He pivoted to the standard no proposals at this time defense. Additionally, when asked by another resident at the same meeting, when would we find out about plans to develop the rest of the property?
Mr. " The applicant seems to be pursuing annexation in Durham first to improve chances of annexation and developing the rest of the parcel in Orange County, possibly as a response to the council's unanimous rejection of Mariah Rich. >> Sorry, ma'am, your two minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you. [snorts] >> A Bruce Olive.
I'm Bruce Oliver. I reside at 5821 Mount Sai Road in Durham. I too have a history in this neighborhood um having moved there in 1958. Um I'm opposing this basically uh on a procedural concern that it appears to be a peacemeal annexation application designed to secure public infrastructure now while shielding the applicant's true long-term intent.
And history actually uh has something to teach us. Um, in 1966, and and Lee has already talked about this, the Roberts brothers attempted and in fact succeeded in building an unpermitted, it was unpermitted at that time, apartment complex. They built first, they asked permission later. It was fought fiercely at the time by local Durham attorney Billy B.
Olive, my father. I was 11 at the time. The project was effectively halted
midstream. Three buildings completed. Two remaining pads actually are there now at the footings poured stage and they've stood there for 60 years as a testament to to the inappropriateness of the development. I think we can't let this current application gloss over this history.
I think the uh the strategy of securing annexation before disclosing the full development plan mirrors the behavior that history has has has shown us by asking for a utility connection while stating that there are no proposals at this time. The applicant is essentially asking for a blank check given the historic lack of transparency at this site. I urge you to deny this peacemeal annexation and demand the applicant submit their full development plan for public review before granting them any access to city resources. Thank you, commissioners. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Is there
anybody on the Zoom that wishes to speak on this item? Please use the raise your hand function. Ken Pew Can you hear me? >> I can.
>> Can you hear me? >> Yes. Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
Please state your address for the record. >> My name is Ken Pew of Durham. Address on file. I would like to raise three concerns regarding the Curly Gardens proposal.
First, the water connection for Curly Gardens is planned to extend service to an Orange County building where the laundry facility is located. This effectively pushes the urban growth boundary outward, a policy the city council has unanimously opposed. If the laundry continued to operate its existing well located in Orange County, this would not arise. Second, the developer has not been
transparent about the rationale for annexation. Engineering drawings were prepared before the sale was finalized and they show a 6 in pipe connecting to the water man. That size is well beyond the 3 to 4 in typically required for 36 units. No explanation has been provided for this oversizing, leaving the community to speculate.
Third, the stated purpose of the annexation, according to the neighborhood meeting, is to reduce well monitoring costs and preserve naturally occurring affordable housing. No cost estimates were shared. Publicly available information suggests monitoring costs are in the range of 500 to 1,000 per year. By contrast, annexation would add approximately 44,000 in annual property taxes. Sore savings from avoiding the double county rate might be be 18,000 a year. The net impact is an additional burden of roughly 26,000 annually translating to
about $800 more per unit per year. That outcome does not align with the goal of affordability and there have been no document paid intentions to maintain rates for tenants with its upgrade. I urge you to question the developer on these points before moving forward. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Malora McCall. >> Hi, Malora McCall. Address on file. Arrowhead is primarily a rural community that exists at the intersection of important ecological and regional systems.
New Hope Creek, significant voluntary agricultural districts, Duke Forest Research Land, and the Orange County rural buffer. This corridor has recently seen proposals to extend Durham's corporate boundary, inclusive of the need to expand utility service into neighboring jurisdictions. Residents in the area have previously requested the planning department consider prioritization for a small area
plan. We simply ask that proposals for growth in this uniquely sensitive area occur transparently and consistently with adopted plans. Per policy 165, annexations should demonstrate community benefit, and this is not intended to be satisfied by generalized statements. We also understand that once annexed, the property would be eligible for the forthcoming UDO for additional units by right given the age and condition of the building.
Redevelopment is highly foreseeable. I believe this possibility should be acknowledged openly during the annexation review and not discovered after the fact. As neighboring residents, the request is simple. That the commission require clarity from the applicant regarding one, whether redevelopment is anticipated once annexation is secured, and two, whether future annexation of the Orange County parcels is expected and/or being pursued.
When we've asked about the future plans, we've repeatedly heard quote no proposals made at this time. We understand that development is complex, but honesty is not. It's extremely difficult for a community to participate constructively when the information received is inconsistent, incomplete, or
appears tailored to minimize scrutiny. Arrowhead residents are not asking for special treatment. We're asking for truthful, forthright engagement from the professionals who come into our neighborhood and ask us to support major changes. Given the history in this quarter, we believe the commission has every reason to require transparent on there answers before moving forward.
Thank you. Anybody else on the Zoom would wish to speak on this item, please use the raise your hand function. Good. Seeing nobody else.
Anybody else? N galler. Nope. Okay. The chair is now closing the public hearing. And
open for commissioner or would the applicant like to respond to some of these questions? Reopen the public hearing. >> Yes. the the reason um again Patrick Biker for our uh team with Leah Bergman um there's a consent judgment in place that does not allow the city of Durham to annex into Orange County at this location.
Accordingly, the annexation only goes to the Orange County line. all these events that happened back in the 60s or policies or or ration. If there was a legitimate basis to recommend denial on this annexation, it' be in your staff report. And I don't think you're going to find anything in that staff report that justifies a vote against this proposal.
Leah Bergman. Uh it was also Dan Juel, other folks working with us. Other
we did meet with a few of the count Orange County commissioners to discuss property Leah Bergman owns in Orange County. We were completely transparent about that. We have no problem discussing it. The First Amendment allows us to discuss these issues with our elected representatives in Orange County.
Uh, however, we're before the Durham County, Durham, City of Durham Planning Commission, and we respectfully asked for your recommendation of approval. Uh, at again, we had those discussions. We elected not to proceed with anything. And again, in order to annex across the county line, there'd have to be a modification of a consent judgment between the town of Chapel Hill and the city of Durham.
And that has not happened. And to my knowledge, nobody's even talking about it. So, um, we really can't comment on what happened back in 1966 or thereabouts. Uh, we were totally transparent about what happened.
Keep in mind these buildings exist. There's 36 units that accept housing choice vouchers and it's already on city sewer. All we're asking for is annexation or to connect to city water,
uh, which we all agree would be safer and in the long run we believe more cost effective for our residents. Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. Please, Leah.
Thank you all. Um I want to be very clear. It is not our intention to redevelop or tear down these 36 units are there. The gentleman on the phone, uh Mr.
Pew, I believe he made a comment about the cost of a city of maintaining a wellwater. He thought it was $1,000 a year. Try that's the monthly testing bill for it. And with city water being so close, it just seems like it makes perfect sense to me to be able to do that.
Um it's just more reliable. You know, maintaining a public well is not a cheap venture. Um my sewer rates are also higher with those with those property not being on city water. That is my intention to ask for that today is that we can run we are only here or in my mind we are only here to
discuss running a city waterline down Curly Road at my expense which over the long term will be more cost savings to me. We did acquire this property earlier this year and that is my I I was surprised that nobody had done that before. It just didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I knew it was on wellwater when I acquired it.
Um but but that's what we're here to discuss today and to ask for your permission and it's been explained to me via Patrick that we have to ask for this annexation to run the water line down. >> Sorry, one one point madam chair I forgot to make. The size of the water line is determined by the city in the utility extension agreement. That's actually not up to our team.
The city specifies that because it's going to be a public water line. It'll be taken over for maintenance by the city of Durham. So the size of the water line that Mr. Pew referred to it it's determined by the city's um public works department water management department not by the
developer. >> Hope that answers your question. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> The chair is now closing the public hearing. Do we have we are open for commissioner discussion. Is there any questions or comments from commissioners? I have a question. Um, and you might have just addressed that with the cost of the public well that you have to maintain because the point was made that the city taxes would in be 800 a month or whatever. But if that is the same cost already for maintaining the well, I just want to make sure that the affordable housing aspect of this project isn't compromised by this annexation due to taxes.
>> No. And it isn't a voluntary it's a voluntary affordable housing. You know, that's just who we are. We have a thousand units in the triangle and we take housing joy vouchers here in Wake County and Durham County.
It's just who we are. We also take, you know, private pay. We we do it all. We we believe in integrated communities.
Um but my my ultimate fear too with having a well is, you know, you don't know if a well pump's going to go out. I grew up on farms, you know, and it's it's one thing to tell me to fill up a clean water trough to and that's how we're going to flush the toilet for the next 5 days, you know, try telling 36 residents that. I I I just don't like the thought of that as being an owner operator of the riskiness of of having a public well. >> All right. Thank you. May I [snorts] have a motion to move case Z 25
triple021A BDG25 triple013 Curly Gardens forward with a favorable recommendation. Chair Shagaras regarding case 25 Z250021A-BG250013 Curly Gardens. I move that we forward this case to city council with a favorable recommendation for approval. >> Second.
It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. May we have the electronic voting, please? The motion passes 11 to zero. >> Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is Z25 quadruple05A-BG25 quadruple 03 3600 Pine View Circle. May we have the staff report, please? >> Good evening, Chair Shagaras, Vice Chair Cameron, and planning commissioners. My name is Payton Burgess and I am here tonight to present Z250000005A 3600 Pine View Circle.
The request is for a direct translational reszoning of residential suburban 20 located at 3600 Pine View Circle. 88 acre property to construct an addition an additional single family home, though the zoning would allow for up to an additional two units. Again, the existing zoning is residential suburban 20. The lot is surrounded by the same.
The aerial map shows the general location of the project located off Picket Road. The property is currently designated recreation and open space on the place type map. Despite the zoning district not changing, the request for annexation and ability to access water and sewer services would make it easier to construct additional units, making the recommended established residential place type more appropriate. No neighborhood meetings were required for this request and one comment has been received against this proposal on the Durham resoning explorer.
The proposal is consistent with three of five applicable comprehensive plan policies and if the proposed zoning gets approved, staff would recommend a new place type of established residential. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. >> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please?
Oh, okay. It's my first time, so >> yes, please state your name and address for the record. >> Yeah. Good evening, Chair Shagaras, um, Vice Chair Cameron and Planning Commissioners.
My name is Gurep Sidu. Uh, my address is 207 Caramar Lane in Durham and I am the applicant. Uh, Miss Burgess, thank you. And Mr.
Ken, uh, thank you for helping me navigate the application process. Uh, I appreciate your help. Um, quick overview. Um, the geographic overview.
The closest landmark um, to our lot is Mark Jacobs and Toyota. Uh, Picket Road runs parallel to and north of 15501. Pine View Circle is just off Pickicket Road. So that gives you a general idea of where we are. A Pine View Circle is a paved road
with public access. City water and sewer run all along Pine View Circle and along Picket Road. Utility poles already exist on the north and south end of our property. A utility extension agreement UEA is already in place.
88 acre lot. The house was built in 2023 and my son lives in that lot. You can check the city water bill and um you'll see our name on it. 88 acres in all. The rest of the land was left untouched.
wildlife continues to flourish and the closest neighbor is at least 150 feet of tree buffer between our house and their house. That land is not touched. The next four points go into why we would like to get our land annexed by the city. We would like to build our house on the same lot.
The the goal is to go with a multi-generational living concept where our son and us when we retire live on the same property. We have petitioned for city to annex our land because we need a new water meter. We cannot build a house unless we get a water meter. Obviously, there's always the choice to go well and septic because it's still county land, but we prefer to be on city water and sewer. The UEA utility extension agreement is already
in place. Uh there is no financial cost to the city when we connect to the city water and sewer. 88 acres is subdivided into two lots. We're not trying to make a subdivision there.
We're just asking to split it into two lots. 88 acres is annexed by the city. That's just the way the rules are. So the annexation has to happen first then the lot can be subdivided.
Once the lot is subdivided then we can get a new water meter. So that is the you know that is the main reason we are requesting it. Traffic concerns uh miss Thomas has concluded that a TIA traffic impact analysis report is not needed.
this section of Pine View Circle, it's like a semicircle. So, this section of Pine View Circle only has six houses on it. Um, adding a seventh house, which also um will probably be retired by then, is not going to increase traffic u anymore than than it is. Um, since we built the house on the intersection of Pine View Circle and Pickicket Road, um, I have emailed confirmation from at least two of the neighbors who have really appreciated the curb appeal of Pine View Circle and Pickicket Road.
Um, if as I stated earlier, Pine View Circle is county land. The city lawnmowers never mowed the land along P on the intersection of Pickicket Road and Pine View Circle. With repeated emails from one of the neighbors, maybe once a year, the county
crew would come and mow that land. So, it almost looked like an abandoned piece of land right in the heart of the city. Uh we try to maintain that at our own expense. Um, I'm not going to claim the full credit, but the recent property evaluations data does not lie.
The recent property evaluations, you can look at Pine View Circle, and I'll take some credit for the spike in everyone's property appreciated after we built that house. We put them on the map. In closing, I'll just summarize by saying that the end goal of our application is simply a new water meter. The UEA is already in place. It's deeded recorded on the property and there's no financial cost to the city. I respectfully petition for your
recommendation of approval and thanks for your consideration. I'll save four minutes in case of a rebuttal. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Are there any community members in person? Gilbert Jackson. >> Yes. Please state your name and address for the record.
>> My name is Gilbert Jackson and I live at 3618 Pine View New Circle, Durham, North Carolina. Uh my wife and I, Judith, who's here with me today, uh we live at the 3600 Pine View Circle, [snorts] which is I mean at 3618 Pine Circle, which is adjacent to the lot, Mr. Gardep's lot. [snorts] Um
uh and they are the ones requesting that the property be changed to residential residential suburban 20 city jurisdiction. The zoning map change report for 3600 Pine Viewer Circle seems to indicate the two units which which was just verified will be allowed. 88 88 acres lot is in an thank you is in an AE flood plane. Before any houses can be built, it would have to be filled in mostly with uh dirt.
88 acres lot onto mine and my wife's property at 3618 Pine View Circle, resulting in increased flooding at 3618 Pine View Circle. Hurricane Fran, I don't know if y'all remember Hurricane Fran, flooded our house to within approximately nine inches of the top of our finished floor. Uh that was the 100red-year flood plane. I found out then where the 100red-year
flood plane was located. [snorts] Uh most recently, Hurricane Shantel flooded our property up to the second step of our front porch. Uh we asked that you Let me Here we go. Yeah, we ask that you deny Mr.
City's request to change the property at 3600 Pine View Circle to residential suburban 20 city jurisdiction and deny the building of any additional housing on the lot at 3600 Pine View Circle. 1 states, "The primary purpose of the flood plane and flood damage protection standards is to preserve and maintain the natural flood plane in an Finish and undisturbed vegetated state in order to maintain flood storage capacity, control storm water, improve water quality, and conserve plant and wildlife habitat. Additionally, these
standards serve to promote public health, safety, and general welfare and to minim minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions within flood plane areas. >> Thank you. >> We couldn't have said it better ourselves. Thank you.
>> Two minutes are up. >> If anybody else in person or on the Zoom wish to speak, please use the raise your hand function. No. Would the applicant care to respond to the neighbor's concerns?
>> I saved I saved four minutes of my time earlier as well. Uh, thanks Royale for for your input. I have no intention of either hurting you or Judith. I have no intention.
I have no intention of hurting you or Judith. We are neighbors and we want to continue living like neighbors. But I do want to clear one thing Rolley. I'm going to look at you when I address. I
88 acres of land. First of all, the cost is prohibitive. As you know, the house when we built the house, we only cleared. 2 acres.
You can look in Google Maps and see that hardly anything's cleared. No water flow has been changed. wildlife is asis. In fact, this summer there was a snake bite right across from your house.
And the neighbor the neighbor who whose dog got bit, he requested the city to clear the land because we we never touched it. That's what happened. Steve Steve's dog got bit. Now that there are two different issues really. One is getting a water meter and the second is making the house, right? you your premise you have assumed incorrectly that we are going to landfill and raise the raise the level
and the water is going to come to your house. FEMA guidelines suggest that you can build a house on stilts the entire eastern coast of North Carolina the houses are in flood zone and they are raised without any landfill. Right. The second point that I want to clear is when we dis when we submitted our application to the planning department, we have a professional surveyor Sam Billings who licensed and who surveyed the entire property and he earmarked a section which is buildable which does not affect the 50 ft um buffer for every stream and the and the and that has been submitted uh to the planning department uh by a licensed uh surveyor. So your premise that uh um which is unfounded that the stream buffer will be affected
is first of all you're not a surveyor really and you cannot go against what a surveyor has already documented. That's all I have to say. So to the commissioners my my while Roelly is my neighbor and he has the right to say what he said. I do have a right to express that I am not a getting a water connection is completely independent of getting a building permit.
They're two different issues. Roelly is trying to mix the building permit and the water connection into one thing. That's not true. The building permit is governed by by the planning department and that building permit is based on the FEMA guidelines. And the FEMA guidelines clearly state that you can you can use stilts to raise the house and and the amount of uh the the base flood elevation of that
land is 263 feet. And the and the the um house has to be raised only up to 265 ft which is the regulatory fin regulatory limit and you can go two more feet above that. Most houses in Durham have a crawl space that is more than 4 ft. If your deck at the back of your house has more than six steps then you're all your house is already more than 4t.
That's hard to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other All right.
Nobody on the Zoom. The chair is now closing the public. Okay. Mrs. Mrs. Jackson,
>> Judith Lingler, same address. Is this Do I need to do anything here? >> Yeah. Step up to the mic, please.
Okay. Yep. And state your name and address for the record. >> One tiny point, and that is that um before they built the existing the existing house on the property.
Um, we had redheaded woodpeckers everywhere when that lot was was cleared. They like dead trees and things. We've had no red redheaded woodpeckers since. So, um, I just wanted to make that point.
>> Thank you. Any other comments? Nope. All right.
The chair is closing the public hearing. Are there any commissioner comments or questions? Commissioner Chicowski? >> Uh, thank you, Chair. I have a question for for staff. Uh, do y'all anticipate that that annexing this property is going to encourage additional small satellite annexation requests in the
area? I mean, it would technically increase the um city limit so that more property is adjacent to an existing satellite. Um but as far as that being something that would sway a homeowner to annex, I don't know how much that would impact their decision. >> Perfect.
Thank you. That's helpful. >> Any other commissioner comments, questions? Nope.
Okay. May I have a motion to move case Z25 quadruple05 A BDG 25 quadruple 03 Pine View Circle forward with a favorable recommendation. Chairas regarding case number Z25
cartridle05A-BG2503 3600 [clears throat] Pine View Circle. I move that we forward this case to city council with the favorable recommendation for approval. >> Second. >> It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation.
May we have the electronic voting please. >> The motion passes 9 to2. >> Thank you. Next item on the agenda is Z. 25 quadruple 09A-BG25
quadruple06 938 mlam drive. May we have the staff report, please? Good evening, Chair Shagaras, Vice Chair Cameron, and planning commissioners. My name is Payton Burgess and I am here tonight to present Z25 0000009A 938 McLam.
The request is for a direct translational reszoning of residential suburban 20 located at 938 McLam. The request would allow a recently constructed single family home to connect to water and sewer. The existing zoning is residential suburban 20. 949.
The aerial map shows the general location of the project. The property is currently designated established residential on the place type map. The proposed zoning was determined to be consistent with the
place type. No neighborhood meetings were required for this request and no comments have been received on the Durham Rezoning Explorer. The proposal is consistent with five of five applicable comprehensive plan policies and is consistent with the place type map designation of established residential. Thank you.
Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. >> Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please?
>> Hello, my name is Joan Corno. address uh 906 Arvin Road, Durham, North Carolina. Um as Miss Payne said, we're just requesting to connect to the city so that we can have sewer and water connection. >> Thank you. There any other community members in
person wishing to speak? Anybody on the Zoom wishing to speak on this item? 938 Mclam Drive. Please use the raise your hand function.
Seeing nobody, the chair is closing the public hearing. Commissioner comments and questions. Uh, seeing no comments or questions. [snorts] Such a lot. Yes. May I have a motion to move case Z25 quadruple 09A-BG25 quadruple06 938 McLam drive forward with a favorable recommendation chair Shagaras regarding case Z2509A-BG2506 938 Mclam Drive.
I move that we forward this case to city council with a favorable recommendation for approval. >> Second. >> It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward. May we have electronic voting, please?
The motion passes 11 to zero. Thank you. Next item seven, new business. Any new business?
>> No. No new business. Any committee updates? UDO subcommittee?
Commissioner Chicowski. >> Thank you, Chair. Yes, we had our our first meeting uh with with staff, which is enormously helpful. Uh I think the the the chair of of the subcommittee is out uh after the birth of of his second child.
And so just want to say congratulations to him and his family and and we'll have more updates uh in the following meetings. >> Thank you. Nine. Any staff announcements?
No staff announcements. 10. Adjournment. The meeting is adjourned at 6:37.