Durham Planning Commission · Regular Meeting · March 28, 2023

good afternoon welcome to the Durham Planning Commission the members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory body to the elected officials I have the wrong statement put up on my laptop you should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight while this meeting is being conducted in person it is also accessible using the zoom virtual meeting platform in the virtual meeting platform public participants do not have the ability to talk or be seen on video by default to maintain meeting decorum and a discernible record of the meeting the chat function has been disabled for those attending in person if you plan to speak on an agenda item tonight

please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak when speaking please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium and please speak directly into the microphone specifically for tonight if you are coming to speak in general about the urban growth boundary there is a sign up sheet specifically for that if you are a person that has personal or family property interest and one of the specific sites that we will be discussing tonight there is a dedicated sign up sheet for each of those nine sites we are wanting to prioritize hearing from people who will be directly impacted by discussions that are had around those boundaries tonight and for those that have broader comments on whether or not the urban growth boundary should be restricted or expanded we want to we'll have those comments held separately since that is kind of a broader issue and not directly tied to

specific property if you are attending the meeting virtually you will be given the time to speak at the appropriate time if you have pre-registered your name will be called for you to make your comments just like in an in-person public hearing you may also call in during the meeting tonight by dialing one 301-715-8592 if you call in during the meeting you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you are interested in starts after all the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments I will ask if there's 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 throughout the process to draft a new comprehensive plan materials and engagement opportunities have been provided in English and Spanish in order to increase language access for the

community in keeping with that simultaneous interpretation in Spanish will be provided for all public hearings related to the comprehensive plan both in person and virtually for all other meetings interpretation will continue to be available upon request I also like to remind folks because we are having simultaneous interpretation it is helpful to speak slowly to give the interpreters time to properly translate what we're saying finally all motions are stated in the affirmative so if emotion fails or ties the recommendation is for denial thank you and may we have roll call good evening chair mandolia here Vice chair Cameron here commissioner Baker your commissioner cut right here commissioner shagaris here commissioner Davis is running a little late and is on his way

commissioner MacGyver here commissioner Morgan here commissioner C snow to notified us that he will not be here this evening and sent his comments ahead of time commissioner Trapp here commissioner Valentine here commissioner Carmen Williams here commissioner Zuri Williams here thank you foreign with that we will go ahead and start moving towards our public hearing for the night um one note for everyone um we are having some internet bandwidth problems and so to help us manage that if you could not connect to the Wi-Fi that would be incredible understanding that this is also a place where there's free Wi-Fi access if this is your chance to get Wi-Fi I understand

if you need to stay on it but if possible and able keeping the Wi-Fi as open as possible so our virtual participants stay connected would be very much appreciated okay we are going to go ahead and dive into our only agenda item for the night which is on the comprehensive plan and we'll begin with a presentation by staff before we get into that presentation I did want to say a couple of things just to frame the conversation that we're having tonight because I know there are a lot of folks that are very invested in this conversation for various reasons and one thing I just want to make clear is nothing is going to be definitive tonight we're not making final decisions tonight we are an advisory body we're looking at this from a policy lens and we are going to have a discussion about what we think the policy direction should be with each

of these areas related to the urban growth boundary but the final decisions are still going to be contemplated and discussed after it leaves us because the governing bodies the city council and the County Board of Commissioners they'll they have the final say so this is not your last chance to talk about this and to have your input had in the process we're going to have a couple more public hearings here and then there's going to be more conversation with city council and County Commissioners we expect that this will get to the governing bodies in August so we have several months to have more conversations about this um so I just wanted to frame that up front don't stress this isn't your last opportunity um and also I want to just frame like this is a policy decision and we're going to be talking about what direction we think is best for the staff to take city council and County Commissioners

may decide a different policy Direction and that is their right and so take what we're saying seriously because we care about Durham and we want to invest in making a great Community also keep in mind we're not making any definitive decisions tonight we are giving our best recommendation and we have a wide range of reasonings and backgrounds that go into that with that Steph are we ready for our presentation apologies I just fell off the Wi-Fi just give me a second to rejoin

thank you okay I think we're ready uh hello everyone my name is Carl kalasna and I'm a senior planner with the Durham City County Planning Department I'm with the community planning team who's been working on the new comprehensive plant since 2019. so this evening I'm going to give a quick overview of the closeout of our last engagement phase on the comprehensive plan then I'm going to give some background and context on what will be our main discussion tonight the growth management strategy for the plan and specifically the urban growth boundary then I'll hand it over to Scott Whiteman who will do a deep dive into a set of nine decision points based on feedback received during this engagement phase and particularly at the February

28th hearing of the Planning Commission regarding the urban growth boundary uh for this meaning of the Planning Commission staff is seeking guidance on the nine specific decision points we'll be sharing any comments on the overall Place type map and also to give guidance and suggestions to help staff prepare for the discussion on the comprehensive plan policies actions and implementation framework at the upcoming May meeting so our final phase of Engagement our final phase of public engagement before the formal adoption process began in late January uh with Excuse me minimize this uh began in late January with the release of a full draft comprehensive plan and the start of online engagement staff hosted four open house sessions and two virtual sessions one in English and one in Spanish for residents to get familiar with the full content of the plan ask questions take a brief survey and learn more about the formal adoption process

staff also attended 10 Community meetings listed here this final engagement phase including the online survey closed on March 20th and going forward additional resident input will be heard through the public hearing and adoption process uh as the engagement phase closed recently staff is still organizing and reviewing all the comments we've received we'll share more details about the responses particularly comments related to the policies and actions at the May meeting in the meantime here are some quick numbers of residents who participated in different engagement opportunities during this phase staff has also received at this point more than 100 emails regarding the urban growth boundary particularly after the February 28th Planning Commission hearing the Planning Commission has been cc'd on these communications the majority of these comments are from residents who want to keep the urban growth boundary as is shown in the current draft of the plan and specifically not to add some properties

back into the urban growth growth boundary as some Property Owners requested at the February 28th Planning Commission hearing um most of our discussion today will be around the growth management strategy in the final plan the growth management strategy informs how the city and county make decisions about where to direct new development what infrastructure to invest in and what kinds of development to approve overall the plan states that there are three broad strategies that Durham should use together along with the place type map to limit City expansion manage orderly growth and development particularly on the edges of the city and encourage small scale changes in existing neighborhoods these strategies are the 15-minute Community the urban growth boundary and the future growth areas we'll look at the overall Place type map and then to go into each of those three strategies so a foundational piece of the plans growth management strategy is the place type map the place type map will replace the future land use map that we use now

and creates more categories that are more specific yet Broad and flexible to describe what kinds of development is desired there are 20 Place type categories with Associated detail in the plan we envisioned that the place types will be translated and further detailed as zoning districts either revisions to existing districts or new districts in the upcoming unified development ordinance rewrite as a note two of the decisions that we'll be sharing tonight are related specifically to what place type designation a couple of parcels should have and are not related to the urban growth boundary to our knowledge these are the only outstanding Place type map designation proposals that staff has received that have not already been incorporated into the map if there are any other General comments on the place type map from the Planning Commission we would request that feedback at this meeting thank you so over the course of community engagement on the plan we've repeatedly heard a desire from residents to be able to access daily needs within a 15-minute

walk bike or ride on Transit Durham's overall development pattern over the years has segregated land uses which segregates people and leaves communities isolated disconnected and reliant on cars there are a lot of benefits to having our existing communities incrementally add the things they need to increase access equitably to housing jobs Transit grocery stores Green spaces and so on and ensuring new communities prioritize this as well this 15-minute Community concept shows up in the policies actions and growth management strategy and especially in how the place types are mapped across the community the play site map shows and describes where for example context sensitive commercial and Retail opportunities could be incorporated into existing communities the next strategy and the one we'll be spending the most time discussing today is the use of an urban growth boundary to limit City expansion the urban growth boundary is a line Beyond which annexation and utility extension should not occur limiting significant

development beyond the boundary within the county the proposed Urban growth boundary is smaller than the previously approved Suburban tier since 2005 when the Suburban tier was established many areas on the edge of the city but within the Suburban tier have been annexed into the City and new development has occurred there particularly in the Southeast portion of Durham that development is in line with what the 2005 comprehensive plan envisions and it shows how much of an impact an urban growth boundary can make this map shows the proposed Urban growth boundary in a dark brown outline the last of the three main growth management strategies is the creation of future growth areas these future growth areas work alongside the urban growth boundary these areas could become the next places to see development activity and are generally found on the fringes of the city limits shown as the red highlighted cross-hatched areas on the map here future growth areas are part of Durham within the urban growth boundary that are currently undeveloped or

sparsely developed and that need critical infrastructure upgrades like water sewer or Friar service to serve new development these infrastructure upgrades could be provided through city and county departments long-range service planning funding the city and county Capital Improvement programs or development by private investment when development is proposed for these areas specific funding mechanisms for critical infrastructure will need to accompany that development future growth areas are represented as discrete areas shown in the cross hatch on the place type map with Place types underneath to give guidance on what would eventually be desired in each areas an example of this is shown on the map on the right uh there are a couple of terms and concepts related to the urban growth boundary discussion that we want to explain before we jump into specific areas so that we all have the same understanding first the Suburban development tier the Suburban tier is a line that was established in the 2005 comprehensive plan the concepts behind

8 square miles during the course of Engagement

we've also heard from a number of property owners who wish to be added back into the urban growth boundary and we will be going into those requests in detail tonight as a point of clarification these requests from Property Owners to be added back into the urban growth boundary are in effect a request to stay as is as they were previously or currently in the Suburban tier not to expand the boundary also even if every request we've received to date by Property Owners to be added back into the urban growth boundary were ultimately approved by elected officials later this year this would still result in an overall reduction of the urban growth boundary as compared to the currently adopted Suburban tier the decision here is on how much to reduce the urban growth boundary overall there is not any proposal to overall increase the urban growth boundary acreage as compared to the existing Suburban tier so for various reasons there are some properties in Durham County that are either on City water or sewer or both Services despite being beyond the

8 square miles

6 percent of the total land area of Durham County an initial letter was sent out to each of these 660 Property Owners on February 14th a follow-up letter was sent out on March 15th addressing some frequent questions staff had received in response to the first letter and both of these letters are included in your agenda packet as attachment 6. so I'm going to hand this over to Scott Whiteman now who will be going through the nine decision points in detail thank you thank you Carl hey Scott before you start can you remind me um is the in are you presenting these and then we're going to discuss them or are we going to like discuss them one by one as you go through them right now so

we're going to go through each of the nine areas briefly and try to kind of frame the decision points on those um and then we can come back and talk about them in more detail later okay thank you so the constraints of PowerPoint make it a little bit challenging to see all on one screen we recommend that you follow with the maps included in attachment seven as you can zoom into them with a PDF reader the first page of that document has a key legend and we will call it the proposed Place types each map has an alternating black and white dashed line showing the alternative Urban growth boundary alignment and alternative Place types so when the first Carl mentioned when the first draft of the place type map was released staff recommended replacing the Suburban tier from the 2005 comprehensive plan with an urban growth boundary that serves a similar purpose we use the Suburban tier as a default

for the new Urban growth boundary but did propose some reductions in the urban growth boundary where there were environmental issues particularly the location of a critical watershed and Sewer Service was not already present it also included a few other administrative changes to think places where for example we've had annexation boundaries with our neighbors that have changed since the 2005 comprehensive plan because there is General support for higher densities and infill development after the initial Place type round of Engagement staff recommended further reductions to the urban growth boundary removing areas of on the edge of the Suburban tier that would require construction of a new lift station to serve with public sewer so for those who don't know a lift station is basically how a public sewer system gets around the issue of how to get sewage to go uphill so it's a kind of important way that we serve sewer and win our city is not shaped like a perfect

Bowl so this is typically done by either a developer or the city because the urban growth boundary is primarily a tool that guides the extension of utilities these were the only areas that could be feasibly removed to meet the goal of reducing Durham's future Urban footprint because the remainder of the Suburban tier already had at least some sewer service available as stated in the policies and place type guide most of the land in these areas recommended to be outside of the urban growth boundary is designated as Rural and agricultural Reserve for any area that is added back to the urban growth boundary new place types will need to be applied to the rural and agricultural Reserve designated properties staff has recommended mixed-use neighborhood or mixed residential neighborhood for most of these properties the commission is also in addition to the location of the urban growth boundary the commission is also

requested to give staff feedback on these designations as well so we wanted to be very clear that these these proposed changes are not stats recommendation we promised at the last meeting that we would take the comments we heard about specific areas or properties on the map and come back with the ability to talk about them in more detail we do have one recommended staff change that I'll cover in a little bit but these are mostly intended to Daylight the requests that we've heard from residents and landowners so I think one important point to bring up is the urban growth that boundary is part of the overall growth management policy of the comprehensive plan but it is not law the plan policies include criteria for requesting changes to the urban growth boundary which are by Design intended to be difficult to achieve also important to note is just because the property was

designated in the Suburban tier currently does not mean the city was planning or had plans to bring Sewer Service to that most sewer extensions are provided and funded by either a developer or the landowner that let's move we'll move to the first area so this is the stagville old Oxford area which is in Northeast Durham so the Aryan question is next slide there we go is entirely or mostly owned by the same property owner it was part of the overall trade burn master plan but this portion has not been built out over the years for a variety of reasons but one is there have no sewer capacity issues in the treyburn area um there is additional area that's adjacent

to this that is currently in Suburban tier that's also being recommended to be removed from the urban growth boundary that we have not to date her concerns about Carl if you can go to the next slide it might make that a little easier to see so it's the um the kind of the northeast corner that you see on this slide the the pink is the proposed Urban growth boundary the solid line is the current Suburban to your boundary so the rest of the area alongside north and east of stackville Road includes mostly the the bulk of it is the Horton Grove Nature Preserve and the stagwell Historic Site so this is the one in the area of of potential change that does include critical area of the uh of Falls Lake um you can see it's a little hard to see but there's a blue line on this map that shows to to the east of the blue

line is the Falls Lake critical area meaning it's within one mile of Falls Lake to the west of the blue line is in the Falls Lake protected area so next we have the Farrington Mill Road area this area is in Southwest Durham so this this is another area that has known sewer issues there have been there's one large property on several smaller properties that are within this area the larger property has had some attempted development proposals that have not been able to find unacceptable sewer solution to date I will note that there is a pending rezoning and annexation request for that property that is in now this was this request was submitted after the draft of the placetime map that removed this area from the urban growth manager was released so at the end the applicant was made aware of that regardless of whatever decision the

commission makes and eventually the city council and County Commission make on this area the that application will have to be acted on separately foreign the next slide this is this has effectively if if this area were added back to the urban growth boundary it would bring it back out to the extent of where the Suburban tier is in this uh part of the county so Nick we have the Peterson Road area in East Durham this area there were multiple property owners at the last hearing who requested to have this added back to the urban growth boundary uh it does it is mostly larger properties and staff would note that this of all the areas we're considering this is the one that's closest to Commercial Services since it's it's right off Highway 98.

this one would also bring the urban growth boundary back out to the extent of the Suburban tier so next we have the cheek Road redwood Redwood Road area also in East Durham so this area we did hear from at the last hearing from the largest landowner in the area who had had future plans to develop their property this area like all the others would require a new lift station through a lift station to serve the entire area and it would need to connect connect to existing City lift stations that are already at or near capacity here again shows the existing Suburban tier there are also some properties to the south of cheek road which we did not include in the decision point for tonight because they would they drain in the other direction require a different sewer solution

so next we have the Snow Hill Road area in Northeast Durham so this one is a little bit different there are water and sewer lines that run through Snow Hill Road however these are main distribution lines for both the sewer and water system that don't allow individual connections so in order to develop each of these properties there would have to be additional sewer lines extended to those properties the biggest the property with likely the most development potential is the McFarland Farm which is kind of a Roundup all the properties surrounding the intersection of infinity and Snow Hill Road it's about 80 acres that property has a county-owned agricultural easement that prevents any development on that property other than agricultural uses so the remaining properties tend to be in the 5 to 15 acre range and do not have the same level of development potential we also heard since the February 28th

hearing we did hear from at least one resident in the Snow Valley and Riverbend Estates neighborhoods but sort of the subdivisions in the southern end of this area with concerns about the rural and agricultural Reserve designation and the losing the ability to connect to seawater and Sewer so the last of the urban growth boundary issues we have to cover tonight is the arrowhead area in West Durham in case you curious It's So named because it kind of looks like an arrowhead so this area is currently in the rural tier this would be this would be the one that would represent an extension of the urban growth boundary into what is not currently in the Suburban tier so there are no this one is not this area

is not in a critical Watershed it doesn't have any significant surface issues but was removed as a policy decision prior to the last comprehensive plan removed from the urban growth boundary Steph initially recommended this adding this to the urban growth boundary in the first draft of the place type map we heard quite a few comments from residents in the area that they would prefer that he'd stay out and because our analysis showed that we did not need this to meet our housing we did not need development in this area to meet our projected housing needs we were making recommended leaving leaving it out in the next draft there's actually in the Airhead area does have three distinct areas the first the northern half or two-thirds and north of the dotted line it drains in one direction to the north in the East we have not heard from any Property Owners requesting to be added to the urban growth boundary in that

area so we would recommend not for we have no proposal to add that back into the urban growth boundary or add it to the urban growth boundary south of that are two areas that would drain in the other direction and could be served by existing city services the one in the the small area in the lower Southwestern corner includes the Montvale subdivision which the staff report said was on seawater which is not correct it's not served by city water it does have a private sewer lines and sewer pump station which are connected to the city service system so that so that area has existing sewer service that could potentially serve it the rest of the area would need to Reliance extended to it so there's we divided that into basically three distinct areas for your consideration

so next one change occurs slightly and talk about one of the future growth areas so this the southeast future growth area was released as part of the Southeastern Focus area which was if you're called was a and um a preview of the rest of the comprehensive plan that was developed in early 2021 as a a way to provide some initial and interim guidance on the amount of development cases we were considering in that area the city and county were considering that area um it was designated future growth area because based on the information we had at the time that area could not meet or would have difficulty meeting fire response times based on the location of the nearest fire station um and they're intervening months years and as many of you remember there has been there was a requested rezoning that it

was in part of this area it was eventually well the annexation was denied by city council which made the reasoning moot um but at that time the fire department determined that they could adequately serve that that parcel and all the other ones in the Northeast area of this um of the Southeast future growth area so we would based on that information we'd recommend removing that from the future growth area we did hear some concerns from the development Community about the entire future growth area since the uh it is based solely on um fire coverage and that the development of a fire station could happen faster than most of the houses could come out of the ground that it does not make sense to keep it as a future growth area [Music] so last week we have two areas these are two larger areas where we heard some feedback on the place type designations

themselves does not affect the urban growth boundary at all the first one is at Glover and 880 Glover Road and 885 this is a fairly large property that um in the first draft was shown as general industrial we heard several comments from folks that because of its lack of major road access and its location at the Northeast Creek Headwaters that makes use neighborhood designation would be more appropriate and we agreed until we changed that we did hear from we did get an email stating that there's it's since been purchased by a group that mostly does Industrial Development and that industrial would be a better designation then lastly we have a property on the South Miami Boulevard Hoover Road area

this is a former board and brick site it's currently zoned and was previously used as industrial it's a fairly large site we heard concerns that it was because of its previous use as a quarry that it's got a lot of streams and wetlands on it that make it difficult to develop as an industrial site this one's a little bit more complicated because there are active industrial sites that are around it so changing the designation does would provide some complications for those properties and how we designate them but we we proposed a mixture of uh if the commission is inclined to entertain a change a mixture of mixed use neighborhood mixed employment and Highway commercial for the the site so as a reminder we seek guidance on the

nine specific rest of changes and also as a reminder as I mentioned staff is not recommending any of these changes except for the change in the Southeast Durham future growth area the general comments and we also are looking for General comments and feedback on the place type map not only the two specific areas we highlighted but any others the commission might have and uh we happen to take any questions or information on the Planning Commission so that we can provide you with answers and or proposed amendments for the the final public Hearing in May that happy to answer any questions or you can sit down and you got a few questions later um let's start with any initial questions from planning Commissioners on the presentation we're not getting into the details of the nine decision points but any general questions about the

presentation commissioner Morgan yeah Scott I was you know it was the question I asked before I mean if a developer develops or buys purchases land outside of the urban growth boundary what is the criteria there as far as services and other things so it would typically mean in the policy is that public water and sewer would not be extended to that property so that means it could still be developed it would have to be done under whatever the zoning allows and using some sort of well and septic system whether it's individual or community so be it both Annex and water and sewer Services if they don't exist yeah okay thank you commissioner Carmen Williams thank you chair and mendolia so I have a question um with I guess the best way to put is with our city being heavily reliant on developers to provide City and water at what cost

is that a deficit to the residents that are existing and what impact does that have on existing residents with developers annexing City and water because I'm a city resident now and I know what my taxes look like so what impact would that have for potential growth areas and is that a consideration it so I'll I'll try to give you a little bit of an answer some of that it would be I don't work for our water management department and so I don't have all the answers to that but for most of water and sewer is paid for by a it's it's an Enterprise that's paid for by through the rates that tour and water customers pay so it's not necessarily related to your taxes so much as it is your sewer and water rates um typically for new development on the edge of town the sewer water infrastructure to serve that development is provided by the developer and then turned over to the city or occasionally the county for

maintenance um the things that are already on the city system are technically the city's responsibility sometimes there are ways for developers to pay for or provide upgrades to those but oftentimes when we do need to maintain or upgrade the existing City monitor system that gets paid for through the rates that are already being paid other questions or comments on the presentation okay um Scott you're off the hot seat for now so with that we're going to so this public hearing is already open because we never closed it during our last meeting we're going to start by getting a general comments from folks on the urban growth

boundary and then we're going to go through each of these nine cases and well for folks that have specific comments on those nine cases we will talk about those there as last time if folks ahead of you say something that you're going to say please be mindful of that and I come and say something if you have something to add or something different if somebody says something that you agree with we did this last time it worked really well please raise your hand just show you that you agree with them and I will do my best to count the number of hands I see or just say a lot of hands just to acknowledge the agreement with comments that folks have and also as Carl said in his presentation just acknowledging we received over 100 emails on this so we already have a lot of thoughts again I'm not going to tell anybody not to speak but

um just keeping in mind if you have something new to say or if you haven't gotten the opportunity to speak yet I definitely want to prioritize that because we've heard of heard a lot of voices so we're going to start with people that signed up for the general comments um I'm gonna like read off three names at a time and you all can just come and line up and you'll all have two minutes each to speak again please state your name and address um apologies in advance if I mispronounce any names or can't read any names um so first I have Donna Steinbeck Pam Williams and Sean Parker good afternoon Planning Commission on my name is Donna Steinbeck I live at 4825 Jimmy Rogers Road and Durham North Carolina we preserve rural Durham support the urban growth boundary in the Durham

comprehensive plan dated January 20th 20. 23. um we went out and we didn't get the information about what transpired on the 28th to the 16th and then we saw that there was a lot of changes or recommended or potential changes that we were very concerned about so we went out and got 250 signed petition signatures from residents and um and in addition we had the PDR core team and the and our Associates that emailed in quite a bit of information um we do not support additions to the ugb but and we also are concerned that we do not support the removal of the Northwestern portion from the southeast future growth area

I know that was just talked about but that we do not support that and that was on the petitions two areas specifically on the petitions were uh cheek Road and Redwood and Patterson which I'll cover in more detail because I live right there so um we did not know exactly what to do so we came up with the um petition and the first petition was signed just over a week ago on 319. we also would support or I would support reduction to the ugb when possible to help preserve our rural community and environment foreign good afternoon my name is Pam Williams 2130 Adventure trail Durham North Carolina I'm against expanding the urban

growth boundary especially Patterson Road cheek Road and also incorporating uh Kemp Road into the urban growth as as proposed in attachment seven the expanding the urban growth boundary further into the county means that County residents have no representation and its city council will approve whatever is proposed and I'm basing this on History because I've been keeping track of it for some time now and now if Property Owners wants to sale go ahead and sell and the developers would like to develop land and develop it as it is on now we need developers that are more respectful of the plan that the planning department has developed existing residents and more respectful of human and natural environment um we have asked for environmental impacts that it be done on all the proposed growth that's in southeast Durham and have not received that yet the infrastructure does not support the

increased density and dwellings per acre as every developer is proposing on every piece of land being developed where is the plan we need a true plan but it doesn't matter what the place type is proposed if the developer requests a change to higher density or from industrial to high density residential it is granted then the plan changes is that really a plan if we continue to change it and that's what we see happening now the plan is low density it changes a high density and it's approved even though it doesn't agree with with The Flume they just changed the Flume no increase in the urban growth balance boundary is what I am requesting I would also like to note I am not pleased with the process of this comprehensive plan since Southeast Durham was not engaged until June 2022 and this was a new process to all of us it wasn't clearly stated that we could oppose a place type location map and to the developers opposed it on the 28th thank you thank

you and I saw about one hand raise there we go I saw many hens raised on that one um okay so next we had Sean Parker I'm Sean I don't know if you're still wanting to speak and then the three after that we have Annette love Edward Brown and Brodie Riley or maybe it's Brody Riley good evening my name is Edward Brown and I live on Russell Road 7103 and my concern is that the water we already have a water line but we don't have sewer and we are in the county and we was in the plan to be annexed I guess at one time but now they're leaving us

out so we're just wondering will this depreciate our property value if we can't get soil and water over time or will we be able to get it probably in the future can we put in an application or something for the future say for an example if the stock condemning whales and souls and I mean separate tanks what does our out this is my question to put before the panel thank you very much for my time thank you can I uh I saw I'd say about six to nine hands can I get staff to actually answer this question right now kind of in real time so question is um there is property that currently has existing water lines but not sewer lines and so I guess like what is the process for them to gain to our access and be

annexed so because first we'll say that even if you're outside the urban growth boundary there are exceptions if you have a failing well or septic to allow connections uh assuming that sewer and or water is available there are also exceptions for if folks have paid already paid a fee for the water line that's in front of their property to be able to connect to it so I think that's what if these Property Owners want to follow up with us later we can look into their specific situation and see what the possibilities are and if folks want to Annex into the city to gain access to sewer they have the right to request that do they not definitely have the right to request that the Urban growth boundary isn't intended to draw the line of where the sewer and water would be extended but everyone has the right to request that for any reason okay so Mr Brown I would encourage you to connect with planning staff at either some point during this meeting

or in an email later on to get connected about your specific case and they can help it's a good question hey staff is it a cost to the homeowner to make that connection yes it I don't know the exact cost but it it's not cheap so I mean so sorry come back please so explain a little bit about how that works what that cost is and if you have seniors that are on fixed income does that make it unaffordable for them yeah so some of that is beyond my expertise um yeah typically it's a responsibility of whoever is requesting the sewer line to or water line to extend it to their property to figure out if if it's even possible to do that and it's it's expensive if it's already there then you would have to pay their fees that are charged to connect to it um

88 they have to pay a utility extension fee a utility some other utility fees also they have to pay to extend it themselves and if you're not near a force main you're not near anything to connect to that can be cost prohibitive I don't have exact numbers but I have seen cost twenty thirty thousand just for a quarter mile up to a quarter mile so it's expensive I will say there are some relief programs from Public Works that help alleviate the costs for

single-family homeowners if they are seeking annexation and they are within the current Suburban tier or current Urban growth boundary thank you good evening my name is Reverend love I have a question and Mr Brown our Brody kind of touch bases I'm with the new home enduring Missionary Baptist Association we're located at 6611 Guess Road and we have property on Guess Road as well as Russell Road and Saint Mary's road we are trying to figure out what you plan to do with that area as far as bringing sewer and water into that area I'm I appreciate him saying that and being here we're trying to develop that area for Community as well as whatever needs to take place and we've been working this for so long and I know and I see little things in the background that it may be coming but do you have

any idea when we can expect some type of change within that area I need to connect I need email addresses all that because I want to be in the loop I don't want to be left out I'm on the land committee I need to know I need to be in the know when this takes place thank you thank you um do you have comments on that let's say it's um I don't believe the city has any plans to extend utilities out in that area anytime soon okay um and that just as a heads up we so we take breaks every two hours and during our break if you want to connect with staff and exchange contact information I think that'd be a good time to do that okay um next three we have Jennifer bezoon Pam Andrews and Pastor Thomas

Whited foreign good evening Commissioners I'm Jennifer buzzen I live at 3206 Cortland Drive my comment is that I think there's a discrepancy or two in in the maps they really need to have plotted The Watershed protection overlay boundaries on the maps because in doing a visual comparison with the City's online GIS map with the maps in the in the appendix 7. I noticed some place types that were inappropriate for the critical area of the Watershed the critical areas intended to be a very low density Development Area and there's a few spots where things like mixed residential neighborhood and

mixed-use neighborhoods are are planned and that's not really those aren't really appropriate land uses for the low density areas so I would just suggest there's just a few I noticed in figures one and two there may be other ones and some of the other figures the best way to find those out is to plot that Watershed boundary and just make sure you don't have anything inappropriate in the critical area I've submitted written comments that actually show where I think some of the discrepancies are and the staff has a copy of that thank you thank you Miss Posen several hands close to a couple of dozen good evening Pamela Andrews 6108 Wake Forest Highway this week my teammate and I went out and we interviewed four residents it's on our YouTube channel you're welcome to go look at it I want you guys to see what our neighbors are going through it's not pretty it's really not pretty and I invite you

to please come out my group preservable Durham is asking you to not extend this Urban growth boundary please come see do not ex take the way the future growth boundary it was designated that way for a reason we have been promised a fire station and I'll get into more of my numbers when we talk about Kemp Road specifically but our side of town has been slam dunked for a while with development there is no infrastructure to support the development has already occurred firefighters EMS police no plan for additional schools grocery stores Transportation you can go on and on and on with these issues that are stressing seriously stressing our residents to death and this area is a reality of the enormous amount of developments and homes have already been passed and I'm emotional there is a list of developments that my friend Pam puts together and if you go through those I want you to listen to these numbers in Lick Creek Watershed alone

there are ten thousand one hundred and ninety eight dwellings already approved ten thousand that's on lit Creek with 3085 acres of land taken out of that watershed in little it Creek there are 3975 dwellings passed with 758 acres in that watershed and then you get into Brier Creek and Panther Creek and all these Creeks that drain into into Falls Lake we are destroying this Lake one by one and I ask you Samantha Crop spoke she presented to you she's coming out to our community and going to present again I invite you to come April 13th the numbers that she has showed you show the elevated levels in this Creek are three times four times ten times higher than the state standards and I'll leave it at that I'll be back for Kent Road thank you thank you tell you about two dozen hands raised on that one

good afternoon I'm past the time we'll say we did 6722 Russell Road I'm in Durham North Carolina uh pretty much on the same level of uh Mr Brown on the things that he has spoke of and trying to make some recommendations is I had heard from the gentleman they had uh they're not making any uh decisions to put in his sewer water out in that area but uh first of all I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak during this public hearing and uh and uh so the recommendations that I wanted to state was why couldn't we change the high and low pressure valve on the old tank that's up there on the end of Russell Road and build a water tower and a bowl around the top that's regular standard for the city of Durham so these things happen all the time these are things that the city do so seem like something is not being people not being treated fair from one end to the other what is the purpose what was the purpose of running the water line down Russell Road anyway so

I'm gonna let you all uh you know give me that answer but to change the high and low pressure valve put that put the half uh bill of water tower that's higher than what's over there now because now the problem is is the elevation I worked in engine and operations for 42 years at Duke University I know pretty much about a lot of this so so so that's that's one of the problems is that we're not getting the the elevation is the biggest problem now but because if you all don't want to run it down at it that's based on personal uh decisions to me thank you all thank you I'd say about a dozen and a half hands on that one um next we have Denise Hester Heidi Grable and Eddie Belk

1 where the plan asks how should Durham care for its existing neighborhoods and long time residents and I think our area Falls squarely into that definition particularly those who've been ignored or harmed by big decisions in the past and again the Fayetteville Street area falls into that category so we answer this question by requesting that the Fayetteville Street Corridor be added as a focus group for future in-field development in

field growth and that our neighborhood master plan which was first presented to the city about 20 years ago be adopted as a small area plan when the review is completed we are under unprecedented development pressure which will add about 2 million square feet between nc-147 and Umstead Street that's two blocks approximately 40 acres by contrast South Point Mall contains 1 million square feet on 132 acres and I want you all to try and envision that over the next few years these developments along with gentrification and corporate acquisition of affordable homes present a grave threat to our business district and our existing neighborhoods along the corridor and infield has not been identified anywhere that I can see as a future growth area but it's a real thing and it's coming so we ask for your consideration please in adding the Fayetteville Street Corridor to your focus group thank you

foreign thank you it's all about two dozen hands raised on that one okay it says do not adjust the microphone uh hello my name is Heidi Grable I am a resident of Durham County in the Northern Area my address is 10607 Wilkins Road I want to thank you all for your service I know what you are doing is not easy I am a real estate agent in the Triangle but I stand for larger lots better quality homes that feel better because they are respectful of the environment Northern Durham Parcels Northern Durham residents also would like the parcels to stay out of And Delay the growth keep as the future growth boundary the way that you're holding them back in the Northern areas we are seeking responsible growth for Durham not a race to growth uh we love

our land the way that our area and Wildlife feels and lives currently a fact to be remembered is like a grocery store or restaurant sells food for profit not because it is promoting a great diet or improving Health the developers bringing the council projects are doing so because they see profit opportunity not as what not what is best for Durham County it's residents lives for the next 35 to 50 years or to solve its initial and most immediate search for Home Solutions The Watershed protects us in our area but we want the conservation subdivision to be followed as it was intended to be a very high rarely achievable goal with its 12 required criteria not a freeway path to approve an increased number of homes allowed more than the soils and Water Resources can sustain please keep growth slower respect the planning department decision to hold

Parcels back from growth and let our area grow responsibly for our citizens our environment which includes soils and water and our Wildlife ecosystems traffic patterns medical fire and police resources thank you very much thank you thank you members of the commission I am Eddie Belk architect here in Durham I asked your forgiveness I signed the general comments list I would ask to be moved to the stagville Oxford area change comment list okay next we have Robin Barefoot thank you I'm showing my age with my inability to read cursive um you know my children can't read cursive either it's a it's a failing of our

Public Schools [Applause] okay after Robin will have Amina Bradford and then Nate Bradford Planning Commission I appreciate you I'm also very grateful for the courtesy uh chair Amendola that you've extended to some people as you've helped connect them to staff so thank you so much Robin Barefoot I live in northern Durham County 6726 Johnson Mill Road I don't need to say much after that sermon that just got preached by Heidi Grable and I want to thank you for what you said Heidi um I do just have a couple of of points to make um I am concerned about the level of Engagement that the comprehensive plan actually experienced with County residents I saw the numbers on the presentation I think there's 300 000 people in Durham County that could be wrong it's a those are very small numbers so I query whether there's been enough engagement

two I'm very concerned about the enforcement of the Udo when the developers are given a green light to develop because I don't necessarily know that we're making sure that they play by the rules and the last thing I want to say is that on the front page of the New York Times digital online there's a four-minute video that I encourage you to listen to it is a video very cleverly presented about a 600 page Tome of research done by an economist for the country of England and it talks about how we're not factoring in economic sorry environmental degradation when we chart what our GDP growth is the price we are paying for the damage that we are doing to our trees and our soil and our water is going to ultimately bring the ruin of Durham County there are affordable housing solutions that do not require housing on big concrete pads that all

looks the same where they take all the trees down there is a better way it's called Noah n-o-a-h it's called naturally occurring affordable housing they're doing it in Charlotte I know those people let's slow our roll and let's do this right so that everyone in uptown county has housing Robin your 10 minutes are up so much and excuse me we need to not clap to maintain decorum the reason I asked for hands raised is because it's a quiet way to show support clapping verbal communication will not be tolerated thank you hi Amina alatas Bradford I live at 4317 Curley Road thanks for your time tonight the arrowhead lands have become a part of my family's life and many of my neighbors lives our culinary lives our psychosocial environmental religious and spiritual lives it's been argued that we're mooching off the resources of the

city without paying our dues I argue the opposite we've given up many of the gifts of living within the bounds of the city with its joyful neighborhoods and social commercial resources and conveniences so that we can be present to and yes enjoy the Beyond human world in a different way many of us feel responsibility to tend this land and to keep it free from heavy development not just for our sake but for the sake of those still living in the city many of whom Retreat to our homes and lands and tables for restoration reflection and strength to return to the important Justice work they do in the city my family has always been city Folk but in a season of needed restoration and reflection we chose to leave the Comforts of the city to befriend a Beyond human world that we knew we wanted to learn from and listen to in a different way we feel tenderness towards the deer the grasses the geese the streams and a call to his symbiotic stewardship between us and the more than human world where we've become a part of the ecosystem which we desire to protect one of the last closed City areas that has a rural and aesthetic sensibility

that draws so many City people to our neighborhood to hike the Duke Forest to retreat to enjoy a night sky that is not an observable even where from where we stand tonight I'd like us to slow this process down and consider the ways we might creatively preserve the unique character of this community that serves so many people outside of its bounds while also allowing large land developers to financially benefit from their land Investments but even more to benefit from the Delight of charting a third way of developing not one that paves the way for scorched Earth development that we've all witnessed and grieved but in a way that might become a model for other citizens cities who are privileged to still have this sort of undeveloped land that we have so close to a city center Dr Robin wall kimmerer citizen of the Potawatomi Nation an ecologist at Cooney speaks about what it means to be native to a land and she explains that one becomes native only once they develop a concern and care for the future inhabitants of land in which they live Human inhabitants but especially the Beyond human world thank you

several dozen hands raised on that one hi Nate Bradford 4317 Curley Road a lot has been said that I agree with one thing that hasn't been said so far is how we in Arrowhead been identified or half of Arrowhead and lower half identified as mixed-use development from rural that seems like a huge jump to me I'm pretty sure it's two people who have proposed changes and somehow two people are affecting over hundreds of families in Arrowhead that doesn't seem like democracy to me and and I'm worried that big money or bigger money is uh winning the day on this one over the uh the desires of near the entirety of of the Arrowhead community I'm not fundamentally opposed to Water and Sewer coming to certain developments around me I understand that a specific developer

can try to propose it and bring it in themselves at least I thought I did there it's very clear that sometimes the highest and best use for our land is to have some density but yeah this this vast designation of mixed-use development that just popped up on us in this new new version of the plan seems like it gives a cart block to developers to just do as they would I'd like to work with developers and see how a specific proposal and then see how we can can get the sewer water if that highest and best use requires it but I hope that that use would protect what is there not do this scorched Earth method of development it is sad to see our tree canopy disappearing all around us where I live thank you thank you I saw several dozen hand

raised on that speaker next we have baby Moore Latoya Kerr and Faye Cates I'm sorry um my name is Elizabeth Moore I live in Southwest Durham County I have three comments to make one General two very specific the goals for reaching many of these or the year for reaching many of these goals is 2050. but 2050 is not acceptable to me environmental goals the United Nations March report 2023 says the world is reaching the Tipping Point Of No Return with increasing CO2 rates the last eight

years have been the warmest on record so specifically about trees this is required reading if you are breathing and buying food and living in Durham County it has to do with the fact that tree canopies lower the temperature lower the cost of heating and cooling and hardwood and pine trees the old ones 40 50 60 years old need to be excluded from the boundary because as said in this book oak trees might provide 350 species of insect birds and other animals with food and shelter whereas a Bradford a Bradford pear

maybe 50 species are supported by that and the last thing I want to say is this document called a landscape plan for wildlife habitat connectivity 2019 that was produced by wake orange Durham and Chatham County Elizabeth your two minutes are over needs to be incorporated thank you saw two or three dozen hands raised on that one good evening my name is Latoya Kerr I don't have any specifics but I do stand here on the back of my great-grandmother her name was Callie Craig and I represent the area for my family of 3315 Bivins Road the Craig family Craig Road Bivens Road Russell Road Saint Mary's Road all of that that's Prime land

my great-grandmother many years ago walked from out there to downtown Durham what we now know is downtown Durham to pay taxes so her family could continue to live there so to so me and my family are opposed to the growth because it's Prime land there were many many sacrifices made my great-grandfather David Craig was the first to buy land out there that's why there's Craig Road there so ask me and my family stand in opposition of the growth of that Prime land let's keep some something sacred let's keep that land sacred out in that area Russell Road Bivens Road Saint Mary's Road Craig c-r-a-i-g Road my mother was Christine Craig Corbett and my mother and her brothers and sisters Lorena Louise uh Gladys Thomas Frank and my

grandfather my grandparents Martha and Clyde Craig worked that land out there it's Prime land and it needs to remain sacred and me and my family's opinion so we oppose it thank you so two or three dozen hands raised on that one good evening uh commission members I am stay cakes I live in Richmond Virginia and I have inherited family land on business Road uh a neighbor of mine shared a correspondence she had received from engaged Durham that dealt with issues with the ugb issues I was I did not receive this letter and my mailing address is the same one

you probably mail my County tax collection bill too other members in the community did not receive a written notice about this public meeting my issue deals with the auditorium placed on um water connections um it is it seems anyway the neighbor received the letter and shared with me that stated quote water and sewage are not available as there is a moratorium on connections due to pressure issues the martorium is the indefinite so there will be no estimated time frame for when or even if it will ever be uh lifted uh this being this being the case you

cannot connect this being the case you can't you cannot apply for water connections here uh and uh the water main that that's represents in the letter has a main water main directly in front of the house and in the same side of the property anyway I'm here to ask that you consider uh including the properties on Bivens road that are not you've indicated are not eligible for uh property for connections okay your 10 minutes are up yeah thank you um so we have two more speakers that signed up in person and then we will turn to those who are attending virtually so if you are in the zoom meeting and want to make General

comments on the urban growth boundary that are not related to a specific property please start raising your hand to queue yourselves up the two people I have signed up in person are Barbara coberman and Ted Halburn also I'm going to repeat names that signed up I have not spoken yet just to ensure everyone is given the opportunity to speak those are Sean Parker and Brody Riley again if you are choosing not to speak that is fine but I want to make sure everyone who wants to gets the opportunity to speak foreign

commissioners I will re-brief I agree with a number of speakers here tonight I mainly want to reiterate uh I was one of the persons who applied for services on Russell Road I'm owner uh a little bit morally but I owned that uh the property in Russell and I own some property on Mason also and I would just hate to realize that a water line that's running right in front of my house my home that I grew up in that I can't tap into I

remember when it was built uh I remember when the tank was put in it it's just it seems very sad and uh that all of a sudden we can no longer submit an application I understand it's a moratory and that it's moratorium made or not be lit that seems strange to me too so I just need to get with the the staff and get more understanding about what is going on and what I can do because uh the the property that's been there for many many years my father he was oh when the property

came through and both of my parents they didn't see a use for it they didn't share it with me so when I found out about it was already done Barbara uh my times growing close Okay well we're just the clothes thank you for your consideration I'm sure you're going to let us remain in that tear thank you thank you and you already referenced it but I would encourage you to connect with staff as well to talk about your specific case thank you good evening chair mendolia Vice chair Cameron members of the Planning Commission my name is Ted heilbron my address is 912 Village Crossing Drive in Chapel Hill and I'm an affordable housing developer here in Durham uh before beginning I'm going to say I

realize I have the luxury of getting to view City policy through the single lens of affordable housing I know planning staff in the broader Durham Community put years of work into the comp plan update and I want to acknowledge that effort and the complexity of this conversation the existence of an urban growth boundary that removes land outside Watershed critical areas from being developed would adversely impact our affordable housing effort in two ways first and most directly there are sites outside the proposed boundary that would meet the criteria for a competitive four percent Live tech project that a boundary would immediately preclude simply put less land represents less opportunity for affordable development the second impact is Less Direct but arguably more important to affordable housing developments city-wide much attention has been paid to the impact of inflation on construction costs the larger driver of increased housing costs continues to be increases in the cost of land establishing a growth Banner will limit the supply of development land sites available and on the margin will increase competition and drive evaluations within the city this will in turn increase financing gaps for affordable housing projects gaps that

the city will then be asked to fill with money it currently does not have I'd encourage you to reconsider the growth boundary component of the comp plan Amendment before you deny thank you thank you so Four Hands raised in agreement with that okay is there a fifth is there anyone else in person wishing to speak generally before we move forward if so please come to the podium at this time yesterday evening I did sign up at least I thought I signed up for a general uh comment my name is Thomas Freeman lifelong resident of Durham 1818 Southview Road Durham I'll be very brief uh I'm part of a group preserve Earl Durham and we're asking you not to extend the urban growth area especially with Southeast Durham County uh addition we ask you not to remove the

future growth boundary designation from the Kemp Road area I'll draw your attention to the fact that the the Kemp Road subdivision has come before the city council twice it was defeated twice Scott Whiteman made made those comments just uh just moments ago I would ask you what happened by all measure we have all of the documentation required that poses the test to the city what it takes in order to the requirement to have a fire station what happened the leaders in the fire department came before a podium and their their bosses said can you handle this can you handle this uh this uh of this increased demand what are you going to say you salute and you say yes I can do it I'll leave you with that thank you very much

thank you um Thomas I have your name on the South East Grove Southeastern Focus area is she do you I'm assuming I can jack you off thank you I signed up online but my computer skills are somewhat challenged so if you see my name later on we're good evening my name is Mark Waller I live at 5005 Curley Road in Durham I'm the owner and operator of Waller Family Farm located at that same address I'm here today to ask you to include our area into the urban growth boundary I asked the planners how to get out of the rural tier designation or one house per two acres that we were unjustly put into some 20 years ago I was told to get into the urban growth boundary and then once there we may select many options that would be available with the help of zoning changes most of my life this area has been designated are 20. I joined the fight

with my neighbors to stop a high density development at Daniel's Farm located at Cornwallis and Irwin road with the understanding that it was to stay that way however my neighbors took it upon themselves and to get the land into rural tier which at the time was proposed one house per three acres this was ignoring the desires of the landowners luckily at the hearing it was reduced to one home per two acres that's where we are today if you look at the maps you see our location we're four miles from duke and Durham we have very close proximity to all the major thoroughfares we also have City and water very nearby hopefully one day better and safer bike paths will be installed on Irwin and Cornwallis Road for those who already enjoy biking to those locations through our areas let me say this I have no plans to sell my farm I'm only 62 years old and plan on

farming at least another 40 years or so however if if the farm must be sold uh designating it rural tier really doesn't make a lot of sense and I'll leave it up to you to decide what is the best use of land for the city of Durham I hope you won't let the voices of the many outweigh the rights of the few and I thank you for your time thank you an estimate about eight hands raised on that one anyone else yep hi I'm Wanda Allen thank you guys again for allowing me to speak I did sign up online I drove back in from Charlotte this morning so some are working on the telephone and trying to sign up is very challenging so when you see my name come up again you can just take me off I'm here again tonight to

3 million dollars we are cleaning this up so the decision do we continue going down this road or we do we decision to make a difference as I mentioned to you earlier this has had an impact on the Falls Lake

Marina this is a small business also the people that are traveling down 98 that's had an impact on those businesses so you can make their decision to continue going down this road or you can make the decision to keep the current Urban growth and the future growth boundary within the comprehensive plan as it stands let the let the data let the information come forward to show be used to make a wise decision and I thank you for your time thank you I'm going to estimate two dozen hands on that one any other in-person speakers thank you hello commission I'm Kerry Steinbach I live at 4825 Jimmy Rogers Road in Durham I am a lifelong Durham resident I'm coming up on my 70th young birthday I'm proud to say I've been in Durham

that long thank you for the work that you do you represent a lot of people not just the ones in this room but all over this County and I appreciate what you do to keep Durham safe I am a retired agricultural education teacher I started my career teaching in 1977. I taught environmental and natural resources at the time I started teaching what I told my students in the environmental was we really have to watch out for large industry destroying our environment boy has that changed if I was teaching today I'd have to come back and say look at what we individuals are doing to this environment it is no longer just smokestacks it is no longer just this we are developing to the point where we are destroying a lot of the natural resources and infrastructure Wildlife soil water that we used to just take for granted

when I grew up in Durham we used to never think anything walk out in the woods walk where you wanted to environment was safe water was safe air was clean to breathe that's no longer the case I think we are trying to push too fast too far too soon to get things that we need to just stop look back and say what are we doing now and what are we leaving for our future Generations the mess we have right now is not going to be up to me to clean up it's going to be up to the kids that are coming through our Public Schools right now they are the ones that's going to have the burdens to clean up the messes that we are making right now with the decisions we make not even thinking what's going to happen 10 20 30 years in the future thank you thank you say two and a half dozen hands on that one okay um any other in-person speakers at this

time okay um just making sure the folks moving around weren't coming forward okay we're going to move to our Zoom participants at this time I currently see eight hands raised if there's anyone else participating in Zune that wants to speak on this please get your hand raised as soon as possible um we will start with Annie Doran Annie are you able to mute yourself

okay we are going to continue working to see if we can reach any um instead we will move to Summer yes could you please state your name and address in the make your comments yes my name is Summer Wilder and I live in eastern Durham County 2712 little Rogers Road and last month I watched the recording from the February 28th Planning Commission meeting and I was extremely disappointed to see so many developers and homeowners who want to profit from developing and are selling the properties that spoke in favor of expanding the ugb I believe that y'all should listen to the people who actually live in these rural communities and listen to what we want instead of listening to what or listening to the people who just want to maximize their profits the main areas that I'm concerned about

are cheek Redwood and Patterson Road which I would like to see taken out of the urban growth boundary ideally it would be optimal to place these areas in permanent conservation so we can protect our local environment and Wildlife after we've destroyed our lands and Waters in the name of development it's too late to restore them back to how they were before and it's unacceptable that residents are being expected to pay for the mess that the develop development Community is creating in addition to in addition the southeast future growth area should keep its designation as a future growth area because we need sufficient infrastructure in place before it can be developed safely Fire EMS schools roads grocery stores and much more are lacking in this area and yet the plan is to plop more housing in an already overpopulated area that is not what we need out here at all and I hope you all are listening to those of us who actually live out here and that you're hearing what we're

saying thank you so much for the work that y'all do I know it's a hard job and I appreciate the opportunity for letting me speak this evening please use your opportunity as planning Commissioners to do the right thing for the people animals and environment of Durham County thank you thank you um I saw about two dozen hands raised on that one next we have Ronald Turner yes I'm Ronald Turner I live at 203 haircut Road Durham North Carolina um I'm not against growth I'm against the way it's growing and the way the land and everything in the area is just destroyed when they start to build my mother-in-law and father-in-law their backyard has disappeared the people Dynamite repeatedly over and over and over every

day for months to clear rocks so that they could build more they lost their will they went two and a half months with no water I couldn't even get them help so they had to spend their savings to try to get water back at their house no one seems to care about these old people sitting out there or us over on hookup Road they want to put a develop behind it my house Apartments no one tries to talk to us we try to have an in-person meeting and now all they can do is online well a third of the people don't have online they don't have computers they're in their 70s and 80s they should be respected as much as the rest of us I hope that you'll take an account that there aren't enough police fire rescue out here to serve these people and

you're building thousands of homes if you could just ride down the roads look at this area you'll decide that there'll be no more homes built thank you thank you I saw about a dozen and a half hands raised on that one next we have Rachel Greenman Rachel are you able to mute yourself okay we will come back to Rachel next we have David Wilder hi y'all my name is David Wilder and I live in eastern Durham County at 2712 little Rogers Road first off I just

wanted to say thank you all for everything you do I recognize that you have a tough job trying to balance all the varying priorities and perspectives of everyone in Durham and I know you don't get as much appreciation and recognition as you deserve um I wanted to express my support for the reduction of the urban growth boundary the areas most important to me are cheek Redwood Patterson Road and the southeast future growth area I believe the first two areas should be taken out of the urban growth boundary and preserved as rural lands and the southeast future growth area should remain as a future growth area the widespread development of rural Durham County especially in the Southeastern portion has been extremely damaging to the environment and local wildlife and it's very expensive to deal with after the fact the developers are already on to their next projects by the time the taxpayers are left to foot the bill to clean up the disaster that they created so residents have to deal with both the inconveniences of higher density like insufficient infrastructure increased traffic unmet emergency response time standards Wells caving in

walls and Foundations cracking from the dynamite blasting Etc but we're also being asked to pay for it financially too and that's just not fair at all please go ahead with the original plan to reduce the urban growth boundary so that it does not include cheek Redwood and Patterson Road and leave the southeast future growth area designated that way this is the best choice for the betterment of Durham's lands Waters animals and people let's not make decisions based off of what is best for the developers but instead decide based on what is best for the residents and the environment thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak today thank you I saw about two and a half dozen hands raised on that one next we have Holly fraccaro good evening my name is halshan of Durham orange and Chatham counties thank you for the opportunity

to speak today the Home Builders Association of Durham orange and Chatham counties has been actively engaged in this process for many months with staff it is our desire that the communities where we live and work have balanced and diverse housing options for all of its current and future residents it is our professional observation that a change to the existing Urban growth boundary will seriously limit Durham's ability to offer balanced and diverse housing options as a reminder this is not about expanding the urban growth boundary is about removing it from the land map a change to the urban growth boundary will push future residents many of whom will be RTP workers to Alamance in Johnson County which will result result in long commutes and increased polluting emissions prior to joining the HBA I was an affordable housing developer and continue to have a passion for housing affordability a previous speaker said it perfectly less land means less

affordable housing I would also challenge the argument that the land owners have no right to make profit on their property in many of these cases the families have passed on the land as a way to ensure generational wealth to their family members thank you very much I saw about a half a dozen hands raised on that speaker next we have Marcy Ellis RC are you able to unmute yourself okay um we're going to come back to Marcy

I keep seeing it quickly I'm muting mute back so I'm not sure what's happening there um but we're going to go to Aaron Coley hi uh can you hear me yes uh my name is Aaron Coley I live at 101 caramel Lane and I specifically wanted to talk about the arrowhead area and what's um what's been proposed there I think there are a couple of points I wanted to to make one is that the process even though as it's been spelled out hasn't necessarily reached all these residents and I would emphasize at least in terms of some of the mailers that were sent we definitely have not received it even though our property is one of those that would be included in the growth area we're strongly opposed to this proposal and for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is that as several of the other speakers have said the infrastructure simply can't handle some of these proposed changes the second is that the pro the process and the speed in which they've been done where we've

kind of flip-flopped back and forth on this uh seems to very very strongly favor the two developers who I think have a vested interest in these changes one of whom I think resides full-time in Singapore so I think it's important to keep in perspective that the people who really want to live here long term are the ones whose whose preference should have should have at least equal weight and there are I think several residents of the arrowhead area who wouldn't necessarily favor these changes and in that vein I think just the way that the proposal has been made I think it excludes a lot of the northern residents from from this process where clearly they they would also be impacted by the increase in everything from light pollution to traffic to actual pollution that I think would affect the area certainly I think there's there is scope for growth in in a lot of things and I think as long as there's a solid proposal in front of people it's it's easier to make that uh make that jump but but I think we're strongly opposed

to the way this has been presented the speed of which has been run and I think the fact that it really favors very very few people who live within that that area that's it thank you so much thank you uh next we have Jane banson Jane are you able to unmute yourself um I can but I actually did not sign up to speak I apologize all good um okay then we have Tristram banson can you hear me yes uh great I want to thank the Planning Commission for their diligence and care with this process I'm speaking now in support of not changing the designation of the

arrowhead area Place type which has been characterized as Rural and agricultural and recreational and open space and I am a resident of Arrowhead that designation made sense and acknowledged the actual character and use as well as the unique nature of this region as it abuts the Orange County Rural tier has no current infrastructure no City water and no city sewer and is used by citizens of Durham for bicycling hiking in the adjoining and close tracks of Duke forest and many other things this area has remained one of only a few with rural character that are also located relatively close to the business and employment centers of Durham the proposed changes really would be very dramatic and as Aaron said there really no specifics offered I support much as much of what has already been said regarding Arrowhead and the need for a measured and responsible development in general and just have a couple quick points firstly high density residential development is already

ongoing in close proximity to Arrowhead on Cornwallis and Garrett Road South and east of Irwin as well as on Randolph and Piggott roads all within a mile of the arrowhead region as the Planning Commission already acknowledged it would seem that this should satisfy the need for a high density and affordable housing when considered in combination with a flurry of development around Dougie's campus and endure improper without a need to fundamentally change the arrowhead regions so why spoil Arrowhead it would seem to be important to preserve at least some areas close to Durham business centers that have lower density to maintain diversity and balance in the housing options for Durham given the apparent overweight and high density cookie cutter development that we're seeing happen quite a lot so in summary I submit that it will be important balance sorry your tenants or your attention um can you also state your name and address for the record

I think we may have lost him too quickly um thank you next we have le Tatum you know good afternoon good evening uh thank you very much uh um I'm uh in Chapel Hill at 217 Bella Rose Drive uh I'd like to speak specifically to the area of Sheffield Farm the this area of uh Durham is very lovely we've got wonderful ecology down here and for the 950 units proposed at Sheffield Farm area the infrastructure here cannot support it it's a one-lane or two-lane blacktop with poor drainage when it really rains heavily

98 uh Farrington Road uh right next to the over 55 community uh at 54 in Farrington um you're just going to bury us and then what you will realize in tax revenue you'll lose because you will have to Shell out more money to support the infrastructure and it's going to heavily impact the environment

um I thank you for your work and I thank you for your time this evening thank you next we have Ann Hyman okay I just saw Anne's hand go down so we're going to go to Olga Richmond foreign are you able to unmute yourself okay we're going to return to folks that have raised their hand and maybe having some technical issues so um Annie Doran hi are you able to hear me yes fantastic

um so my name's Annie Doran I live at 910 Orient street I'll keep it brief as many of the points I wanted to make have been addressed if I just wanted to vote sorry voice my support for just the discussed reduction of the urban growth boundary and also for keeping the Kemp Road area in the future growth boundary until infrastructure challenges have been properly addressed for many of the reasons already mentioned tonight I also just want to mention I love some of the new energy ideas and business coming to Durham but sometimes it really seems that the well-being of current residents and the health of the land we live on is set aside for the benefit of a handful of large-scale developers as well as people that don't even live here yet um however that being said uh I do hear the concerns of some of the individual homeowners who spoke tonight who want to be able to connect to utilities and I hope we can find a solution that preserves the low density nature of some of these areas while addressing those concerns thank you so much thank you nice estimate about a dozen and a half hands

raised on that one anyone else looking to speak at this time uh Rob levinski yes can you hear me all right yes great thank you I'm Rob lavinski 3805 West Cornwallis Road in Durham I'd be there in person if I was not out of town helping a family member receiving some Cancer Care in Boston um I I logged in here because I think it's really important it's obviously overwhelming majority of people both in the arrowhead and all of Durham support keeping Arrowhead community outside of the rural tier outside of the herbal in the world here and outside of the urban growth boundary Durham's comprehensive plan after a year of Citizen input more than that affirmed this there are many good reasons for this and in my opinion for all nine areas in question remaining outside the proposed ubg

um a mixed use designation opening the door for high-end density development is incompatible the type of users in place that are appropriate to the area and presently protect critical streams and Watershed Arrowhead was placed in the world series of recall in 2004 the decision made good sense now and today a rural part of a county near the Central City benefits everyone please don't take away access to open space for people living downtown many with limited incomes move Vistas should not be reserved for wealthy Landover and owners miles from the city at least some small part of Durham County should be maintained as rural agricultural most land in Arrowhead particularly as highly unsuited for development extending services will be extremely costly for the city and taxpayers a small pocket of sprawl outside the urban area goes against the entire comprehensive planned stated goals this is two people trying to change an entire neighborhood for their benefit I myself own multiple fossils of real estate I respect the right to make use of property that's not

what this is about those people bought their land knowing it was rural they have by right the ability to develop multiple homes on it this is an attempt to subvert a lengthy process which accumulated with the planned comprehensive plan after extensive study discussion and input showing Arrowhead head remaining outside the ubg please put the next Unity above those of self-interested parties looking to gain at the public thank you thank you and I estimate two and a half to three dozen hands raised on that one okay um I see no one else looking to speak at this time we are coming up on our um two hour mark to take a break for closed captioners so we are going to go

ahead and have our first recess we will return at 7 40 PM Eastern Time thank you

okay we are going to return from Recess foreign if you are staying excuse me if you're staying for the remaining comments please sit down and lower your voices my mic is on believe it or not it does not sound that loud okay um everyone could find their seats we're going to dive into the first first item

if you are wanting to have more conversations please step into the hallway to finish those conversations no all right thank you we're going to start with area one this is stackville old Oxford um we're going to start with folks who signed up to speak on these cases first on the list I have Dan Jewell I also have Eddie Belk you asked for your name to be swapped over and then Heidi Grable you spoke earlier do you want to speak for this as well or did you give all of your comments earlier okay great so we've got Daniel and Eddie Belk you'll have two minutes thank you folks uh chair and and Commissioners

thank you again for having this special meeting I know you spent a lot of time on the Planning Commission I'm Dan Jewell I reside at 10 25 Gloria Avenue I'm a landscape architect in private practice but I am also a good friend and collaborator with the Sanford Family for many many years the Sanford family as you may know owns most of the property involved in the Stag volt old Oxford area but not all of it and the reason I'm here this evening is to say that most definitely all of the land that's owned by the state that's in conservation with TLC and in conservation easements definitely needs to be pulled out of the urban growth boundary but the planning Department's potential changes map we think is a very good step forward in designating these lands that were shown that your last meeting is being pulled out of the urban growth area is is mixed-use neighborhood and there's a big reason for that about

18 years ago I led a day-long design charette to look at the entirety of the Horton Grove lands and there were a hundred people present a lot of treyburn residents there were County Commissioners there were historians there were property owners and what they came up with was an amazing plan and that was to take that acreage set most of it aside as permanent conservation expand the Horton Grove stagville historic areas and set a portion of that land aside for something other than large treyburn type development smaller homes Town Homes apartments and a small retail service area and the land that I'm saying is now in permanent conversation and expanding Horton Grove was donated by the Sanford family and their other purchasers to expand those areas so that has happened but I ask you to please keep the land east of stagville Road up to jock road that is not in that within this

mixed-use neighborhood because that's in spirit with what the charred had thank you for your time thank you I saw about three hands raised for that one four five Eddie yeah I'm Eddie Belk architect here in Durham lived in Durham for 38 years at 5208 Stevens Lane I will in the future live at 6200 stagville Road part of that land Dan mentioned east of stagville Road that's still being shown to come out is land that I personally owned the rest the majority of it is land that could be developed um just a few clarifications Dan covered most everything in the comments it says that treyburn was built out of the lower intensity than envisioned and some developer committed upgrades to the sewer system were never completed

that comment is not technically incorrect it primarily refers to land that was part of the Horton Grove developable land and that land has been given to the triangle Land Conservancy and will not be developed so those sewer improvements will never be needed for that Horton Groveland that is now part of a permanent conservation parcel it also indicates that it would be designated mixed-use neighborhood and the future growth will be based on sewer and fire service limitations I would like to point out that sewer and water lines currently are in place that were put in as trayburn was developed running along Red Mill Road and up the stable old Oxford Highway and it goes past most of this land that we're referring to and there's water lines that run in front of the land on the east side of stag buru

and the fire service I am a little confused by because we have a seven-year-old fire station that's almost in the center of this land on the west side of stagville road directly across an entry drive to my land that was put in place on land donated by this developer in this land for that purpose thank you thank you okay this time we're going to turn to commissioner comments questions discussion um I should have specified this earlier but to be clear we're not going to be taking formal votes on any of these areas what we're going to be doing is we're going to be taking straw pose My Hope Is that based on the conversation if I can get a Vibe check like if I can if I generally sense that everybody is one way or another I'm going to say this is what I am hearing and I will give a moment of pause for anybody to say I disagree with what you just said

or I object or something of that nature if that happens I will then just do a quick hands up hands down on either case just so we can provide staff with guidance on how many Commissioners see it one way or another we're not taking formal votes because there are going to be formal votes later on the full comprehensive plan and we don't want to get too confusing having like 20 votes on the comprehensive plan so it's going to be just a straw pull kind of a Vibe check so questions comments for staff on this stagbo old Oxford Road area Mr chair I'll be very brief I'm not a resident of the area but I am a member of Trey burn where I occasionally go and horribly play golf and so I am familiar with this area and I think that what the recommendation is with the mixed youth Neighborhood Place tape type and then also looking at Future growth taken to some kind of consideration some of the infrastructure needs there but allows

that smart growth for that area so I am in favor of the recommendation to add this back into the UTV thank you thank you other questions and comments commissioner Carmen Williams thank you very much chair um I have concerns about adding this area back into the ugb because it's been within the city of Durham or within the county of Durham for such a long time and because so much development has occurred Beyond Trey burn and the availability availability of the land has been there the impacts that this will have and they will generate are concerning um trade Runners are well-known and established neighborhood especially since I've been in Durham which is all my life and I think that we need to be precautionary in how we grow certain areas of Durham because they're still very hypersensitive and the influx of traffic between Roxboro and Durham is growing

and it's not just because of residents of Durham Bahama in Roxboro and traveling that area I think that we need to be environmentally conscious about how we grow and we need to pause because growth in Durham within the city has exploded yet we're facing moratoriums that are suspending in terms of rent and mortgages so how do we know that the need to grow externally is present if we haven't taken up all the space that we've approved as a city within the city of Durham so I think that if we pause and we hold on these areas until what we've approved and we're trying to develop is fully occupied then it makes more sense to be strategic in how we move in a post-encompassing all areas at one time thank you commissioner Baker thank you my apologies for stepping out for a bit there

I just want to confirm the recommendation for this area the recommendation the staff recommendation for this area is is the current recommendation under figure two that is the staff recommendation correct that's correct well the what's shown on the right side is what if figure one yeah figure what's trying to figure two is if the commission would choose to recommend putting it back into the ugb then that would be our recommended changes to the place type map to reflect that it's inside the UTB okay uh and staff since this is our first one I have a few general questions that I will not repeat for every single one can you just elaborate on the calculation forecasting how much we're going to grow how you decided how much land we had to grow and how that's going to be accommodated

over the growth period for the comprehensive plan which is 20 40. 50 is our 2050 which was 30 years when we started so we use the official population projections that we get from triangle J Council of governments that they use for the the Metropolitan Transportation plan and so they project out 30 years since that's what the federal government requests so we use those 30-year population projections and the housing unit projections that are related to how much population growth we're expecting which it's about 130 000 people additional in Durham County by 2050 which it's give or take a few hundred sixty thousand dwelling units would be needed to accommodate that so after we did our first round of Engagement in the place type map we took the

predominantly residential Place types calculated the area that was of each one tried to figure out a reasonable but still small C conservative build out so those are mixed residential mixed-use neighborhood Transit opportunity area downtown established residential so we assumed most of the mix-use neighborhood and mixed residential areas build out because those are typically larger vacant or mostly vacant Greenfield or large infill properties for the transit opportunity areas in downtown we assumed about 20 build out which we know that's a new New Market that we haven't seen a whole lot of so we didn't want to overestimate that and um then for established residential we which is mostly existing neighborhoods we assumed about 10 percent um new units in those for small infill or you know accessory dwelling units or duplexes or those sorts of things so

when we ran all those numbers excluding the future growth areas that gave us about 150 000 units that we could accommodate in with Place type mam so that's when we felt comfortable and we did present this to the Joint City County planning committee that we have even even if we're wrong in the build out and it's much less we still have enough land to accommodate our growth through 2050 and we didn't and because of that are some of the policy changes we decided to make with this comprehensive plan that we from the last conference the plan that we didn't need to go out as far so and it may be longer than what you're looking for but that's kind of how we we came to this conclusion okay so 130 000 people to 25 to 2050 60 000 dwelling units and conservative conservative estimates for being able to accommodate that we are above that within this recommended Urban growth boundary the left-hand side of each of the figures

that's correct okay uh can you also explain to me what is the timeline the decision making criteria which you already spoke to a little bit but if you could just kind of explain at a high level to to some folks for deciding when and how to expand the urban growth boundary in the future because this isn't the end of the city Forever This is the end of the city for now and then when we need to grow we grow some more what is the criteria what is the methodology how do we decide are we revisiting this every five years every two years is it something more discretionary in terms of timeline can you just explain that a little bit Yeah so it's definitely in general it's something that every time the city and county do a comprehensive plan we need to assess the urban growth boundary and determine based on what we know now what we know then in the future what we know in the future that we don't know at this point what's changed is our growth rate higher or people's choices changing

people want higher density lower density those sorts of things so uh I would definitely say one would say for everyone who's listening that the urban growth boundary that is adopted with this comprehensive plan should be a reassessed on a regular basis at least every time we do a comprehensive plan and hopefully next time it won't take 18 years um we do also have built into the policies of the plan to kind of do an assessment detailed assessment every two years to look at what's changed and so those we can also look at it at that point I think the main thing we want to look at is if our growth rate starts if we go from one and a half percent to three percent then we're going to run out of land a lot faster and so those sorts of things we'll have to take into account um and so we should and the third thing I'll say there is also um I think I mentioned this in the presentation there are policies and criteria in in the policies part of the plan that talk about if someone wants to request extending the urban growth boundary Beyond what's adopted than what they

would need to show and then that would be treated similar to a zoning map change okay thank you and I think the I want to emphasize just how important that methodology is and just making sure that it's as tight as possible and follows a logical approach because if not then we're really just going to wait on people who are powerful or politically connected or can fill a room or whatever for or against that's how we're going to be deciding what happens with the urban growth boundary so having that methodology in place making sure that it's a good methodology I think is is really important moving forward so those were General comments that that I had and I will turn things back over and listen to other questions commissioner Morgan I had a question for staff as well kind of a follow-up on what Nate was talking about what is the criteria in which you remove the future land use and where you

do grow I mean what what kind of infrastructure needs to be in place or what kind of services have to be around do you have that kind of criteria it's the criteria that the in the draft plan for for requesting an increase in the urban growth boundaries that it doesn't expand further into critical watershed doesn't significantly increase long-term infrastructure maintenance costs for the city and county that would be particularly related to student water infrastructure um and it would the change would address a clear need for the community based on the adopted comprehensive plan policies so I mean as far as any kind of specific types of things that need to be in this future land use area or future growth

area there's no particular proximity to commercial or roads infrastructure or anything like that I'm just asking because I think that would be certainly criteria to say are we ready to move or grow into that area and do we have the appropriate uh infrastructure in place to support it because I think sometimes just population growth isn't just it it's also proximity what kind of transits available things like that and I'm wondering if we would have any of those type of uh things in place so this is the urban growth boundary is just the kind of the extent to which we participate the urbanized area growing within you know by 2050 sure um for each decision I mean each annexation and rezoning decision we do an assessment of what what services are available or need to be available so those decisions will need to be made for even for properties Within

the urban growth boundaries so the developer purchases land in that area wants to develop they would have to prove or they would have to provide some criteria for that or provide some profits to support that infrastructure that's right yeah we do that analysis with every particularly with every annexation case since that's where the city is obligated to provide new services to land that preview previously wasn't in the city that they do determine the availability and costs of providing those for for each annexation case okay it just seems a little bit fuzzy in some ways just because I do think that we do grow into those areas and I know we've got another situation where we're actually removing a future growth area and I'm just curious as to what is the criteria to remove one or to add one yeah and so the future growth areas are the different those are the areas within the urban growth boundary that have where we've identified some infrastructure service deficiency which is usually related to

sewer or City fire service those are the two things that are designed to generally serve a specific geography where things like Solid Waste or city-wide and so in the future growth areas we've identified what's missing and so as soon as those um criteria met then it would no longer be a future growth area so let's say if fire response time was the issue and then fire response time is solved then it would go from a future growth area to regular yeah it just seems like there's things like schools or other types of things that probably factor into it that's all yeah there are other important things that and we do look at on a case-by-case basis but the things that are from a geographical standpoint that we could look at from a kind of comprehensive planning county-wide level those were the two that we identified yeah just ask questions thank you other questions or comments

uh commissioner shigeris yes maybe this is for City staff I see that the fire station that was referenced is a Bahama fire station so County so how close is the closest city station plus the city station is also in treyburn but kind of on the other it's on Snow Hill Road near the Durham Tech okay and the right hand side of old Oxford is it's got the section right through the middle of it that is Recreation and open space is that Watershed protection surrounded by rural agricultural Reserve yeah it's most likely um undeveloped flood plain which we identified as Recreation open space on the place type map

I know just immediately to the the East it's surrounded by Army Core land related to false Lake right um would it be possible and I don't even know if the owner of the land would be interested would it be possible to take the part on the left hand that's between old Oxford and stagville and include that and then take the one on the right and not include it I mean I guess if it's possible it's possible under physics are there questions or comments I have a couple of questions first off was there any um Equity analysis done on these areas to understand how they would impact different folks

so we have not done the equity analysis specifically about the urban growth boundary changes okay um yeah okay those are all my questions at this time um other questions or comments okay um I'll just put my cars on the table up front on all of these so in general I think I was one of the early proponents of restricting the urban growth boundary as much as possible so that is kind of my first stance that I work from for a lot of the reasons that have been stated tonight that said I also understand the importance of family land and generational land and so there are situations where I will feel comfortable honoring

that when people have had land in their family since the 1800s it's really hard to argue that we should be moving the goal post on them seemingly arbitrarily and I want to be respectful of that as I can be while maintaining the fact that I really care about restricting our developable land to protect our environment as much as possible um okay any other questions or comments I've already sensed that we don't have unanimity on this um so I think the way that I'm going to ask this question to be most helpful is picking the left image or the right image so for those who would pick the left image which keeps all of this land outside of the urban growth boundary please raise your hand well why did you move the image oh yes can we get that image on the

screen thank you left image would keep the urban growth laundry where it is currently at I see one hand raised okay two hands raised okay we got some confusion so we've got these two images we've got the one on the left that um this is keeping the urban growth boundary as originally proposed so it is keeping more land outside of the urban growth boundary the image on the right is using this dotted line and saying we will include those Parcels in the urban growth boundary and that we would be in favor of including that making that a mixed-use Neighborhood Place type the lavender color yes purple versus the Green maybe that's a

better way to think about it do you like the green do you like the purple okay um so if you prefer the left side with the green that keeps more land outside the urban growth boundary please raise your hand okay I see Four Hands raised if you would prefer the purple that includes those couple of parcels in the urban growth boundary please raise your hand so I counted seven with purple four with green thank you so we'll move now to area two we'll Begin Again with speakers on area two so we have Annette rice we have John Cowan I also see Elizabeth Moore you signed up for this one as well I know you spoke earlier I don't know if you're still here or not but if let me know yes would are you would you like to speak again on this case okay

great so Annette we can with you Pacific area you can't hear me the current recommendations of the draft remove the part of Farrington Mill from the future growth area according to that draft plan it's one of those areas that can't be served by water and sewer specifically because of the topography if this area were to be incorporated back into the urban growth plan what you'd be doing would then be allowing certain areas to be developed that would require multiple lift stations because of the elevation of the property surrounding it additionally there are we don't need to be pumping sewage uphill from that specific area the the current sewage pump stations in

that region the Celeste sewage Basin is currently overwhelmed and it's in the process of being relocated and additionally there are several apartment complexes that have been approved and built on the cusp of the I-40 Corridor on Farrington Road proper off of 54. the a lovely woman here earlier mentioned that there doesn't seem to be a lot of Correspondence between the protected Watershed areas with the areas within the new Urban growth boundary the overlays seem to be quite off here a lot of the map a lot of the proposed changes to the boundary and the development areas are actually within protected and critical Watershed areas those areas are obviously already influenced by the storm water running down and off of the steep slopes into

the um the critical Watershed areas the runoff into that area off of any additional impervious surfaces that development would cause are basically going to be poisoning the water down that supplies our water supply from Jordan Lake thank you thank you ladies and gentlemen I'm John Cowan I reside at 3514 Shady Creek Drive but I'm the owner of blue Sun Farms our office is at 7206 kepley Road this is the 76 Acre Farm immediately joining the ugb actually crossing over it and it's directly adjacent to the proposed Sheffield Estates the farm starts at the corner of kepley and Farrington Mill and goes a solid mile down parallel to Farrington Mill and um uh I want to tell you that I support the original plan uh which is pulls back

some of these uh potential development areas not the uh future growth plans um two of my Parcels are directly included in in the proposed ugb changes 143-103 and 143231 would be included in the revision I I don't want anything south of south or east of Farrington Mill to be uh to be developed in any any more uh way my addresses include 8501 8505 8511 and 8801 Farrington Mill Road I've invested my money in in buying and developing this Farm I've also invested thousands of hours of hard physical labor including 15 stitches and a copperhead bite I've renovated this farm and I'm committed to making sure that this is a farm going forward our our rural community is a viable and a live rural community it's not unused land or or stuff that's not being used

we're a community down there and we're very proud of ourselves South in the east of Farrington Road in particular should be considered critical Jordan Lake Watershed and all that area going east there's only a certain amount of land down there going down to Mason point and and that's just it um I'm committing to maintaining the vital Wildlife corridor from Mason Point all the way up to North Carolina game lands both sides of Farrington Mill Road and all the way up to Mason Farm Preserve thank you thank you say about two dozen hands raised on that one is there anybody else wants us to speak on this yes no and yeah okay good evening my name is Randy few my family has owned Sheffield farm for

almost 90 years and over the course of that period of time the farm has been shrunk significantly by Jordan Lake acquiring 400 Acres of it for the Jordan Lake project on another 50 acres of it has been is in the wow critical watershed and this proposal now would uh would encumber another 140 Acres of it leaving essentially 80 acres of the original 670 Acres um and obviously I would like for the you to be boundary to be left where it is right now that is the purple the purple side of your voting map

and there's a number of reasons you know this area is is close to employment centers much closer than any of the future growth areas except the one that's adjacent to it there's a water water main in the in the in the road in spite of what's been said there is a a sewer solution that does not involve pumping it through four lift stations and pumping it half a dozen miles in a big loop to the waste treatment facility there's preliminary approval to run a line directly to the wastewater treatment plant with a with a lift station that would also be able to serve a number of other residents along fairytale Mill Road that have failing septic systems and are would be would be useful in that it's also a fire station two and a half miles away two minutes are up all right thank you thank you vote purple

I see one hand raised I'm in support of that speaker good evening everyone my name is Neil gush attorney with the Morningstar Law Group I have a slightly different take on this particular piece of land the same it was made that you know keeping this in the ugb or uh or put you know would somehow allow developers to build here well the reality is this land has been in the Suburban tier for a while it's not been developed because it is a challenging site so simply keeping it in the ugb or adding it to the ugb does not allow developers to do anything except try to figure out how to get water and sewer to this site so on the one hand keeping it in doesn't necessarily propose any risk of change on the other hand if you were here at the last hearing on February 28th there was a strong

vocal support from other property owners in this area who have been waiting exactly for that for a developer to figure out how to bring water and sewer to this area because they have been deprived of water and sewer for a long time and they are very interested in remaining in the urban growth boundary which means adding it to the urban growth boundary in this setting I think that's what exactly what should be done here there are historic property owners here who are very interested in in remaining in the urban growth boundary especially on the cusp of a potential proposed development that might actually be able to bring water and sewer air finally now in the staff report materials there were two different place site map recommendations or suggestions if this area is put in the ugb one of them was mixed residential neighborhood the other is mixed-use neighborhood I would argue that Nick's

residential neighborhood makes the most sense for an area that also is being considered for maybe not being developable at all maybe commercial shouldn't be going there as well thank you thank you I see five six hands raised in favor of that speaker we're going to move to folks who want to speak on this item in the zoom meeting at first we have Susan Patrick hi I'm Sue Patrick I'm at 103 nettle Ridge I don't need to rehash a lot of the speakers here but I am against the movement of the um the proposal to move the urban urban growth boundary and I would just ask rather to rehash comments to ask the the Commissioners to please take a look at the SharePoint site a lot of people in our community have spoken through the SharePoint site and I would just ask that you please review the comments there thank you so much and for the work you've done

thank you next we have Barry Saunders um hi my name is Barry Saunders I live in Southwest Durham County at 8110 Kennebec Drive my neighborhood is just outside the urban growth boundary on January's draft plan we are glad for that most neighbors I've spoken with up and down Farrington Mill Road are against any Southward movement of the growth boundary as per the right side of attachment seven uh figure two we don't want big development projects in our rural residential community I just want to speak to Emergency Services in the comprehensive plan these are not listed among infrastructure needs for our areas Our concern Patchwork development and annexations in this rural corner of the county would make for further confusion of delayed and we already have with emergencies of various kinds

M single vehicle accident along Farrington Mill Road that I heard through the woods from my house the vehicle was off the road in trees driver rejected with impaired Consciousness I called 9-1-1 but wasn't able to say then just which side of the Durham Chatham County Line the accident was on there was confusion that added to a long response time on a very cold night or police when we report gunfire that's not consistent with legal hunting we now decide between sheriff and Wildlife officers we don't need City Police District 3 added to that confusion for fire is the Farrington Road station 16 ready for that much new development a next door post this week noted that a caller about a brush fire at Farrington and Stagecoach got no answer at 9-1-1 after 13 rings a call to that station

went to a machine which said call 9-1-1 if this is a person power problem what does that say about more growth please leave the growth boundary where it wasn't February don't make more Patchwork cityscape thank you thank you I see I'd say a little bit over a dozen hands raised in support of that one um also for folks in the zoom meeting um I I'm sorry that um our technology doesn't fully allow us for y'all to engage in the best way but if you could only raise your hand if you are wishing to speak I know I mentioned you can raise your hand to show support however for managing people who want to speak it actually creates a little bit of confusion on our side so apologies for that but trust me you have a lot of folk here in person who are having their voice shown and they're hand shown for you

um next we have Richard mansman can you hear me all right yes I'm uh Richard mansman at 8809 Farrington Mill Road my wife Linda and I have owned a horse farm there for 25 years when we arrived in 1998 traffic was still Rural and state along Farrington Mill Road since then Chatham County has developed several neighborhoods and two shopping centers just immediately south of us they built fast and perfect perhaps didn't consider the impact on our area roads rural two-lane Farrington Mill Road is now a local and Commercial artery between the parts of Chatham County Chapel Hill and I-40 from Farrington Mill Barbie chapel and Stagecoach Rhodes spare the front of this traffic and then some with

dangerous congestion during commute times especially at the two existing traffic lights designed to control traffic flow the increases in traffic on these roads has led to Rapid Road wear and piecemeal patching of potholes and degradated Road shoulders these Band-Aids won't solve the underlying traffic issues that currently exist and certainly won't help accommodate future growth area residents can wait several minutes at rush hour to safely pull onto these roads from our neighborhoods and driveways about five years ago the traffic became so bad and unsafe during the afternoon rush hour that Linda and I couldn't safely cross the road to get our mail we petitioned the post office to move our mail box across Farrington Mill and they approve that however this is yet another temporary solution that didn't address the ongoing

increasing traffic issues the current two-lane roads in this small area of Southwestern Durham County can barely handle the current traffic let alone development plans for Richard here two minutes are over thank you thank you okay uh see no one else wishing to speak at this time um so we're going to turn it over to commissioner questions and comments I have one question for staff so um in the potential changes version on the right we have the two patches that are mixed residential neighborhood mixed-use neighborhood um but the there's the one green patch that I think is that the agriculture

Reserve that is consistent on both sides yeah the green patch is Recreation open space there is on um the largest parcel there's some natural heritage area present and so that that Green Spot reflects the natural heritage area at least as it's mapped now it may not be exactly in that location but okay there is that's what that is and so my question is my like intuition on this would say draw the urban growth boundary around the mixed residential and mixed use pieces because those feel more urban to me than open space in this particular context and I just why is the line drawn that way is it just because that's one big parcel and so that has multiple yeah it's one big parcel and then the thing the natural heritage areas a lot of them are mapped very generally from you know they were

drawn from Aerials or something like that um and so we don't know exactly where it's located in most cases until someone submits a development application and has to go out and field locate all that so my concern I understand where you're coming from Mr chair but my concern is that if we drew the line just where that green spot is we'd come have to come back later and we the green spot's going to move um who manages the Green Spot so it's it's data that's provided to us by the state National Heritage program which is part of cultural resources I can't remember one of one of those big state departments um and so there we do have a process for zoning changes certain other development requests that if it's present on the site then there's procedures to go out and um look at the actual go out and field locate what the sensitive environmental features are and

make the maps more accurate okay and so to translate that to development what does how what does that boundary mean for development does it mean nothing can go there I mean only certain things can go there what is the implication it would it's not regulatory so it's something in a discretionary and Grace and Alexander if it's anything wrong let me know um but it in a discretionary application like a rezoning we would request that the applicant minimize or not have any development in the areas that are identified as natural heritage area it's since it's not regulatory it could be the counselor commission could approve development in those areas okay understood thank you other questions or comments commissioner Trapp just have a quick one or clarification on the great question that commissioner Baker asked earlier

about the residential needs and the projections moving forward so in 2020 is when we started this process we would base those residential needs off of 2019 correct yeah so they wouldn't have been updated with recent developments that have happened in the city or the county yeah they would not have been updated I think it's safe to assume a new not supposed to assume but I think it's safe to assume that the yearly population growth unless something drastic happens is going to be relatively the same every year so we could just slide that 130 000 out okay starting from 2023. I think I heard something the last time I heard a projection it was somewhere around 68 people moving to Durham every day yeah it seems like I don't know it seems kind of high but I don't have anything better to share with you so I'm not going to argue yeah that was the last number I heard it was 16. I think that might be the region it may be the region okay but I would

just assume not to assume but I would think if that number was based off of 2019 it would probably be a little bit higher after recent job announcements and other Economic Development growth that we've had since the pandemic started it's it could yeah we don't have a new projection but that's it's a possibility for sure perfect thank you commissioner Morgan a question for staff again Scott you're getting a lot of exercising we're at celery tonight um there you know that southern portion of that area and either both right or left there is an application already in place uh can you I see that on social pinpoint there's a lot of activity on that for that when is that due to come forward or is that kind of luckily someone else can answer this one okay hey thank you commissioner Morgan for that question I I don't want to speak to too much because it is in process it's

just in the first round of review staff completed our review send it back to the applicant so it has 90 days for the applicant to resubmit uh you're correct and I can share that with the the planning Commissioners it is very active on social pinpoint um uh one clarification is that that project probably wouldn't be coming to Planning Commission until August September October uh the applicant was made aware that it is outside the draft Urban growth boundary but they are allowed to proceed with their application anyway okay thank you other questions or comments commissioner Baker um can you just um remind me how you're thinking about using our sort of informal votes up here over the course of the coming weeks and and months because you won't put a lot of time and effort you've been working on this for four

years you have a lot more background information than than we have um and US sort of taking all of this work and all this research that you've made that you've done in order to make these these recommendations the original recommendations um and then us sort of saying yes or no or this or that um when there is so much nuance and for example I strongly believe in an urban growth boundary I like the direction that I bring growth boundary has gone um there are probably some nuances that I would bring to the current recommendation the two figures that we're looking at um but I also feel like you all are in the better position to be able to make a logical call on on the decision that is actually made so can you just speak to that a little bit

speak to and help help me understand a little bit about how you're going to use our informal recommendation and whatever comments we provide to you yeah so we'll certainly take the feedback we get from you all and determine whether or not that warrants US changing our recommendation but at the very least we can present the planning commission's recommendation to the elected bodies and if there's a staff difference we can just explain what that is and um just describe the differences and like with any case I would highly encourage you all that if you have differences or nuances um amongst yourselves that you include that your written comments and then just one other one other point is these these are actually very small portion of the overall comprehensive plan so um no matter what you all decide don't eat it one way or the other the bulk of the comprehensive plan is I think has General support amongst you all in the community so

um if you're worried about I mean I don't have feelings but if you're worried about my staff's feelings we'll be okay I'm more worried about just making sure that we're making the right decisions on um very very impactful um recommendations that are being provided here um so that's it for me other questions or comments commissioner shigeris so I'm hearing two different stories about the sewer capacity in the area I'm hearing that staff says it's no good and then I'm hearing the landowner or one of the landowners saying that there's a possibility for something which one is it so anything can be served with sewer you can there's it's almost never impossible so there's definitely a way to serve this area with sewer it's just that there's

through the because of the topography it's very complicated so we've had several cases that have come in and then had to withdraw just because they couldn't find a reasonable solution so the real answer is yes it can be served with sewer but it's gonna it's it's a pretty complicated set of issues in this part of town well I guess the implication on that would be if there are potential petitions on this in the works than that petition would involve perhaps developing the whole thing even the little light green spot to make it worth the money have to be spent for the potential sewer they would have to they'd have to do an analysis of the the green area to see which part is actually protected natural heritage area it's likely that it's not that entire area because

but as far as I know the the application we have in is for the entire property including the the southern tip that showed green on the map if I may speak I don't want to spend too much time on a specific case but just to clarify the entire property is not included there's a portion that is in the rural tier and the critical watershed area and the applicant has proposed not including that in the project so it's actually carved out from the current petition yeah it's usually that's the southeast part of the parcel are there questions or comments Sue my feeling on this um it's odd to me that The Proposal on the right with the purple and the brown would seemingly be more dense and more mixed

use near open space and near kind of a boundary of where how this area has developed seems to me that the way my brain tends to think about density is that we would be identifying at the intersection of Farrington and 54. near Highway 40 and then reducing density from there and keeping low density near our Watershed so for me I think this is an appropriate place to choose the left the Green version that keeps this land um outside of the urban growth boundary other thoughts or comments commissioner Baker one thing I'm thinking about in all of this is is that the tools that we're using the mapping tools that we're using so we have the play site map and then we

have sort of urban growth boundary the place type map helps us understand what and how what and how are we developing When developing when development happens what does it look like how does it happen the urban growth boundary is sort of when and where are we growing so they're they're sort of answering two different two different questions and so one thing I keep thinking about in all of these different figures is um you know what if we do end up what if city council does end up saying hey look you know we don't care that this is outside the urban growth mind we're gonna we're gonna approve whatever development's coming before us and um and and all of a sudden we don't have any direction in the in a playstate map for that so I part of the Nuance that I'm struggling with is um is that the changes are both to the urban growth boundary and to the place type map rather than saying this is our play site map so when we're at full build out this is what the the city when it expands to the boundaries

of of the county will look like you know in 200 years over time um and these are the areas that we make sure want to make sure we do not grow in over the next 20 years so um that's something that I'm struggling a little bit with on on some of these and I think some of the Nuance that I'm going to present in in my comments when we get there yeah um so Scott is that a viable option that we could pursue is saying we like the recommended place types the purple and the brown but we want to maintain the existing Urban growth boundary that's on the left side oh I think it's I mean probably possible it kind of wreaks Havoc with the policies in the place type guide it kind of makes it clear that if it's outside the urban growth boundary then it should be rural in nature and so really the role in agricultural Reserve Place type is the in most cases

the only one that would apply okay and we do have the future growth areas and I think if if you will put this back in I think we put this report we'd also recommend making it a future growth area so that they could find an acceptable Steward solution for the whole area not just for the most developable property that may be a good way a possible way to make this work that is clear because the future growth area does have a set of criteria that we need to meet before um well from a policy perspective before recommending developing in that area commissioner Baker does that address your concern at all to be thinking about this as a future growth area uh yeah I think I think I'm probably just going to be voting to stay consistent with the staff recommendations on the urban growth boundaries but I'm gonna I'm gonna have some nuances in

the comments that I that I end up providing other questions or comments um I guess before I ask the green or purple question um does anybody I want to pers like think of a third option here great um Okay so if you like the green option on the left that keeps all of us land outside of the urban growth boundary oh yes can we please get the map up on the screen yeah um Kim so I don't know how many planning Commissioners have this up in front of them already but if you prefer info Green version that keeps the um Urban growth boundary as originally drafted would you please raise your hand

sorry accounting is hard um okay I got eight hands raised and then if you prefer the purple Brown version on the right that would include these parcels three hands okay thank you all right moving on to area three Patterson Road area um so I have two speakers who sign up in person um I have Donna Steinbeck and Pam Andrews Pam you said you wanted to switch one did you want was it the southeast I'm sorry Kemp Road okay gotcha thank you um Donna Steinbeck hello I'm Donna staying back at 4825 Jimmy Rogers Road in Durham North Carolina uh I am we my family are opposed to uh increase in the future growth from what it was specified in January of 2023.

um it is near the Falls Lake area we um on the petition we had over 10 people on Patterson road signed the petition and this was a very small sample as you can imagine and and over 10 on Stallings Road that live about a mile from this site were against it it is Triassic soil is significantly hindered by the traffic on Patterson at rush hours it's within a couple of miles of my house and I would have to go through that intersection which is deadly I'm not exaggerating I've seen five major accidents in the last five years there and I've had friends that slow down to like 35 or 30 just going through that intersection because they're so scared on highway 98. highway 98 is not a pro for this development it is scary out there because you have five roads coming together stylings Sharon Patterson Highway 98 and

it's it's not a good intersection at all um it is not got sidewalks down it like they had said it it just has a little Part near the lawnmower repair shop that has the sidewalk and it doesn't have a bus stop it has no school buses but not a bus stop um the uh this is very important to keep as much of this area near the Falls Lake in a protected area and um and not to have all the red clay and all that we would have if it is developed thank you thank you I see about a dozen and a half hands raised um okay is there anyone else in person wishing we speak at this time okay you can come to the podium at this

time my name is Beatrix Forsyth and I live at 609 Crestview Drive Northern Durham I'm here to talk about land on Patterson Road in Durham that my family inherited from our aunt we want to sell our property to benefit us in the future Governor Cooper has done a great job recruiting businesses to relocate to North Carolina as well as promoting new businesses to the area some of these businesses are in the RTP and employees will need to find homes relatively close to their jobs Patterson Road crosses over to Sharon Road which brings you to Highway 70 in

South Miami Boulevard South Miami Boulevard then brings you into research trial Park we do not want our property removed from the urban growth boundary thank you thank you is there anyone else in person wanting to speak on area three please come to the podium this is for the Patterson Road area and if there are folks in Zoom that want to speak on the Patterson Road area please start raising your hand at this time good afternoon my name is Pam Williams a 2130 Adventure Trail I grew up in this area along Patterson Road cheek Road Jimmy Rogers Road NC 98 my family which is the Rex's a whole slew of us still live out in this community we all have to pass through this intersection at 98 uh Carpenter I mean Stallings and Patterson this is a very dangerous

intersection on the NC 98 Corridor study there was a proposed Improvement there is no improvement for NC 98 on the mpo MTP 2050 Transportation plan NC 98 in this area it's already over capacity so is Sharon Road and there I have witnessed myself two accidents at this intersection where the vehicle overturned um in the last six months so it is a very dangerous intersection and I think everybody can agree with that the land is ruled so it can still be sold for one dwelling per acre and if it's 20 acres I don't know how much but you know that's 20 homes or or something like that that can be put on it um so I am my kids including this in the urban growth boundary thank you thank you I see a little bit over a dozen hens raised

okay I'm not seeing anyone in Zoom machine to speak at this time so I'm going to turn it over to commissioner questions and comments okay hearing none are we ready to give a choice okay so on the left we have the green option um this keeps more land outside of the urban growth boundary if you would like think that is the better direction to go could you please raise your hand at this time I see five hands raised if you prefer the purple up I heard six in the audience so can I

sorry I'm gonna go back can we do the green option so I can count again green option raise your hand yes six great thank you okay purple option please raise your hand counting five that's very helpful just the first half um okay great we're going to move on to area four this is the cheek Redwood area um so we have um Jason Mabry Jared Edens Carol bud we have Donna Steinbeck signed up Donna have a feeling we know what you're gonna say but um so do you want to speak again on this case okay uh begin with Jason

hello my name is Jason Marbury and I live at 2614 Hillandale Road I am the owner of 3115 Redwood Road in Durham County which is approximately 54 Acres this property is currently in the Suburban tier and available for annexation and connection to Municipal used utilities however this may soon no longer be possible for my property was not included within the urban growth boundary this is why I'm here today I'm born and raised in Durham this property has been in my family for many years starting with my great grandfather it was passed down to my grandfather and my great uncle who then passed it down to me I remember both my uncle and my grandfather telling me to keep this land as long as I want but to sell when the time is right because we want to take care of you and your family financially they were all tobacco farmers and we all know here that that is a thing of the past I live here in the city and work here as well I can't farmless land to make a living but I've always relied on this property where it ensures that I can retire or provide for my family even if I no longer can work if my property is not added to the new Urban growth

boundary the value of the property will be significantly less than if it had development potential and me and my family will no longer have that Financial Security that it provides my neighbors to the west of me are in the proposed boundary area the Panther Creek subdivision is behind my property which already has sewer and water Durham isn't getting any smaller it will need land for new development the property is 15 minutes to RTP and grocery store and drugstores are about 10 minutes away please reconsider I feel like what my grandfather or Uncle wanted for me and my family will be taken away thank you thank you I see about seven hands raised that speaker Jared evens foreign Jared Edens with Eden's Investments appreciate your time tonight I'm here to speak about a couple specific Parcels on the north side of cheek Road near the Redwood intersection I've got a client

slash well partner actually whose own property for about 15 years out here it's a 299 acre tract under north side of cheek road so unfortunate I feel bad for the planning department because we get a lot of sewer questions up here watering sewer questions but I know we don't have a lot of technical engineering staff here from water management or engineering to answer some of the questions but the parcel I'm speaking of and again I'm not asking that it'd be put back in because it's not been taken out yet you know we had one draft map nothing's been done you know most of the developers are here just asking for to keep things as are because we've had that Suburban tier line for 18 years but this specific property is owned by my partners and also a there's a local church that owns about 60 Acres I can give more details to planning later I guess but we've studied it for 15 years it can yield several hundred units Durham's rule of thumb on a pump station we've heard a lot about pump stations it's 250 units has been the rule of thumb in Durham

from Water Management so once you get 250 units feeding a pump station you can generally cover the cost of that pump station developers also had to write checks up front that covers a maintenance cost for these pump stations for like a five to ten year period That's factored into the utility extension agreement so there's a lot of checks and balances here I think what we've seen is Parcels have been studied to a certain degree but it takes two and three levels of study to sort of figure out some of these and look at topography and I just think we need to be taking a closer look before we take three percent of our growth area out in a city that can only grow so much a supply and demand is not a myth it's a real thing so that's my concern thank you thank you next Carol bud all right hello I'm Carol Bud 3504 and 3316 Redwood Road I've lived on Redwood about 30 years in my life my husband around 40 and I would like for you to

keep Redwood and Chic outside of the growth boundary we've become accustomed to certain luxuries living in the county provides like hunting and shooting living our farm life sitting outside by a fire being surrounded by Nature away from the city annexation and development would prohibit this way of life growth where proposed home density exceeds the current surrounding area doesn't seem responsible when there's been other developments that have been approved or in the works nearby we don't really know how these are going to reflect our area once they're complete this is unfortunately a little bit more personal ebx purchased part of our family's property under the guise it would be protected and preserved for Falls Lake Petty's Lake and the connecting streams to never be developed my father-in-law unexpectedly passed away before the parcel sale was complete we learned ulterior motives and the intimidated my morning mother-in-law with the litigation until she came and completed the sale ebx then transferred the current to the current owner and developer drain Petty's leg mitigated the streams and now we find out that they want to use

our parcel as an entrance to the development that they were planning all along this obviously is heartbreaking um we weren't only the only ones fold we've heard by the capture of these lands also our property lines we're close to game lands the sheriff gun range and their explosive explosive explosive disposal area and we think that this might cause unnecessary Panic for people not around here we also fail to understand the affordable homes in this area new homes like in timberleaf on Farrell Road nearby homes start at 360 thousand dollars High values like these could negatively impact the current homeowners nearby for property values and taxes now having to pay City and County taxes where we haven't before um thank you thank you Donna Steinbach okay Donna staying back 48-25 Jimmy

Rogers Road Durham North Carolina um I'm for keeping the cheap Redwood area outside the ugb we had over 40 signatures on cheat Road and Redwood Road to the petition that was there and that those were in the emails you received and within one mile of the site we had an additional 20 plus signatures my husband and I live about one mile from the cheap Redwood Road Project a proposed project I was raised on cheat road with my five siblings and eight cousins in the area and now have like 11 Kinfolk family addresses between one half and two miles from this particular project we know that the major outlet for these developments will be Patterson Road at Highway 98 and Sharon Road which we've already talked about as being unsafe because they go to Raleigh 147 in the RTP areas this community definitely does not meet

the 15-minute community and please join my family in trying to preserve and protect the environment and wildlife in this community thank you um I see about a dozen hands raised okay uh moving to or sorry is there anyone in this person who is also trying to speak please come to the podium at this time if you're wanting to speak on this case if he's home to the podium my name's Billy Bordeaux I live at 5901 cheek Road the property that Mr Edens was just talking about I helped on that farm I have worked on it I've worked on farms up and down that road Rogers Road all those roads and I can tell you one thing it is not safe for a lot of traffic on cheek road if anybody's

familiar with it you know that it is not safe we don't need all that unless you're gonna have some roads put in because it's a dead it goes from uh Granville in Wake County all the way into Durham and the Research Triangle and then traffic is already terrible there's two places the path on that road after you leave the river I live two miles from the river and while I'm sitting in front of my house and when I'm in front of where my husband was raised and there's only two places that you can it's safe to pass so it's like a Speedway out there and I could I can tell you something else we own 15 Acres out there and I wouldn't sell my soul for money it's all about a dozen hands raised on that one sir

yeah I'm uh Christoph boshoff I'm one of the owners on the on the 300 acres 299 Acres on Chic Road Great Road um I just want to let everybody know I I feel for people about getting development into their into their areas it is something that is happening with population growth and so on WE invested in this property in in 2005 we were the people that that got the property from ebx we were unaware of anything that they did prior to us purchasing this property but it is our savings it's my family's retirement this is going to be a tremendous loss for us and what most people don't realize is soils are so bad there that you cannot build one residence or maybe two or three residents with spray fields on it but it's not good for the environment to have a bunch of spray Fields out there we we have conservation

easements on all our streams our environmental consultant I care about the environment I care about people but to just take us out of the EGA it's going to be devastating for us and I'd like for us to be all working together and making this a decent development thank you thank you um I saw a hand raised forehands raised it's part of that speaker we're going to move to our Zoom participants I see one hand raised in Zoom that's Michelle Clayton Michelle are you able to unmute yourself okay we will try and come back to Michelle before we do our straw bolt on this item any

questions or comments from planning commissioners commissioner Baker yes I'm sort of peppering questions and comments throughout these one question for staff and this is just come up just now um I don't know that there are a lot of examples of transfer development rights in the state of North Carolina has your team done any research on that or consideration for it if not we do have a transfer of impervious surface that's allowed under our Watershed protection overlays which gets used occasionally um yeah honestly I know I've worked in places that have transfer of development rights I don't know if they're specifically authorized in North Carolina and how useful they might be okay other questions or comments okay um Michelle Clayton I want to give you

another chance to see if Tech issues are sorted out um I don't really have necessarily a person found um comment I just am not um for it being developed great thank you okay yes commissioner MacGyver this is for staff it's the the red hatched area is the future growth there is correct I'm just confused as to why south of Chico it's not proposed to be extended there as well like there's a basic ocean and future development to the green area back to the mixed use area why there's that patch yeah so those are the I think what

you're you're looking at the future growth areas on um that are a little bit further south and west of this yeah so those other areas that are currently outside the city that um there's a sewer capacity issue there and a fire response time issue there so that's why those are designated as future growth areas I think the similar issues would be applied to this so if it were added in we would also recommend this this area be a future growth area okay thanks other questions or comments okay um my general thought on this is to me given that the potential changes with the purple color um would be also a future growth area under this potential change I would be in favor of going that route because we still have

certain criteria we will have to meet before that land gets developed and I feel comfortable with that personally any other questions or comments okay if you prefer the green option on the left that keeps all of this outside of the urban growth boundary please raise your hand see five hands if you prefer the right option with the purple that create makes this a new future growth area please raise your hand C6 hands thank you uh okay we're going to move to area five Snow Hill Road area we have one person signed up to speak in person this is Heidi greyhole Grable great thank you Heidi

and then is there anybody or is there anybody else in attendance who wants to speak on area five okay I'm not seeing anyone make a dart for the podium and then I don't see any hands raised in Zoom is there anyone in the zoom meeting who would like to speak on area five Snow Hill Road area I see Michelle Clayton yes um I actually grew up on this road um growing up and um I think at what rate it's already developed has been um plenty I remember actually living there as a teenager and they were blasting making um a way for the Lucas Middle School which is fine you know that was um okay but um it actually caused my parents um well to completely

um cave and so they actually had to get a whole new well and um some other people actually didn't even get theirs covered and so that was a big concern for the surrounding neighbors I actually don't think most of them know about this being developed um I think that's why there's a little bit of a lack so right now I'm in the cheap Road Redwood area but I just wanted to touch on that um on behalf of my family thank you and I see about a dozen hand threes anyone else in Zoom wishing to speak on this area five Snow Hill Road area Marvin Harman yes yes I've been on Snow Hill Road for over 30 years that was my daughter was just speaking I think you know we went through a lot some of the neighbors that I know on

this street have had she spoke of the well damaged some of our neighbors here have had damage done more than one time our house also as did many others during the building of Lucas Middle School with the blasting had Foundation trouble that had to be repaired we've been through enough for you to think before you do this you're affecting a lot of people and I'm well aware that most of my neighbors are not even aware that this meeting's going on tonight and I wish I could have worn them you'd take it very seriously serious got enough going on we've had enough damage it's not fair thank you is anyone else wishing to speak on this item I saw about five hands raised on

that one okay seeing none um I'll turn it to commissioner question and comment any questions or comments okay um you can come to the podium and ask a question just as a homeowner for potential blasting what is the cities or the developers rules or regulations on notifying nearby homeowners because us as well we do have Foundation issues and if they're blasting in our backyard fortunately enough we don't have any negative effects from the explosive disposal down the street when they set off bombs and stuff but if they're going to be blasting in my backyard that could

greatly affect our foundation work where we're already in need of that so what kind of protections are we offered if this is going to happen yeah um Grace Alexander Scott one of y'all are best position we've this has been a Hot Topic recently so Grace Smith I'll be honest with you I might need to brush up on that real quick I just walked back in the room but I know it's regulated by the fire department if you give me a minute I'll be right back I just want to make sure I advise you correctly okay thank you uh while Grace is looking into that any other questions or comments commissioner shigeris um I guess for City staff it says that part of this is encumbered by a county-owned agricultural easement how how much what is a little over 80 acres

it's really the the biggest site in this this area so is that a legally binding it's only until unless all owners decide to sell the easement it's legally binding forever okay thank you thank you um I don't feel like the blasting question is going to change anybody's decision on this it's kind of just more of a matter of fact so I think we can go ahead and move forward with our straw poll so if you prefer the option on the left that is all green and keeps all of this segment outside of the urban growth boundary please raise your hand look at us um that's 10 and if you prefer the option on the right with the brown that adds a

portion of this into the urban growth boundary please raise your hand commissioner Morgan it's one okay thank you we are moving through these a little faster than I expected so that's good uh don't jinx it okay area six Arrowhead area um we have several people who signed up to speak on this so again friendly reminder somebody says something that you have already stated if you could just raise your hand to show your agreement with them that would be great um and you know new thoughts are appreciated but I want to also make sure everyone has an opportunity to say what they need so I'm going to call off three names at a time um we'll start with penny sparagno sparacino uh there's an eye in there

thank you Christina Falcone and Leslie Colleen sorry well yeah Leslie don't worry about the name I was nearly married before I could pronounce it I'm representing the Arrowhead community and I'm basically in the neighbors are basically opposed to opposed to putting putting us within the urban growth boundary we agree with the goals of the plan growth with existing footprint protect more ecologically important land incentives of national natural areas focus on the Farmland preservation including voluntary agricultural districts and place Ketone Keystone Properties in a permanent conservation Arrowhead contains environmentally sensitive areas which you'll hear more about ecologically important land as well as farmlands

currently there are over 150 acres within Arrowhead in the voluntary agricultural District and you'll see that an appendix C I'd like to see that continue regardless of who owns the properties in the prior commission meeting the Durham planning staff has indicated that only 60 000 new units are needed in the next 20 years they're 150 000 new units possible within the now existing ugb and on that basis alone encroachment of the ugb into the arrowhead area is by definition not necessary therefore I really hope that the ears of the Planning Commission and are listening carefully to the voices of Arrowhead and that you'll bring your ears in your eyes out to the Arrowhead community to drive around and see what it actually is I don't know how many of you have been out there but I welcome you to call me I'll take you around I'll be up buy you a donut since we seem to be a donut hole out here

so just let me know let us know we welcome you to come out and see what they like I appreciate it thank you I'm going to say two and a half dozen to three dozen hands raised on that one hi I'm Christina Falcone Langley I'm at 104 Baymeadows Lane Durham North Carolina born and raised here and grateful lucky and fortunate enough to be able to live back on the land I grew up on next to my dad and my uncle with my two boys and husband I also am here to support the current draft which has Arrowhead outside of the urban growth boundary I know it was mentioned in the beginning how important policy is in making these decisions I like to highlight policy 76 79 81 82 and 118 which in interest of time I'll just paraphrase ensure that a minimum of 30 of the land area of Durham County is placed in permanent conservation by 2050

especially natural heritage areas and forested tracks locate open space and new development so that protects the most environmentally sensitive portions of the site and creates large and continuous contiguous habitat areas existing habitat areas and Wildlife movement corridors should be left largely undisturbed to remain in their natural vegetative state and to avoid fragmentation and disruption discourage development that contributes to the loss of biodiversity particularly through disruptive clear-cutting and mass grading which would have to happen in Arrowhead in the area that's been designated and protect the rural character of Durham outside the ugb the land is likely most suitable for permanent conservation due to proximity to natural heritage areas within Duke forest and large forested tracks within Arrowhead a large portion of it is unsuitable for high density development that stormwater analysis support and I believe you all do have that but if not we can make sure you you have it Wildlife has a corridor to move through this area largely through this largely undeveloped rural area that connects the

two divisions of Duke Forest which is a natural heritage area and finally Arrowhead naturally has tracks of forested area and is within the Triassic Basin the unique landscape contributing to the critical Watershed natural habitats and the ecologically important Hillside is also made of layers of clay-rich sandstone and siltstone rock contributing to the pooling water and natural Wetlands Mass clearing and Grading of the land should be discouraged and on that verify points okay thank you thank you um say three dozen hands raised on that one after Leslie will have Judson Edinburgh Paul Vick and Connor Hartman okay my name is Leslie Colleen I live at 3503 West Cornwallis Road and it is part of the arrowhead area I'm here to support the current draft plan which has Arrowhead outside of the urban growth

boundary I have some policies that I could mention but I think the topics have been covered basically the error had to be included in the ubg with contradict these policies policies 124 95 and 79. in addition it is a policy preference of both City and County elected officials to reduce the size of the urban growth boundary to encourage more infill and the Redevelopment in the urban parts of Durham and this was based on an email that we got from staff um in closing I would just like for you to remember that when we had the pandemic it was the green space that saved a lot of people in our area where the Duke Forest is was well used and so we would like to maintain that thank you thank you I see two and a half dozen

hands raised on that one um next we have Judson Edinburgh hello Judson ediburn 4110 Curley Road I'm here to support the current draft comprehensive plan which does not include the arrowhead area within Urban growth boundary the proposed change to include the arrowhead in the ugb would create an encroachment into the last area of rural Durham County that is largely surrounded by the Duke forest and the Orange County World buffer this is an important part of the natural landscape and ecologically important land extending from the Duke Forest which contains natural heritage areas recognized by the city of Durham and the state of North Carolina to the New Hope open space Corridor boundary The Proposal is inconsistent with the community need to protect the greater assets these lands provide regarding the policies and goals of the plan draft

plan I'd like to highlight policy 77 96 and 100 and paraphrased R1 protect Durham's most sensitive natural areas including Wetlands wildlife habitats Hill sides critical watersheds and natural heritage sites from impacts from development to encourage the creation and preservation of natural wildlife habitat on both public and private land and three decrease and mitigate light produced pollution to reduce its impact on humans and Wildlife development that is allowed within the ugb will substantially alter habitats for Native Wildlife it is a special place deserving our stewardship to preserve in closing until recently I did not intend to speak tonight however the statements made by Adam Abrams and Patrick Baker Barker biker sorry at the February meeting changed my mind I believe that much of what they said was incorrect and thus misleading it is vital that those who

are making decisions here are all informed and that what they are and be informed with is correct thank you see about three dozen hands raised on that one my name is Paul Vick 4518 Irwin Road I live in Arrowhead and I came to speak about at the conclusion of the meeting last week I heard when it was someone mentioning in Duke and what Duke stood for Duke faced this issue in the late 1980s when there was some discussion to Duke about bringing Development Across 15 501 in portions of the Duke Forest which could be commercially developed in in addressing the issue the university turn and I am not speaking for Duke at all this is just Knowledge from personal experience uh the university turned to the Urban Land Institute to do a study as a part of that study there was developed a community concerns committee

it was made up of citizens of Durham who were asked by the university to listen to the community and to assess what the people in the total Community not just people around the Duke Forest felt I chaired that committee which is what I can speak about the consensus of that committee ultimately leading to recommendations by the university to adopt the land in the Duke Division and the question division the two divisions that bound Arrowhead that it would be education and Recreation and research that is what that land is for part of what was made the point that was made during these discussions was how the importance of those two Parcels affected this entire area and its ability to be preserved how they were interconnected and they still are this day and the University's commitment is

continues and I hope you will continue the commitment to preserve Arrowhead and lands around it in his current state thank you thank you see about three dozen hands raised after Connor we have Duke Williams Bill casteo and Maggie Savage thank you my name is Connor Hartman and I live with my wife Melora and our three children ages four three and one at 4406 Curley Road Durham North Carolina we're on the Orange County World buffer side of the road my neighbors across the street live in Arrowhead and the road actually tracks with the county line kind of weaving in and out I'm here to oppose the extension as all my neighbors are here and the one thing I'd like to highlight for the committee is policy 166 and this particularly pertinent because it defines how the ugb can expand and I quote proposed changes to expand the ugb should only be made when the proponent can demonstrate all three not one of the three all three of the following conditions one the change does

not expand the ugb further into a critical Watershed the city of Durham issued in March of 21 it's Durham critical areas protection plan for New Hope Creek and that identified two Keystone riparians in Arrowhead as well as additional riparian areas the parcel numbers are one three seven seven four three and one three three seven four five on the second point the change does not significantly increase long-term infrastructure maintenance costs for the city or county we have an email from staff documenting the city water water management assessment that necessary upgrades to the sewer system would be extremely expensive and lastly and very importantly the third condition the change would address a clear need from the community based on the adopted comprehensive plan policies this extension contradicts our needs I think as you're hearing very clearly here the policy is a very good one if it's applied and I think what we would see here is an exception to this

policy being damaging so thank you for your consideration and uh I would know it also there are 13 additional policies that are worthy of consideration in all of this thanks thank you see about three dozen hands raised hi my name is Duke Williams I live at 4409 Curley Road and an adjacent piece of property that fronts on Cornwallis so we total about 20 acres my wife and I have lived there for about 40 years my family has been in the Durham Durham County area for a little over 300 years and most of the pieces of land we're talking about have been in my family from time to time Unfortunately they keep leaving it to the church instead of the Next Generation so it's not continuous there are a couple of things that I'd like to point out about the property one is there's an immense elevation gain from the lowest part of this property of Airhead to the to the top and it's about 400 feet and if you look at the map behind you

the stream in the gold area to the left is a large ravine and when I was building the Duke School for Children we looked at this property to buy and it was disqualified in our minds because of the cost of moving water elevation and just the grade of the land to build on the other thing about the elevation is I work in town so I know this the temperature winter and summer between my house which is at 900 feet in my office in town is anywhere between five and seven degrees and since our weather comes from the West here uh the Airhead area is the last part of the Piedmont before you get into Durham it's very unique in that it is part of the Piedmont and it is a weather buffer it's sort of like a Barrier Island for weather and if you develop it densely it will raise its temperature which will have the effect of continuing to raise the temperature in the heat Islands in Durham and I think that's a very important thing and the last thing that

piece of land that has the Gully is a Terminus for the Charleston fault and while that's a infrequent problem we've felt it twice the severity of that problem is a significant thing to consider that it's all an active fault line thank you thank you about three dozen handles raised good evening I'm Bill Costello and I live at 3523 West Corner Wallace Road I live in the arrowhead area and I'm also going to Echo some of the comments previously mentioned I support the current draft plan which would have Arrowhead outside of the urban growth boundary I'd also like to mention a couple of policies policy 113 and 116 and again to paraphrase 113 tells us Focus new development and Redevelopment in Central and underutilized areas of Durham that are served by existing infrastructure policy 116 established an urban growth

boundary to discourage development on the edge of the city that strains existing infrastructure or prompts significant public investment in new infrastructure so development in this area is really going to require significant public investment and if you think about it from a per unit investment it's going to be considerable the existing infrastructure of Public Utilities fire service road and public transportation and even the school systems really don't support the growth in their current state so development in these areas doesn't meet the policies of 113 and 116 and retaining Arrowhead outside of the urban growth boundary is in line with those policies thanks for your time appreciate it thank you say about two and a half dozen hands raised after Maggie we're going to have Rachel Baker

Kim gotwells and Heidi grebel great um thank you for your time I'm Maggie Savage I'm a new-ish homeowner at 4621 Irwin Road as young homeowners we specifically chose to move from downtown Durham where we enjoyed the high density lifestyle that the commissioner the planning and everything has worked towards in that enfill to the arrowhead area we specifically chose to buy a home out in this area in the past year for the nature and calm that it provides while still being able to meaningfully contribute to Durham city and county we value what our neighbors have been able to build over the past decades Durham itself recognizes the need for Rural designations in the comprehensive plan this rural designation should be validated and upheld we're concerned about the impact that changing this designation would have on public infrastructure including the need for the city Waters expansion all the things we've already heard about but also the Road expansion the involvement of dot on

expansion of Irwin road if needed the increased traffic affect the school capacity issues that might be faced at Forest View where our children would one day attend school I think we've heard a lot of these commissioner Baker I just wanted to note one thing that you had mentioned earlier of this have been been a four-year planning process we're just seeing some of these proposed changes after that February meeting so this isn't necessarily something that we've been thinking about over the past four years around this certainly not something that we knew moving to this area and buying a house in June of 2022 so really you're hearing the voice of a few and that and and not the many of our neighbors that you see here so as we close um as a Duke alumni as well and a Durham resident for many years we've talked about Duke Forest immensely but it's one of the greatest assets of our community and and where we live and this change would directly impact the forest the vital ecological communities that live in it and that then utilize the lands that we live on and impact the

neighborhood that we have built we love that we live in a Durham that values them protects the community and the environment around us so thank you I saw about three dozen hands raised thank you I'm Rachel Baker I live at 201 CareMore Lane and it's also in the arrowhead area and I'm also speaking to support keeping the designation of Arrowhead as a rural area what I love about Durham is that it has a vibrant dynamic city center it has parks and trails and natural areas and it has a rural flavor that you get from driving past horses and Fields and cows and I think that's what makes Durham a special treasure for all of us and the people who live in Arrowhead have chosen to live there because of its rural character we are stewards of the land and it is a resource for us and for

everyone in Durham and I hope to see that protected um this proposal is to make it go from rural to high density multi-use high density residential and Commercial housing and one thing that I want to point out that hasn't been mentioned yet is that it would be this is contrary to what was brought up as being one of the objectives in planning which is gradual changes um this would be a dramatic change to everyone in the community and um and therefore contrary to your policies I also think it's important to think about who it would benefit to make the change and who it would hurt and whether it would what it would do to Durham versus what it would do to a particular private landowner and I think that the proposal was made by certain landowner about a certain lender in particular to get a windfall profit because he bought the property as a

rural land and now he's trying to get it redesignated as high density multi-use residential commercial property and on the backs of all of us thank you thank you I see about three dozen hands raised Kim got walls and I live in the Arrowhead community I also support like many here keeping Arrowhead out of the urban growth boundary I did want to just mention a couple things that other people haven't brought up yet I want to thank the long-term multi-generational farming families in the arrowhead who have Faithfully stewarded their land contributing so much to the continued rural nature of the area with its significant agricultural Heritage thank you and you know who you are Mark and Pam and Stuart next I appreciate you listening to us tonight you listened to us back in 2004

and 2005 when most of the arrowheads residents requested that it placed be placed in the rural tier and I know staff have changed since the 2005 plan but seems that the culture of the Planning Commission is to emphasize listening to Citizens we appreciate that and we are telling you as clearly as we can that 18 years later we still want to remain outside the urban growth boundary thank you thank you I say about three dozen hands raised after Heidi will have Brian acawso and Brian Crawford and then we'll turn to our Zoom attendees so if you're in zoom and we shouldn't speak please go ahead and start raising your hand hi I'm Heidi Grable I do live up in Northern Durham but I did live in Colony Park from the early 90s until the middle of the 220 5 and I just wanted to talk

about when I heard this I couldn't even believe that anyone would consider changing the feel of this area this is a treasure as a realtor I drive people from curly Road Cornwallis and Irwin road and it is the most impactful area to show people who are visiting our area to see how Duke University has treasured the forest and then to show them how this connects up to UNC we have colleges and universities bringing tons of people to our area and to miss out on showing them how we respect and appreciate the environment because this is such an important Wildlife Corridor between the forest sections I get the oohs and Oz I don't think anybody doesn't driving through that area the way that it connects the wildlife Corridor I mean if you if you changed this this triangle of of land you would

ruin and completely change the wildlife the feel of the area it's such a small area to allow for Housing and Development but to keep it as it is is so impactful and meaningful to the current residents visiting people of our area the university visitors and Durham visitors for you know Durham is changing to not feel like Durham uh we how we have sold Durham to people is changing and it's not what we said we are part of this area is what we have told people we are we value the Eno River we value this area the the it is the elevations are dramatic in places and I just really respect the responsible farmers and open space owners that have lived there and cultivated those neighborhoods thank you thank you I see about three dozen hands raised hello I am Brian Alonso I'm a resident

at 3808 kilrami drive and I'm here to speak against uh including Arrowhead in the urban growth boundary like a previous speaker I uh also purchased a home about two years ago in this area to raise our three little children for the for its unique landscape and what the area has to offer the mixed-use neighborhood high density designation is out of line out of character for this neighborhood and concerned that putting it into the plan today will start increasing uh increasing infrastructure such as widening Irwin road to accommodate the potential increased traffic that'll be which will literally put a highway through our forest all this while I feel that areas in the city are still under their capacity uh in the zoning that's in place so I feel it's important to keep Arrowhead neighborhood green and quiet thank you

thank you and say about three dozen hands raised after Brian Crawford if there's anyone else in personhood which to speak please go ahead and start making your way over to the podium at this time good evening Commissioners my name is Brian Crawford I am attorney in town with Michael best full disclosure I do represent Arrowhead owners some of the owners that wish to include the property in the urban growth boundary but I'm also a business owner I manager charter school down on Cornwallis Road I've done that for the last 20 years a lot of my staff would love to live in Durham but they can't so Durham has become and also disclosure I was a chair of the Orange County Planning Commission so I also know about this rule of buffer issue but Durham has become largely unaffordable for people who want to live there we have a develop a develop a owner in the

area who's willing to build some inclusive affordable housing inside the arrowhead area it's not asking for I hear people say something about increased density that's not what he's asking to do we're looking for an alternative for people who are looking for affordable warehousing to live within 15 minutes of Durham Durham has unique distinction of at least the county level their employees drive from 36 counties so it's important for us to start to consider areas where we can develop that makes sense I drive down Cornwallis Road just about every day I leave Durham I come back into durable it seems It's reasonable if we have Smart growth to include it in cornwalls now I know that these people have a long time love for the land but it's not necessarily mutually exclusive to have Smart development and inside this Corridor our head would

be a perfect property it's right next to Duke Forest View has some wardens so it's not like we're extending things 50 miles and it doesn't have the density of some of the other areas so just please consider an alternative when we talk about smart growth thinking about this man thank you thank you um we're going to have one once this just one more speaker and then we need to break for recess could I have the slides up please the first slide and I'll tell you when to change to the other slides I'm sorry okay we're working on it Reaper gave them some slides we sent them yesterday and they seem to have technical difficulties having Graphics is much more dramatic as to where Arrowhead is

okay I'm saying it on the zoom meeting can we get it on the screens and the Chambers there we go okay so the next slide please this is a I'm Ken Pugh 3503 West Cornwallis and I oppose the extension of the ugb from both the 2005 and the draft plan currently this is the show Arrowhead in context with the Duke forest and the rural buffer as you see it is separate it's next to and surrounded by the Duke forest and the rural buffer so it's a unique area somebody said oh there's it's surrounded by by the city it is not it's surrounded by rural area already if we were to put in the urban the mixed-use it would be a a donut hole inside of a

an area that is already forested and so forth next slide please in fact this is the same about Duke Forest you can see the the rural area you can see that it only connects by a very thin slice of road to the rest of of the city and so therefore all utilities or anything else would have to go mild or at least not miles but at least a long way which is why the the cost is so high next slide please as as we've already mentioned here is the Watershed the properties some of the properties which are were proposed for development are riparian properties that should be protected okay um the the gray one right in the middle is actually part of Adam Abram's place we shouldn't be developing that and the final slide please

m Eastern Time

foreign okay we are going to return from Recess um if there's anyone else wishing to speak in person on area six Arrowhead please come to the podium at this time and seeing none so far we will turn to our Zoom speakers we'll start with Tom admay yes uh my name is Tom admay I a little bit 4700 Curley Road which is actually in Orange County in the rural buffer I like to reiterate the point that uh that this is a an area that's surrounded by a rural rural buffer in Orange County the Duke Forest land um and it it feels like

can can you hear me yes yes okay um it feels like this is not um not being coordinated with uh with Orange County the idea of bringing mixed juice right up to the uh to the edge of the rural buffer um I will say I I do support Mark Waller in trying to do something with his land considering uh that he's sort of surrounded by Montvale which has water and sewer the the school the nursing home the apartment complex um but I I just to me mixed use is too much that's just not to not appropriate for that property and certainly not appropriate for uh Arrowhead as a whole I appreciate you uh taking the time to listen to my comments thank you I see about a dozen and a half fans raised um three dozen

um next we have Rob levinsky thank you I spoke before I don't want to dominate this so I'll just say 15 seconds and let you guys go I just want to applaud the community for taking the time and for you to all the Planning Commission for listening and would just say any decision you make I really want to say one thing that one of the earliest speakers said I hope and wish you could spend the time in this area and see how important and valuable and significant it is to the entire Community it's special so many ways that people have said and it deserves to stay as it's always been thank you okay so about three dozen hands raised um next we have Melora McCall hi there I'm Melora McCall at 4406 Curley Road you heard from my husband earlier that none of the conditions to expand the ugb have been met for policy

166 within the comprehensive plan and I'd like to express my opinions and support that all of Arrowhead should remain outside of the urban growth boundary the requested map change does not even include all of the arrowhead region and the land proposed is not any different in character or landscape than the surrounding lands that should remain appropriately rural it cannot be divided into three distinct regions as I've heard mentioned and I don't think should be considered this way the context of the comprehensive plan and larger goals to protect our heritage areas support voluntary agricultural districts and maintain that New Hope corridor open space boundary plan which include all of Arrowhead and the surrounding areas cannot be overlooked the separation of one portion of Arrowhead of Arrowhead from the other surrounding rural lands and from duke Forest is not ethical and frankly undermines the larger goals of this comprehensive plan our Wildlife sees no

lines on the map and frankly I don't think any of the residents who live here and feel compelled to be great stewards to this land and manage all of the resources appropriately for a much wider Community do either thank you thank you I see about three dozen hands raised is there anyone else wishing to speak on area six Arrowhead okay seeing none I'll turn it over to commissioner questions or comments any questions or comments commissioner drop I'll be very quick uh Mr chair um our purpose here is to look at land use and look at this and when I look at this I can't see leaving the current recommendation to the potential changes I don't see any land use reason why we would make that change so for me I think it's easy to stick with the current recommendation

thank you any other questions or comments commissioner Carmen Williams thank you very much Cher um I did want to speak to a comment that was made in terms of the fact that people who work for Durham County live outside of Durham and I think a large part of the reason why that is because they don't hire in there not because people aren't applying and I think that we can't keep trying to live on the backs of affordable housing as statements to justify Annex and land into certain areas because what we're not providing is affordable housing we are the reason why we've priced a lot of residents out of Durham and we have to fix that and using land that is clearly undevelopable for one reason or the or the next we're getting rid of the characteristics that make Durham Durham and we don't have fall and spring

anymore we have winter and summer and that's going to continue to happen as long as we continue to destroy the built environment and I think that we have to be extremely proactive in how we go about what we do in Durham and how we use Durham and if you're from Durham or if you've been in Durham a long time then you understand that but if you don't you're not vested so sometimes we we put the cart before the horse but hindsight can't be 20 20. so thank you thank you any other questions or comments I just have a brief one this one's pretty uh straightforward for me I think this is the only one we've discussed tonight that originally was left out of the Suburban deer and to me that fact makes it really easy for me to stick with the current recommendation in

effect by choosing to expand the urban growth boundary outside of the existing Urban tier feels like a rezoning decision to me that feels inappropriate for this type of conversation that we're having right now whereas all the other cases we've dealt with it was where we had said already said we're moving further we're reducing the Suburban tier and now we're trying to go back to closer to the old suburban tier so those are two fundamentally different decisions to me I'm currently not hearing any opposition so my vibe is that we want to stick with the option on the left that is all green and keeps Arrowhead outside the urban growth boundary did I hear any objections to that okay I hear none um so just like I want to do a quick note on our future meetings because I suspect some people might be leaving after we

get past Arrowhead um we're going to continue the comprehensive plan discussions to our April eating 11th April 11th meeting at that meeting we will be discussing the policy areas we are not going to have public comment at that meeting and the reason for that is because we need to talk about some of this stuff and we need to spend like 30 minutes to an hour making sure that staff gets our initial thoughts and concerns on the policy areas to prepare us for our May hearing on the full comprehensive plan so just setting expectations on that there will not become public comment on the comprehensive plan at the April meeting obviously you can email us let us know your thoughts before then the other thing about the April meeting which I

know but I don't think everybody else knows we got a lot of cases on the April meeting so that's another reason why I want to avoid public comment on the comprehensive plan is we have like seven rezonings that we have to get through as well but I want to get staff feedback on the policy areas as soon as possible I think it's best to not do it tonight and so I want to have some time on our April meeting to do it with that we're going to turn to area 7 Southeast future growth area first three folks who have signed up are Rebecca Freeman Jared Edens and Tammy Savage we are in members okay good evening I'm Rebecca Freeman with preserve rule Durham a lifelong resident of Durham the last 43 years at 1818 Southview Road in

off Camp Road in southeast Durham there are generations of my family that lived lived in that area um first of all I want to say thank you very much for listening to us as residents tonight because we don't have anybody else that hears us and we appreciate your your listening to us and taking our issues in consideration um I want to speak on the of course the future growth area we do not support removal of the Northwestern portion of the southeast Asia growth area that will allow dense development on East Camp Road or the properties down NC 98 from Camp Road even though the camp Camp project was denied by City Council on January 17 2023 just several months ago and I believe you would probably heard that case in June of last year it came before the city council in October 17th and they did not want to take a no vote so they had remanded back to Planning Commission and then planning it came back up again it was still a no vote because it is in the future growth area due to no fire protection and that some

others will cover that later and they're they're still pushing forward on this it's a big a big deal is made out of Camp by the city council members that um they would never never put anybody In Harm's Way With Fire issues the fire stations that we'll be using in 17 and eight are still are pretty much at capacity and promised out with all the pending developments that are already in place now and have been approved and so this was um voted down on the on January 27th on 17 2023. planners had documented on the project plans reports in the area that did not have it that it did not have infrastructure it's more than just fire though it has got a lot there's no Transit area not not for this High development um that they're proposing um there's a infrastructure for development particularly fire station is needed and concerned by all another developer recently held a neighborhood meeting to begin the planning process for another large Department Rebecca please consider our concerns thank you

thank you saw one hand raised a dozen hand raids good evening thank you again Jared Edens with Eden's Investments I had a exhibit for this one I don't know if that's ready or how I get to that I'm missing something here yeah I got it I don't know if you can see this yeah so just general the base in general is confusing for me because it's not typical that uh that a city council or municipality goes and invests upwards of 35 million dollars to put in a regional Pump Station and Truck Lines and Sewer lines and water mains and all this stuff for development near Brier Creek which honestly is not in the country I mean I grew up in the country I grew up in Southwest Virginia you know we had to go to Tennessee to shop 20 to 25 minutes to

the Walmart that was the country this site that I've got in front of you tonight is directly across the street from a 450 unit development by Stanley Martin it's within walk biking distance to the Ravenstone shopping center with food line and whatnot the parcel in front of you is literally two Parcels east of where the pump station is located this is owned by the the Howard family the Hyatt Family they've owned this property as long as anybody in here has owned any of their property and so we're here we have that property contractor for development that's a meeting that Ms Freeman referred to that we had recently but I just think we really need to pay attention here because this property does not require pump station that is it gravities to the to the existing Pump Station on Kemp Road it's got Highway Frontage on 98. it's surrounded by development and it's near Brier Creek close to downtown Durham down 98 like this is one area where I just don't understand why we would start removing big chunks of

property when we just made a big investment to come out there and every one of these projects goes to a financial analysis the city's not staff's not going to bring you a project that shows a negative Financial impact for new development on an annexation I haven't seen one in 20 years they're always Revenue positive and that would be the case here as well thank you thank you after Tammy will have Tina Motley Pearson Pam Andrews and Tim syvers away I'm at Baptist Road and I want to tell you why we need to keep this area that he just talked about in the future throughout the area I emailed all the commissioners this presentation the Samantha crock did to the city council this month and she talked about the issues at lit Creek this development is right near Lick Creek Camp Road is right at near lit Creek

the devastation that's happened to this Creek has been acknowledged Ronnie's is taking her data we're continuing to sample the North Carolina dwr recognizes that there's a problem and dimler is beginning to sample this area this Creek has been been burdened by the development that has happened so far the approved development that impacts Lake Creek is about 8 000 homes about 50 about half of it has been under development and we are at this point at Lake Creek at this time and still we have half of the development to go I implore you to keep the future land use area the same and I want to also pick on one other point that you may not know the issue that's happening at Maryland View Marina there is two feet of sediment that has been put into the Roland view Maria Marina in the last two years he cannot

dredge that Marina so it is impacting businesses and that Marina is used for public you know consumption and we just need to protect our streams thank you I see about 10 hands raised we had Pam Andrews Tim cyber or sorry Tina yeah Tina then Pam then Tim good evening my name is Tina Motley Pearson I live at 2205 Olive Branch Road in Durham there are many reasons not to allow development in the future growth boundary but I'm just going to focus on one for now fire coverage you know the main reason we're having this discussion is because of a developer's project being denied because of lack of adequate fire service

in this area and so he was going to donate land for the fire station but it wasn't suitable because it crosses a stream but that clearly shows that we have a lack of fire service in this area so the city manager and fire chief had a ladder truck promised to the northern fire station for over 10 years but when it does get purchased it's now going to Station 8 in southeast Durham instead of Northern Durham so erf erf means effective response force and it's a code it requires so I'm going to quote this 90 percent of all fire emergencies total response time for the first fire truck shall be eight minutes or less in the Suburban tier erf code also states that 19 firefighters should be on scene 90 percent of the time and 13 minutes in the Suburban tier we only have two fire stations nearby Station 8 and station 17

and they are not at full staff so what I'm going to show you is all right so station eight has three firefighters and when the new lighter truck arrives it's going to add three more Firefighters Station 13 has three Firefighters Station 17 has three from the engine truck and three from the ladder truck so even if you have all of these units to respond you're only going to have 15 firefighters and that the code is 19. Tina thank you thank you all right apologies um six to eight hands we're the only ones left we camp out okay Pamela Andrews I'm going to dispute

Jared Edens my family's land is right beside this and we have belonged to his family since the 1600s I don't think anybody out there can match that so I'm just going to say that removing the future growth family boundary is so alarming the land is next to critical Watershed Lick Creek flows to the middle of this environmentally sensitive Land look at the map lit Creek flows right through the middle it already has 10 198 dwellings on lit Creek three thousand acres 282 Acres of one of these developments is so much sensitively and he can only develop about 114 of that 282. does that tell you how sensitive this land is it was denied twice because of lack of fire coverage of course Chief zodos is going to say that he can cover this because he's not going to tell his boss he can't do something right we all would do that but no fire station is in the plan I pulled this up today the teacher meets coming out here's on the website today fire station 18 is on Herndon Road come

in 2023 fire station 19 Highway 54 coming 25-26 there's nowhere on there that mentions of fire station where there is 15 000 new dwellings in the works do we not see that this is a disaster that you're going to set people up and put In Harm's Way as Tina was saying at fire station 8 I looked this up today on their line the engine truck could give you three the ladder truck that was promised to Northern Durham it could give you three fire station 13 13 can give you three a Hazmat truck could give you three that's six that's six at fire station 17 you got an engine and a ladder truck that gives you six more folks that doesn't add to the fire code of 19. the national fire code says you're supposed to have 19 firefighters on the ground ninety percent of the time in 13 minutes I got this from a firefighter it's impossible to get the number of firefighters out there in the required time please don't

put us In Harm's Way thank you thank you I saw ten hands raised after Tim will have Mike Foley and then we'll turn to any Zoom participants before I get started Mike did leave he had to go home to be with his kids this evening so sure thank you uh good evening plenty commission members my name is Tim sivers the president of community previously known as Horvath Associates I've stood in front of this board many times with many different projects tonight I'm not representing a specific project simply a specific need and that need is housing more than ever our city is growing at a rapid pace and we need to keep up the demand tonight I'm encouraging you to fully remove the future development growth boundary for Southeast Durham our city has some of if not the strongest regulations in stormwater for the state I'm not here today to request relaxing those environmental regulations but I am here to discuss the concern I have with land outside of those critical Watershed

areas being removed from the urban growth and eliminating it from development this includes approximately 5 000 acres of land being eliminated for development by this comprehensive plan I do understand that some of the areas currently identified as future growth area truly are 10 to 20 year plans While others may be faster I'm here tonight to encourage you to take a second look at those remaining areas shown as future development areas like Southeast Durham are needed now to help our city grow and keep home prices affordable additional infrastructure and emergency services are required as you've heard this evening but these are items that we need to invest in now so homes can begin Construction in five years especially when developers are willing to assist with these emergency needs and infrastructure needs yes providing investment in these areas now allowing development can to continue it will be nearly five years before additional homes can be constructed areas like Southeast Durham that can can begin development with this shorter time

frame should not be included in that future growth boundary by removing these areas from development with the current proposal we're decreasing the housing Supply increasing housing costs I encourage you to modify the comprehensive plan to fully remove the future growth area from the southeast Durham and allow development to move forward thank you for your time this evening thank you is there anyone else in person wishing to speak on this item if you could come to the podium at this time good evening my name is Pam Williams I uh my address is 2130 Adventure trail Durham North Carolina I'm a lifelong resident of Durham I went to Neil Middle School just down below this piece of property that we're talking about I would like to say that you cannot walk or you cannot ride a bicycle from this property over to Ravenstone and the Food Lion and CVS in fact when we got killed

on a bite a seasoned bike ride I got killed in front of Neal Middle School within the last six months and everything you wouldn't want your kids riding a bike anywhere on there there's no shoulders at places there's no shoulders a lot of Branch any of these roads out here that are being built they're being built one left turn at a time or one interest at a time and there's no future plans to do any road constructions to make any sidewalks connected or anything like that out in this area per the 2050 MTP plan I'd also like to comment that Justin lick Crete alone we have over 10 000 dwellings it was not included in the 2019. these are dwellings that are being graded right now the land's being graded right now they've been approved or they're starting construction these 15 000 homes have not been accounted for are and also there was something in the urban studies in fact that a person if I

can get up in time stated um new research published in the journal Urban studies has recently come out finding that increased density does not lead to Great affordability in long term so I mean everybody needs to look at this this thing right we need affordability a person can't afford a 350 thousand dollar town home or house in this area and that's what they're going for and you'd have to make 125 000 a year what teacher our firemen makes up much minutes are over okay thank you thank you I see about 10 hands raised good evening again my name is Neil Gersh Attorney At The Morning store Law Group at 700 West Main Street so I want to start first just by making comment I think most people here are aware that you know this is not a contest to see

who's been here the longest I'm sure many of you up on the day is just like me and my family we weren't really allowed to own land here in the 1600s so excuse my language but I don't really give a how long your family's been here everyone here has a has an opinion a valid one so I'll just say that uh but aside from that um this area has been hotly contested for quite some time and I think a lot of research and study has been put in here I would just say the staff recommendation here has changed a couple times based on the best available data and I think that's really important to understand here I think it makes a lot of sense to follow staff's current recommendation on this and whatever their other because they have put a lot of research on this piece of property this area in particular because of how hotly contested it is and I'll just leave it at that thank you

thank you I see you on hand raised on that is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item I understand that someone else has raised their hand is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item the podium my name is Gary McLean I live at 4712 Jimmy Rogers Road you just need to come out there at four o'clock in the afternoon on Highway 98 in front of Neal middle school and just sit in traffic for about the lights would go through about nine or ten different sequences before you can ever get up there it's not safe until the we get infrastructure and we get more improvements on the roads and the highways and these are rural roads we need to minimize the expansion of all of the homes and town homes and everything

like that if the roads just can't handle it I'd go out there and I drive in it every day and uh it's just not safe for the children that go to Neal Middle School also Oak Grove School and even to Southern High School so I just asked that you would um just reconsider and just try to postpone some of this Mass grading and all this cutting of the trees and everything like that until we could get more infrastructure thank you for your time see about 10 hands raised good evening Thomas Freeman Durham resident 1818 Southview Road Durham North Carolina gauche that was a disparaging remark that you made and you should be ashamed of it to disparage anyone's Heritage in this room is unconscionable now I'll speak to what I'll speak to what I'll it really Rose to the occasion

to speak we've seen a constant parade of persons come to this Podium and talk about how stringent the the regulations are friends I would invite you anyone in this room to visit the site just visit lit Creek that's all I'm asking you to do visit Lick Creek you don't need scientific data to really come to understand how polluted and how dirty and disgusting that body of water is now one and a half miles Upstream is where the construction starts Triple Crown farm and from there it goes further Upstream but from that I'm talking about from the from the South View Road Bridge where a mile and a half away and it looks like tomato soup it's horrible

come visit us that's all thank you very much is there anyone not switching to speak on this item okay is there anyone in the zoom meeting wishing to speak on this item I am seeing none so I'm going to turn it over to commissioner comments in question um I want to just start off by saying as a human I react very similarly to how Mr gauche reacted when I hear references to land ownership from 1600s and I know that that is an uncomfortable reality as an organizer I would advise you

to not make that the claim to keep in this land where it is because on a human level the people who are making these decisions will be influenced by that and I don't think I think it thwarts the other goals that we have with this land when we talk about it in terms of how long people have had access to owning it because the thing that I think we talk about on this day is so much is protecting our environment so that we can live another 400 years but when we start using things that happen 400 years ago to say we have a right to something now that becomes and I know it's not what you said I know it's not what you said what I'm saying is that the reference to it just the way it it hits it's not your intent I understand that yes Miss Andrews I understand that you

are out of order Miss Andrews you're out of order I understand that I'm not I'm not casting dispersions about your intent I'm advising you as an organizer when I hear those ref when I hear that year of reference that decade reference my brain goes a lot of places I'm I know but I'm advising you as how I would recommend we talk about this to make sure that we are all stay aligned and on on the same page with the environmental stuff here any other questions or comments commissioner Baker yeah I think I just need a little bit of help and clarification on this so I'm looking at the current recommendation current recommendation says future growth area and inside the urban growth boundary um the policies around the Earth the future growth area so I'm looking at page 108 of the draft comprehensive plan

um these are the next places to see development activity future growth areas of parts of Durham within the urban growth boundary that are currently undeveloped or sparsely developed and need critical infrastructure upgrades there's a reference to policy 120 on 156 for the southeast it's that there's a need for fire service there's not really specificity to what what that means necessarily in terms of fire service because that could mean you know it's a 10 minutes from a call or eight minutes from a call um so to me I don't see something within the urban growth boundary and inside of a future growth area is meaning that it's not developable even soon that but it but it seems to be saying we believe these areas are not serviced and there's a list of water sewer fire service and once that becomes serviced it is then developable

is that my understanding am I understand that correctly yeah that's how it's supposed to work so once that deficiency is corrected then the future growth areas should be removed and it okay so to me that I mean I don't really see where the controversy is there because we want it seems to be saying the map seems to be saying in my mind these are areas that we need to take a closer look at to make sure that these services are being provided when we can determine and we've looked deeply into the matter then development can occur it's inside of the urban growth boundary is that correct that's correct and I think what the reason why we're recommending uh a change to the boundary of this future growth areas that we've had the opportunity to look deeper at the ones the cases in the North West corner and that area is much closer to fire station 17 and Fire Station 8 than the rest of the area so um we've heard from the fire department that coverage is not an issue for that

area so it doesn't really meet the criteria of the future growth area anymore oh I see so I think I must have missed something so you're so this is one where staff is recommending the left side yeah we're oh they're recommending I'm sorry the right side yeah we're recommending reducing the size of the future growth area you did hear some requests for removing it all together we would not recommend that since we do know that there is some keeping so so there was a recommendation in the room earlier to remove everything from Southeast Durham this entire area your recommendation is just within the dotted line so looking at this the right side um under figure seven that's correct and admit it's a little hard there's a lot of lines going on on that map so it's a little harder and and basically what you're saying is this is the future growth area and since we developed this we have determined that there that fire Services yeah so we and what is your definition

of fire service it could meet the adopted fire response time okay which is okay okay I have a question I still need a little clarification so um piggybacking off of what commissioner Baker just said if if this on this right hand side if this Northwest section is removed then the remaining section will comply with the future growth area and all that is needed to begin development or continue development in the remainder of the area we still based on what we know now it would need future investment to meet such as I mean fire stations is the most

likely scenario but it would need future investment in order to meet adequate fire coverage so the kind of the idea of the future growth there is if you have development this area we need we're going to need future public investments in order to serve it for for critical things like fire wouldn't that because that's the thing that's hard we can't make every developer build a fire station so sure and so that Northwest portion would put it over the edge of being in a so the Northwest portion we've it was in the the original version drafted this in 2021 since then we've had some cases in there and so we've been able to do get more detailed analysis and the fire department can it it does not have a fire coverage issue so there's no reason for it to be in the future growth area anymore okay thank you so much are there questions or comments oh yeah sorry commissioner Morgan

it's okay I guess my thinking is and I guess it was a little confusing it sounds like what it is we're doing sort of a carve out of the original future land use area but we're still retaining a portion of that rather than as I've seen the developers get up and say this whole area they want completely removed which I think that really gets people angry and I do think that you've got a group of people that are pretty angry about it because they've been kind of not listened to and so my thinking is I live in the area I live in the south part of the area which there's a lot of development and there was sort of a you know here we're going to contain the development within the Eastern portion or the Western portion of the southeast Durham area and then that the Eastern portion would be reserved until we get the right infrastructure so really what's happening is is we

started a Southeastern study that we never finished it was in draft form it was put out and there was not really the representation and so people are angry about this and I think it's really just a a very emotional issue which you can kind of tell kind of erupted here a little bit so my thinking is and and this carve out is this Kemp Road area and the area that Mr Edens had presented as is going to be removed or is being proposed to be removed but it's not being proposed by the citizens it's being proposed by staff and I'm not saying anything wrong that was why I asked the question earlier what's the criteria for when you remove a future land use and what are the things that are necessary in order to make that happen I mean this area is going to be developed there's just no doubt in my mind

over time but I do think that there's needs to be more involvement with people in the area and I know I listen to a lot of neighbors and talking to me about a lot of different things I don't agree with everything but what I do see is there's a need for listening and there's a need for participation and we did do a study and it never finished and we really do need a picture of where this what this area is going to look like we put like I said 15 000 homes 10 000 have been approved there's a lot of stuff there's no future on road structure or what is the cross streets I think even where I they do think if we can see that I think that would actually help the neighborhood and that would see where we're growing and I think it is a ripe area because we have invested in this lift station and the city does want to get a recoup on that investment and

there is services that can be done but again what we're missing is we've got a bunch of people here that are pretty upset and pretty wanting to see a future in this area and so my comment is is just let's work together on it I am not in favor of that of this change until we have some input with the people that live in the area that's all thank you commissioner Baker I agree with that I mean this body has been very consistent in the way that we've talked about the way we've voted on thousands of Acres literally thousands of Acres of cases in southeast Durham and uh I mean at the end of the day we just didn't have control over what what decision was made and that's a shame and I do wish that we had a Southeastern

plan like an actual plan something like the rural area plan from Davidson and a true vision in a Community Driven Vision but we don't have that and um I'm looking at this and considering staff's recommendations and considering the input that's been provided I want to maintain the Integrity of what is being called the future growth area and if staff is saying right now to us you know this one the small portion in the in the in the northwest is is is serviced by fire you know if staff is saying that if that's coming from from you know the city Administration then it's going to go to City Council and it's gonna we know what's going to happen and then that threatens I think uh what that threatens the category of

future growth area so I see this as thinking strategically I see this as a win because there's a large portion out here that's under the future growth area we want to maintain that we want to maintain the Integrity of it and what it means um I think this portion of the northwest I I I I'm right now I want to defer to to staff's recommendation which is what I've been doing this entire time and so that's kind of where I'm at on this uh commissioner Carmen Williams thank you chair and mendoli I'll be very brief it's been a long evening for everyone um I really appreciate the community's comments and you guys coming together to say what you need to say um I think that going forward us as sitting members developers residents we all need to remember that we're about conducting business and we

can't make conducting business a personal event no matter what that is because if that's what we were doing we wouldn't have issues with redlining and gentrification so if we conduct business as presented and don't make things personal then we won't have instances in which we get out of character I'm proud to say as long as I've been sitting on this Planning Commission I've never had an interaction the way that I had it this evening and I could go another term and not have another one because that's not what we're here for so I think the residents I think Mr Ghosh I think my fellow commission members but I think that we need to remember that we are here to conduct business and once we get outside of that framework this when we introduce business that does not belong in these Chambers so if we're going to do what's right for Durham then we need to do what's right by each other because we are all Neighbors at the end of the day those are my comments thank you other questions or comments

yes I have a question I am still completely confused if you're removing a portion of it is that not less for development or is that just going to allow that to be developed because that little portion has fire coverage and this doesn't can I give it a shot here so what what it should be is the hash the hashes should be removed from that top and then it's just part of the urban growth boundary that's what you should see there there will be no hashes and so the future in that part is now so to just Scott can you confirm this point that

the decision point on the right yeah it can confirm commissioner cut right to point that the future is now yeah the north of the um black dotted line under this proposal would be removed from the future growth area and so the hatching that is in there should not be in the hatching would go away and it would be just part of the regular Urban growth boundary yeah so developable without meeting the three criteria for developing in the future growth area into that I'm just trying to see in the map where does that go it goes down Kemp road to and where Kimbra it's only the properties that are um today east of north and east of of Kemp Road and Kirby I guess it is or maybe not far that far

yet uh some of the green blobs a little bit on top of the line that makes it yeah see but it's it's mostly it's basically to the east of the the Kemp Road Reed zoning property and north of I guess that intersection where I'm trying to remember the name of the road that goes south it's yeah north of Virgil Road okay okay that's what I was thinking thank you other thoughts or questions commissioner Shares are you um do you have any more questions that's okay um which picture the left or the right leads to less development in this area the one on the left

okay thank you can I I'm not sure that's actually the case well oh yeah I guess that's because it's within the urban growth boundary and the criteria is that it meets fire service and staff is now saying that it meets fire service so my concern is that we leave it in it then gets rezoned and developed and we lose the Integrity of what this future growth area even means so that's that's what I'm thinking about I think I mean the whole area with is within the urban growth boundary so it's intended to develop at some point in the next 30 years I think it's just this affects the timing of development to some degree and and commissioner Baker is right the the northwest corner we know can be served with City fires so it's there's really no reason for it to be in

the future growth area anymore [Laughter] um it's clear as mud Okay so if you're in favor of the left option which keeps everything in the future growth area please raise your hand I see two hands if you prefer the option on the right that removes this black dotted outline portion from the future growth area please raise your hand

cunning eight nine I can't count eight okay yep so we got eight and two um okay moving on we have figure eight and figure nine now we don't have anybody signed up to speak on this does anybody want to speak on either of these items yes that would be great because I have I just frankly I want to have a conversation about should we even decide on these because these feel fundamentally different than the rest of the conversation so still want to hear your comments but um yeah just alluding to some of my thinking on this well I appreciate the opportunity to speak on it so I think it makes sense to talk about eight and none together because well first of all I was the one who sent the comments and related to those and I view them as a requests in tandem so

uh the on the 885 side I don't know which figure that is uh in the original draft that was that was shown as general uh industrial it had been changed to the mixed-use neighborhood designation and since then or maybe during that whatever the that assemblage has been acquired by a developer of life science campuses Parmer so that property already is zoned industrial today um and they may need to Annex in order to gain access to Water and Sewer but you know part of the perspective here is well if they go to if all they need is to Annex and not rezone that may be exactly what they do especially if the place type designation is inconsistent with the zoning that they're probably going to

want for a life science campus and I think that's actually a detriment to the public just because you know industrial zoning allows for a lot of things and frankly I don't know that they need need or want to do a lot of those things or all of those things so giving them an opportunity to rezone to Industrial with the development plan in a way that would be consistent with the comprehensive plan especially when we know what the most likely use will be based on the acquisition I think it makes a lot of sense to change that back to a general industrial now the flip side of that is mixed-use neighborhood is a great designation it may not be great for that site so so this site is essentially just on the other side of um the East End connector this Hoover Road Site which I think the the alternate designation probably makes a lot of sense for that that site was the brick and Board site

it has a lot of environmental features on it it really can't be developed for any kind of substantial industrial at this point mixed-use neighborhood sounds like a lot more doable and agreeable and desirable outcome for that piece of property thank you is there anyone else wishing to speak on this tonight yes um just as a citizen it really isn't pertaining to this exact site I've been sitting in on meetings for months and something that I'd like to ask you are the Planning Commission all of the meetings that I've been sitting in on I haven't heard an improvement on the Durham government asking for more enforcement on the enforcement of the regulations for the developers who are doing these projects and as a resident I'd love to know that the government is watching over the developers and saying you're doing a good job at doing what you promised or not doing a good job at what you

promised and I think that would make all the residents feel better as we're saying we're approving 8 000 houses and eleven thousand houses and I don't know if where that comes from and I'm not trying to cast any blame but I think that we haven't heard any Improvement on that I know the firemen you know are supposed to watch over the blasting and I know that we're supposed to have environmental people with a silk fences and the erosion but I haven't heard an improvement on that to give the residents confidence that Durham's on top of that so that's just my comment thank you thank you um I do not have access to enough departments in the interim City and County government to really know the answer to that fully there are many different departments that oversee various aspects of development I know that County controls sediment erosion control they've been updating their regulations we've been updating the

regulations there to give them more power to stock work when developers are doing the wrong thing related to runoff Housing and Community Development overseas the affordability terms on our affordable housing development services they're checking to make sure people are actually building what they said they were going to build and being a plan of that it's a lot of people that's a little bit more of a city council Board of County Commissioner's question and I don't even know that our planning staff would be able to fully speak to that tonight because you know they they're focused on certain areas and there are dozens of people within the department that would know better about that so I think um my advice would be to perhaps raise this to the city council or the County Commissioners to get their thoughts on it but I know it's a constant concern and it's one that's very active right now because we're in budget seasoning so all the Departments

are asking for money to make sure they're doing able to do their job well yes Grace Smith I wasn't going to say anything but I wanted to just give chair amendolia props for I think you said everything that staff would have said and with the new regulations that are being put in place for the text amendments that you mentioned I don't think we have any data yet to show you know how we've improved with enforcement but I'm sure that's something that they will be tracking especially through sne and um as far as the fire department and the tracking of the blasting that's a different um a different process and I don't have that information handy but I understand what what the question is and certainly can pass that along so thank you thank you um so Scott I have a question why are we talking about these two um because so I know the flavor is quite different

than most of what we talked about tonight but these were the only two really significant comments we got through the last phase of engagement on the place type designations on the map um so um I guess more to the point there were adjustments in the place type map earlier on I did a first draft you got comment and feedback on it then you made some adjustments then we didn't do this for that and so why now so this one because it was these are changes to the final draft and I think all of what we'd asked now is if if the commission has strong opinions one way or the other on on either of these sites as it should or shouldn't change would it be good to know we can work with Mr Goshen the meantime and he raises some good points about things that have happened since we released the last draft which might make changes a really reasonable request but it's

just we hadn't heard about this until the previous hearing so we just wanted to be transparent about that we might make a big a couple changes to some big properties okay that's helpful does anybody have strong references on this strong preferences anybody have strong preferences on these two no I mean honestly I feel like staff is positioned to be able to make this call I think the request seems reasonable to me like what you're saying um it feels like a different type of policy decision than the amount of developable land or or the speed at which we develop certain land so I don't I personally don't feel like we need a long discussion on this I feel like we can let you all do your work and I feel like staff's recommendation makes sense here

to me all right we'll discuss it more internally and we'll let the final hearing we'll let you know where we landed and you still until you all vote you have a chance to disagree great okay we have two I orders of business that we have to take care of before we all leave first off we need to continue the case so I need a motion to continue this to our April 11th meeting second second whatever okay moved by commissioner Baker seconded by Vice chair Cameron we do need a roll call Vote for This yes chairman yes Mr Cameron yes Baker yes all right yes regardless yes Dave no not Davis Macgyver yes Morgan yes East trap yes Valentine yes Herman Williams yes Marie Williams yes motion passes unanimously okay one last item of business under new business we need to amend our schedule to add a

meeting on May 23 2023 same time as location as irregular meetings uh being 5 30 and the city council City Hall council chambers this meeting will be for our final public hearing on the comprehensive plan can I get a motion moved by commissioner trap executed by commissioner Valentine all in favor please say aye aye all opposed have the same right no uh we have one nay but the motion two two Nays the motion passes nine to two are there 11 of us here yeah 11 or nine to two motion passes and then uh commissioner Davis wasn't here tonight how do we want to handle that absence um we do not need to vote on that okay

I apologize chair that's not the question staff needs some uh Direction on whether or not that's excused did it meet the criteria for excusal I mean to be excused excuse well I can't even talk excused it does not meet the criteria for excuse the uh commissioner cease would be excused because he died correct okay that was what we needed to know thank you thank you okay I believe that is all of our items um thank you all for a long night thank you for your service I appreciate y'all this meeting is adjourned at 1103 PM Eastern Time okay