Good evening, everyone, and welcome to Durham City Hall.

It's great to have you here.

I will begin with a moment of silence.

Thank you.

Now pass it over to Councilmember Rist for the Pledge of Allegiance.

If it's your practice, we invite you to stand to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

Under indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, will you please please call the roll?

Good evening, Mayor Williams.

I'm here.

May Madam Mayor Potem Galayo.

Here.

Councilmember Baker.

Here.

Councilmember Burris.

Here.

Councilmember Cook?

Here.

Councilmember Kopak.

Here.

And Councilmember Rist.

Here.

Thank you.

All right.

Before we get into the rest of the program, I am going to read a few remarks.

And then we'll get going with the business.

I'm going to read this passage.

As I did at work session, I'm going to read it here, but I won't read it every meeting.

You'll be able to find the language on our website as well as at the top of the agenda in the agenda center on the website when you are looking up the agendas for the meetings.

This is in regards to just some protocol that I'll be following in regards to just maintaining decorum in the chambers.

As mayor of Durham, it's my role as providing presiding officer to protect open public participation while ensuring city council meetings remain orderly, respectful, and productive.

Durham has a strong tradition of community engagement, and that will continue.

At the same time, we must be clear and consistent when conduct when we when we conduct uh our meetings to ensure that there are no disruptions and also to prevent uh the council from conducting city business.

This is uh in regards to North Carolina General Statute uh 143-318.17 disauthorizes action when an individual willfully disrupts an official meeting and refuses to comply with lawful direction.

Individuals may be removed from the meeting chambers.

And any decision regarding charges rests solely with law enforcement.

Disruptive speakers at the podium.

I would clearly state when a speaker's allotted time has ended.

If the speaker continues, I will rule the speaker out of order and direct them to stop speaking and relinquish the podium.

If disruption persists, I will warn the conduct, I will warn that warrant that the conduct violates state law and direct the speaker to leave the chamber.

If the peak if the speaker refuses, I will request law enforcement to remove the individual from the chambers.

Disruptive individuals in the audience.

If they refuse, I will request law enforcement removal only.

If physical force becomes necessary, arrests may occur occur under state law.

While not preferred, this may be unavoidable if the individuals refuse lawful directives.

This is not to silence anyone.

This is uh this is Durham, and we appreciate um diversity of thought.

We appreciate engagement.

And to be honest, Durham is probably the most lenient of councils when it comes to you know expression in the public spaces and what we also call here a limited forum.

Uh but at the same time, we have to have some level of mutual respect and some order.

And so it is my job to facilitate this meeting on behalf of you.

That means that we have these parameters that I will enforce if I have to.

These laws have been on the books for a long time, and we have been very linear for a very long time.

And I will continue to be lenient, but if it gets to the point of absolute disrespect and disruption of us being able to do the people's business, then therefore I will enforce and follow through with what I just recently read.

So I hope that we can adhere to that.

And I won't read this every meeting, I'm just putting this on the record now, uh, just so it can be referred back to if needed.

Um, but I do appreciate your uh you all obliging me on that.

That being said, I'm going to uh go into our ceremonial items and pass it over to our newly elected councilwoman Shanetta Burris for her first president uh proclamation reading that she had all the time in the world to prepare for five minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Williams.

All right, so this is for the Salvation Army of Durham Holiday Impact Recognition Day, which is a very good thing.

Please present it to Major Angela and David Rivas.

Are you all here?

Hello.

If I mess up, please find the mayor.

Thank you.

All right.

Whereas the Salvation Army of Durham was established in Durham in January in 1888, and for over a century has remained a committed lifeline for families across East Durham and throughout Orange and Person counties.

And whereas 18,723 meals and snacks to families, 2,704 households with groceries, 225 youth with enriching summer camp experience, 190 BA, um 6,784 toys and bicycles to children and families, 6,106 articles and clothing, 30,351 dollars and rent and utility assistance for families facing eviction and 5,0150 voluntary hours dedicated to uplifting our neighbors, and whereas these efforts reflect a deep and ongoing commitment to addressing hunger, preventing homelessness, supporting youth, and uplifting those facing hardship, and whereas through strong community partnerships, dedicated volunteers, and a mission rooted in service, the Salvation Army continues to meet critical needs while standing in the gap for families facing hardship and contribute to a more stable, compassionate, and thriving Durham.

And whereas over 1,500 children are registered for the annual tree Christmas program, the need for support is tremendous and has increased significantly.

The Salvation Army in Durham remains committed to responding with urgency, care, and the spirit of goodwill during this holiday season and beyond.

Now, therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim November 21st, 2025 as Salvation Army of Durham Holiday Impact Day in the City of Durham, and hereby urge all residents to support the efforts of this organization to build up our community.

Witness my hand in the corporate seal of Durham, North Carolina this 15th day of December 2025.

It is certainly an honor for the Salvation Army to have been in this community for over 100 years.

I have not been, but I've been just wonderfully blessed by the opportunity to come.

My wife and I, just in the last couple of years, and we have fallen in love with the people here, those who have supported the Salvation Army work.

And again, we're very grateful for all that we can do together.

I think it is a testimony to what can happen when a community comes together to do what is good.

And we certainly appreciate it.

God bless.

If I'll have representatives of the Durham Committee on Affairs of Black People to please join me.

All right, I have the honor of reading this proclamation to celebrate the most historic black political advocacy group in the state of North Carolina.

Whereas on August 15th, 1935, distinguished African American business and community leaders, including but not limited to Charles Clinton and Spaulding, James E.

Shepherd, J.

T.

Taylor, Richard McDougall, Arn Harris, I.

Kennedy, and John H.

Willer organized the Durham Committee on the Affairs of the Affairs of Negroes.

And whereas the founders' goals and objectives have been advanced through strong leaders who empowered Durham citizens to elect public officials at every level committed to its mission.

And whereas the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People celebrated 90 years of continuous service advocacy and leadership of Black Durmites.

And whereas for nine decades, the committee has advocated for black welfare and education, health, housing, politics, youth engagement, religion, and human affairs, shaping a more just and equitable Durham.

And whereas the committee has played a significant role in civil rights advocacy, voter education, and participation, strengthening black political power, the organization continues to champion social justice and racial equity through initiatives and civic engagement, economic opportunity, health, housing, youth resources, and education.

The committee remains devoted to preserving and expanding its legacy of service and leadership for decades to come.

Now, therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim posthumously, August 15th, 2025 as Durham Committee on Affairs of Black People, 90th Anniversary Day in the City of Durham, and hereby urge all residents to support the efforts of this organization to build up our community.

So witness my hand in the corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina, this 15th day of December 2025.

Thank you.

Let me thank you, Mayor, as well as the council members for this uh wonderful recognition of the Durham Committee on its 90th anniversary.

Certainly it's been a transformative organization.

If you think back 90 years ago, what the plight, the circumstances were of African Americans living here in Durham, the extent to which they had very limited opportunity to be involved in government, certainly did not have opportunities to serve in elected office, facing all types of disparities when it came to education as a result of institutional racism and segregation, facing the type of barriers that we don't have to think about today, things that are gone as a result of the civil rights movement, the segregated lunch counters, the segregated restrooms, the segregated water fountains, but more importantly, the fact that you were a meaningful, significant group in this community that was marginalizing your opportunity to participate.

As a result of the Durham Committee's leadership, as a result of the coalitions that have been built in Durham, so many of those barriers have been taken down.

I remind you of the fact that here in the City of Durham, before the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, desegregation had already occurred.

The lunch counters were already at a point where anybody could sit down and eat next to anyone else.

So Durham made progress in profound and significant way.

Those whose names you hear throughout Durham, if you're walking around or in Harris.

You think about that elementary school, you don't think about his role.

C.C.

Spaulding, John Harris, uh John Wheeler, and so many, many, many others who worked diligently to found this organization.

And I thank the leaders in the past, people like Willie Lovett, people like Dr.

Lavonia Allison, and so many others, I stand in their footsteps today.

My job as his current carer is to work hard, to work diligently to pass that proverbial baton.

But more importantly, to keep lit that torch, that hope, that beacon that we will have a more guest society, and that the principles of the Durham Committee and all that they embody will be accomplished through our work and through our work with you as elected officials.

I want to thank uh Lindola Beasley, who was here this evening, who is the chair of our public relations committee, as well as Elias Sanders, who is the vice chair of that committee, as well as the mayor and city council for the work that you continue to do today that represents and symbolizes what the Durham Committee felt was necessary in this community community and which epitomizes the best of who we are and what we can become.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Senator Councilmember.

All right.

Moving on.

And next will be our announcements by council.

Councilmember Rist.

Thank you.

All right.

Go to the right first.

I love that.

Um good evening.

Uh switching up a few things.

Yeah, yeah.

No, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, uh colleagues, staff, folks in the audience, and those online.

Thanks for being here.

Thanks for being part of Durham City Government.

Um, well, first of all, I want to say congratulations to the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People.

Um, really appreciate the comments from Senator McKissick.

Um, about 90 years of impact.

It's been a pleasure having been in Durham so long.

It's been a pleasure having worked with you, both as senator, but also you you recognize leaders who've come before or served before.

That was also you up here on the dais, right?

Not that long ago.

Um, it's great to see Glendola and Aleia here, also from the communications committee.

Uh, and again, just congratulations on the amazing impact.

We know about the Durham Committee in Durham, but you all are known, as you know, statewide as one of the leading players at the local level.

Your impact is felt here and so far across the state.

Just want to thank you for all your individually for your service and for the whole committee, and also for recognizing leaders that have gone before you, Mr.

Jackson, Willie Lovett, Dr.

Allison, such great leaders, and it's been a pleasure to work with all of them.

So congrats.

Um, a couple other things.

So, you know, my heart goes out to the folks across the globe in Sydney.

Um, and as well as here at home in Providence over the weekend, two awful, awful tragic shootings.

Um it's simply horrific.

There's too many guns available.

We have to have gun control at this country in this country, at the state and federal level to stop this.

It's horrific, and it's so sad.

Um, we need to elect leaders that will do that.

Um, my heart also goes out to the recent Durham Academy graduate, Kendall Turner, who I think you all have read about, who was one of the Brown students who was injured, luckily not killed, but is in critical stable condition.

Um, I also want to thank uh, yeah, say our hearts and our thoughts and prayers go out to her family at this time.

We hope and pray that she will be better and will recover.

I also want to appreciate Durham Academy Headmaster Michael Ulki Steiner, a good friend who's been keeping us all informed, and I want to thank him for his kind words about Kendall and her family.

Simply horrific, and we hope all um is well with her.

But again, our hearts go out to the families of those who've been impacted, both in Providence, but also in Sydney, which looks like it was an awful attack on folks who are celebrating Hanukkah, which is so tragic and awful.

So I yeah, it's one of the words to express that.

Um I also want to thank Urban Ministries of Durham.

They hosted their annual holiday party last or the holiday luncheon last week.

Honored to attend that, and I want to thank Executive Director Sheldon Mitchell, actually, uh Councilmember Kopak was there, the mayor was there.

I want to thank um Sheldon Mitchell and the staff.

They're an absolutely critical player in our homeless support system.

They serve over 700 meals per day at Urban Ministries of Durham.

Um, and they also serve, they provide almost 30,000 nights of shelter per year to women, men, and families.

It's an amazing part of our homeless system.

I support all the or encourage all the folks who or want to thank all the folks who are there as donors and encourage others to get involved.

We need urban ministers of Durham.

Uh, they're an important player, and I want to thank them for all the work they do day to day supporting homeless folks in our community.

Um, speaking of that, it's also cold outside, so I want everybody to be careful in the cold.

Um, urban ministries is also one of the entry points for our uh referral on white flag nights.

You know, white flag nights happen when the temperature goes below 32 or when it goes below 35 and is raining.

We reached that last night.

So I want to thank all the organizations and partners who are part of the continuum of care that supports additional shelter beds being available, being made available on white flag nights.

So critical to folks stay safe in these cold evenings.

Um I'll stop there, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you so much and look forward to my uh comments from my colleagues.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kolbeck.

Good evening, everyone.

Really wonderful to have you all here.

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

So thank you.

Um I wanna thank our Office of Community Safety, our first responders, open table ministries, families moving forward, urban ministries of Durham and other partners for taking care of our residents last night during White Flag and tonight and ongoing.

And also want to celebrate that as of tonight, uh our city has expanded uh our bed capacity by more than an additional 50 beds, uh, and that's who the diligent work uh of our city staff uh uh and partners here in Durham, and that it's so important to keep everyone healthy and safe.

Um I'd like to highlight the repair work that's being funded uh that'll be in our consent agenda tonight.

Uh it's really a cost-effective way to support affordability and sustainability, and so I'm excited to see us move programs like that forward.

Um I'd like to wish everyone a safe and healthy uh holidays with Christmas Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and perhaps other holidays that will uh come and go um before we return here to the dais again.

And also sending my my heartfelt uh thoughts and prayers to the tragedies that have happened here and and and abroad um to folks uh just simply celebrating uh their communities and and you know their right to religious expression.

Um I love the holidays also for the art and culture and performances, and so some of the ones I'm looking forward to include the uh Triangle Gay Men's chorus performing Wednesday at the Durham, the Durham Coral Society that will be at Duke Chapel on Saturday, uh, the Eric Kelly Museum exhibit at NCCU that's ongoing until January, uh, and so many more.

And so I encourage everyone to get out and enjoy this time of year together in community uh and take in some of the the incredible uh life and arts and culture that we have to offer here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Cook.

Thank you, good evening, everyone.

Uh appreciate y'all being here and those of you watching online.

Um I wanna send a quick shout out to the people's table, folks who are outside um in very frigid temperatures this evening, uh, giving warm food to folks, which is amazing.

Thank you for doing that.

Um I also want to shout out the fire department for their annual toys and books for rides that they held on not this past weekend, but the weekend before.

Um I got to watch from inside a building for uh quite a while, which was really nice because it was very cold, but lots of young folks got to ride around in the fire trucks, which is so cool.

And also all the downtown businesses were like, what is going on in that parking lot?

But um, it was so sweet, and I think they did a great job as they do every year, uh, gathering toys and books and just sending a lot of joy to young folks in the community.

What a real treat to be able to ride in a fire truck.

I did my ride along, and I was in an actual like physical truck, not one of the big trucks.

So now I feel like I have to go back and get that experience too.

Um I also want to send out a thanks to Turquoise Parker and to Lakewood Elementary.

Um, along with dozens of volunteers participated in last week's 11th annual Bull City Food Razor.

We packed non-perishable items.

Um they distributed to over 5,000 Durham public school families, which was amazing.

Um I took on the task of pushing the carts into the truck, um, which I thought I was really strong, and by the end of the night was not feeling so strong.

Uh, but I think it was like multiple tons of food that was distributed.

So that was really incredible.

Um the next couple of announcements are gonna be pretty heavy.

Um I wanna say firmly and unequivocally that this space is meant for the public.

I was not involved nor informed ahead of time about the decision to trespass a resident without warning and for the maximum time allowable.

Trespassing a resident from this building that's meant to be for public discourse is something that should be a last resort and something that we should take really, really seriously.

There were no threats of harm or violence.

The person was asked to leave and did so.

We were able to continue our meeting immediately afterwards.

Again, there is no warning, and the maximum time allowable was the penalty that was given.

Um Durham has historically spoken out against attempts to use tools to silence dissidents and with the current state of affairs in our for uh federal government and statewide government.

I would hope that this city council would distance themselves from those tools.

And so I just want to just want to.

I just want to reaffirm that by deciding to do this job, we understand that sometimes we're gonna be uncomfortable up here.

And we can't use our discomfort to silence people with whom we disagree.

The last thing I want to say is Chalk Smeak.

We heard from a couple of folks.

Um it is Hanukkah, it's a second night of Hanukkah.

Thank you to I stress everybody out because I lit the menorah in City Hall tonight.

Um but anyway, hopefully you saw it in the window of my office.

Um it's a heavy holiday today, as several of my colleagues have stated, and I want to echo what others have said and say that I'm standing with Jews across the country and especially in Sydney.

Um those of us who are Jewish know that when you go to synagogue, when you light the menorah and put it in your window, there's always um celebration that's tinged with fear.

And that was made real for folks in Sydney, and so I want to just send out the fact that um we are all impacted by that violence.

Um, and my colleague is have mentioned as well the shooting at Brown.

Um Hanukkah is a time to talk about light and darkness, and so we have seen some darkness.

Um I want to shout out to the to the to the victims' families, to the survivors of those shootings, to the first responders.

Um, and also want to say a word of thanks to Ahmed Al-Ahmed, the unarmed uh immigrant who saw one of those shooters in Sydney and took it upon himself to disarm the person and probably saved a whole bunch of lives.

Um I read this quote and I just want to say it for y'all too.

Um those targeted for who they were were saved by somebody who owed them nothing except for his humanity.

I thought that was really beautiful.

And so we will continue to light our menorahs.

We continue to think about bringing light into spaces of darkness darkness and continue to fight for the sanctity of life.

Thank you all for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Baker.

Uh good evening to everyone.

Thank you all for being here.

Um, to all of you who are watching at home, and thank you to my colleagues for all of your comments.

I agree with and support everything that has been said so far.

You know, it's always an interesting activity to come into the chambers and talk about issues that affect people's lives in an attempt to improve people's lives in an atmosphere, a state and federal atmosphere that is fully moving toward fascism and oligarchy, moving all of our material wealth uh into the hands of the few while uh the poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer, and we are we are back into the roaring 20s and the uh inequality of the 20s, uh the the 1920s.

And uh being impacted by that at the local government level, our neighborhoods are impacted, our residents are impacted, we all feel the uh ineptitude, we all feel the corruption and incompetence that is happening at the state and federal level, and so it is difficult to um detach ourselves from that.

Um more positive matters, I want to thank parks and recreation and all of our staff, uh community members, nonprofits, organizations that participated in the um holiday parade uh this weekend.

There were so many people out and about having a very good time.

Saw several marched along with several of my colleagues there, um, and that was a lot of fun.

Also want to shout out the people's table who are out there in frigid temperatures.

Um tonight and last night are the two coldest nights since uh 2022.

Um and as uh several of my colleagues have mentioned, um, we are seeking to expand beds available to residents who who do not have homes in our community.

Um the way to do that is through what's called entry point.

And if you know someone who is in need of emergency shelter, you can call the number 984-287-8313.

So thank you to city staff, nonprofit, faith-based organizations, everyone who is out on the front lines trying to make uh things better for people who who have very little.

Um and then lastly, uh I just want to mention the unified development ordinance, uh the one of the most powerful documents that we have, the DNA that shapes uh the way that our city grows, a document that uh is not updated uh but for every every few decades uh and has impacts on uh gen future generations.

We are going through the rewrite process uh of the unified development ordinance.

It has gone through four modules.

Um the last module was presented to joint city county planning committee this month.

So the next steps on that are to have a full draft available of the unified development ordinance by the end of this year, January and February.

Uh the team that is working on the the UDO rewrite will go out to the public, do engagement education, um, and then the adoption process begins with a goal of adopting the new UDO at City Council before June 1st.

So I think that that uh people should know that it's an important thing to plug into uh it governs uh every square foot of our city and of our county.

It had there are a lot of opportunities, and it's also just very important to uh be informed and make sure that we make the right decision.

So full draft should become available uh in the coming weeks.

Prior drafts have continued to be edited.

Um, so they are not necessarily the final drafts that you will see in the completed draft.

So keep an eye out uh for that.

Again, thank you all for for being here.

Look forward to a productive meeting.

Thank you.

Councilmember Burris.

Good evening.

Thank you all.

Um, thank you, Mayor Williams as well.

Thank you all for joining us.

Uh so I had the opportunity to attend the senior holiday party earlier this month, which I thoroughly enjoyed, hosted by Durham Parks and Ricks.

If you've ever had a chance to go, you'll see why it sells out so fast.

I believe it's sold out within an hour.

It is pure bliss and fun in that environment, and they can actually outdance a lot of us because Councilman Cook and I found out, and we actually have been invited to um attend a couple of trainings about dancing, so we'll you'll be there with me.

Um also I've been continuing my new member um council or onboarding journey, so I want to again express gratitude to our city staff during this process, had a chance last week to meet with all department heads, learn more about the intricate work that goes to making Durham run, and I appreciate doing those one-to-one outreach opportunities.

And I also had an opportunity to attend a very informative training last week, hosted by the um NC League municipalities about council member conduct and procedures, and that gave me a lot of space to ask a lot of questions, but also it's important that we assume positions that we actually know we can and cannot do to be effective at governance, and so I would encourage folks to also explore taking those trainings as well.

Um I there is a uh elephant in the room.

I have received correspondence from many members of our community expressing concerns regarding the decision to ban a resident from city council chambers.

I do not support that movement at this moment, or just at any moment.

To be clear, I was not a part of any conversation discussion regarding the outcome of that.

To my um knowledge that was made by the city manager, the mayor pro Tim, the mayor, as well as the city attorney.

I want to I believe that matters of that nature should be discussed publicly and by all of council members.

Um as we swear in that night was completely disruptive.

If it was not just one person, and I want to ensure we have equal application of rules in the law.

If we're gonna apply the rules, I want to know why other members were not trespassed as well.

There was a gentleman who was violently yelling in front of the in the individual.

There were people chanting, and this is not the first time we've seen that.

So I want to make sure we're not targeting our residents for political retribution and making sure we also understand that each of us up here hold equal power.

So it should not be that two people can go and make a decision.

I'm not sure the origin points of that, but I want to make sure we have transparent and clear government, and that decision again was made in a silo, and I hope that we would not continue to practice governance in a matter that stifles public opinion.

We signed up for this.

I read the emails, everyone's not gonna be your friend, everyone's gonna do everything in favor, but if we're gonna fight authoritarianism at the national level, we can't silently try to silence people at the local level.

So I really want to reiterate that and make sure we understand that we all have equal access and opportunity here, and we should not use our city employees to do our bidding work.

If you're gonna make a move like that, stand on it.

So thank you all.

Mayor Fredson.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh good to be with you all.

Um I appreciate and it's gonna get old and people are probably tired of already.

Um I am the chair of the procedures committee.

We redid the procedures.

Most of the folks on this council approved of those procedures.

Many of the rules that you will be hearing are rules that have been part of our procedures in some form and another since I think the mid-90s.

To council member Burris' point, they have been at times it is up to the chair.

And the chair on this council is the mayor.

And how they are applied.

I have been on council meetings when folks have shown up and sung to us.

I have been in council meetings when folks have brought flowers to the front.

There has been all kinds of protest and all kinds of action.

And it has not been stopped.

We've had to pause our meetings.

We've had to go into recess.

December 1st was a transfer of democratic power.

There were Oaths that were being sworn.

That is the difference.

We can talk about authoritarianism, and we can also talk about the acceptance of election results.

The folks who are sitting on this dais have been elected by Durham residents to sit in these seats.

There are folks who may be unhappy at that outcome.

And the order of operations in this country is to wait until the next election and cast your vote.

If you are showing up in our chambers, which happens all the time, I've been here since 2018.

Again, I've seen all forms of protest.

Our procedures are some of the most flexible.

Our public comment are some of the most flexible in the state of North Carolina.

I know that because I had to work with the city attorney's office to draft them.

It's not fiction, it's fact.

We are here to do an agenda that is in front of us.

Sometimes we comment on national items, sometimes we comment on state happenings.

But if we do not follow rules, then the folks who are here tonight, this evening do not get their opportunity to speak.

If we do not follow rules, folks who are being sworn in, they don't get to have the moment that they have won democratically.

And I think there is a difference.

There's a huge difference.

And it's from somebody who was actually from a country and had to leave a country because democratic norms were not followed.

So this isn't again fiction.

I live in this country because the United States United States helped put a coup on the country that I'm from.

That my family's lived in for generations.

That's why I live in this country.

That's why I'm an immigrant.

So I appreciate and I will always appreciate how Durham shows up.

But we also have to lean into the moment.

And we can be upset with our elected leaders, but it does not help.

I always say this town is hard on each other.

We are hard on one another.

And sometimes it's important to look ourselves in the mirror and really sit there and think about we're all supposed to be on the same side.

In this town, we're supposed to take care of one another and our neighbors.

And so we have to find a way to do that.

Many of us are talking about the humanity of one another.

When you are talking about political violence online or supporting folks who espouse that, I deeply question your intent.

And that's my right, just like it might be your right to do it back.

I'm a Montessori teacher by trade.

That was the first professional job.

And one of the tenants of Montessori is grace and courtesy.

And I try to extend that to each one of my colleagues, whether I agree with them or not, and I try and extend that to residents, whether they agree with me or not.

But if we're ever going to get to a place of actual listening and understanding, we have to give each other grace and courtesy, and we have to be actually able to have that dialogue.

And when folks come and shout down, when folks are taking their oaths of office after a democratic election, it's not moving us forward.

It's moving us back.

So I appreciate the mayor for reading out the rules of decorum.

I understand that they're different.

It's what the county commission has been doing for a long time.

It's what our school board does as well.

And it's what most elected bodies do across the state of North Carolina for a reason.

If you would like to have a conversation with me or dialogue with me about it, please reach out.

I'm always eager to have conversations with residents.

And I understand we may not always agree.

I missed the holiday parade on Saturday, it was one of the first times I'd missed it.

My father turned 80 years old last week, and I went down to Rock Hill, South Carolina to celebrate with him.

And he has lived an incredible life.

And it was really a great and special weekend to be with him.

You can pick a number, right?

You know, you pick a number, you're like, I think I'm gonna be alive.

You can say 80, and you do really have to question, I don't know if I'm gonna make it that long.

And so I think it's a true gift and blessing that we've had him for this long.

And unfortunately, this morning uh I attended a funeral for a really incredible Durham community member, and so it was another reflection of the cycle of life and in this moment.

And so it was another reflection of the cycle of life, and in this moment.

Many of my colleagues have talked about the grief and the suffering that we've experienced across the globe with many incidents.

And that's what I always hold.

We have both light and dark at all times.

And it's hard to live right now and be in this world right now.

It's a struggle for many.

And so my faith tradition is uh I was raised Catholic.

Yesterday was the third advent, third Sunday of Advent.

It's Gautate, it's joy.

And so I extend to you.

I hope you find joy in this season, however it comes to you.

I hope you hang on to it.

I think we've all had a really hard 2025, and I hope that we can seek that lightness, seek that joy, and enter 2026 renewed.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

So uh you've heard many of the comments uh of the holiday festivities, and I um went to most of them, at least the ones I could get to.

And uh boy, um the holiday party with the seniors.

I say age is nothing but a number, but it's definitely not a limitation.

Uh they prove that very well.

Uh and the holiday parade was just amazing seeing our community come out and come together.

Um have a brief chat with the mayor, um, Mayor Smalley, of what's going on up in Rhode Island, and uh they are going through it.

And again, I just I hate, you know, I love this country, but there's some parts of it, you know, the way guns are celebrated more than or held to how you're quality or valued in human life at times.

I I hate it.

And it's just unfortunate, you know, that we have to deal with this in this world.

Um, but kudos to everyone that's standing in for one another in this tough time.

And yeah, Durham Durham showed out, you know, with all of the holiday festivities, and um it's just a great time of the year from the Christmas tree lighting to the tower lighting to the parade to all of the parties and receptions.

It's about three or four a night.

So it's just good spirits and good times.

Um many of the comments have been said, and I will not repeat them, but what I will say is uh in respect to uh my colleagues, which I've met with some of you all one-on-one today, and always feel free to bring it up to me directly as well as to the public.

Um we don't get to celebrate.

I I mean we don't get to demonize things like January 6th and then accept it at the local level.

We don't do that.

And as long as I'm mayor of this city, I will always have respect for the freedom of speech.

But if it gets so bad and so egregious that the manager feels that he needs to trespass, I will support that.

I'm appalled that some people would even clap after watching what happened when children are standing here with their father being sworn in, and the most egregious behavior is carried out, and we're okay with that.

So I'm not gonna gaslight this.

And as long as I'm mayor of the city, we're gonna have respect for one another.

And this is not a performance.

This is not me trying to get hand claps.

This is not me throwing you all off guard because I've been very clear with each of you.

We've gone through rough times in this council.

And my goal is to keep us focused on what the people's work is.

I can't solve socialism, I can't solve capitalism, I can't solve all of those societal issues that are worldwide, that are nationwide, but I do know we have it a heck of a lot better than a lot of countries.

And I know that this city is in a much better position than many cities across this country.

So the instructions that I read earlier.

Those are the instructions that I will be following.

Those are the procedures that I will be following.

What you saw on December 1st, which yes, there was someone trespassed, the manager has that right.

The manager has that right.

And let's make sure we know what we're talking about.

The manager has that right.

And he carried it out.

He did not need to bring that to the city council.

That is why he did not.

Yes, he did inform.

But if we just read these instructions, not the ones I read, but the actual law, the problem the actual code of conduct here, we can make that publicly available as well.

I can read it out if we need to.

That is not what we do in Durham.

That is not how I lead.

And that's not how I'm going to.

So I just want to clear the air.

Colleagues.

That we voted on for a reason.

And this is fact.

This is true.

It's not a performance.

Let's get to the business.

Mr.

Manager.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pratem, members of council.

The city manager's office has the following priority items this evening.

Agenda item number five.

This was the update on redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill.

This item was referred back to staff at the work session to come forward at a future council meeting following direction that council gave us at the work session.

Agenda item number 10.

That's the redevelopment loan agreement with the Durham Housing Authority for the Redevelopment of Tribute Rising.

This item was referred back to staff at the work session.

And agenda item number 11, 2025, the third quarter crime report.

Additional information was requested during the December 4th, 2025 work session, and that's been attached under agenda item number 11.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Manager.

Madam Attorney.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Madam Mayor Pratem, and members of the council.

The City Attorney's Office has no priority items this evening.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Madam Mayor Pretem, and members of City Council.

The city clerk's office has no priority items this evening.

Thank you very much.

At this time, I will read the consent agenda.

But there was one thing I just wanted to make sure I referenced again.

Actually, colleagues, I'll read this at the beginning of our public hearings, but uh we will be changing the order just a bit tonight, uh, in regards to the public hearings.

I'll read them as they are right now on the consent agenda, but I will change the order to items to this the following order.

Item number 15, 19, 20, 16, 17, and 18.

That would be the order.

15 six 15, 19, 20, 16, 17, 18.

All right, this time I'll read the consent agenda.

Item number one, participatory budgeting steering committee appointment.

Item number two, Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau discover Durham appointment.

Number three, hiring practices perform an audit, November 2025.

Number four, cooperative group contract, uh purchase contract, compact, rear loaders.

Number five, update on redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street, which was referred back here.

Number six, tennis court lighting purchase contract whipper whip or will park with Muscow Sports Lighting LLC.

Number seven, proposed lease with Durham Regional Association of Realtors Incorporated at 4238 University Drive.

Number eight, tennis court lighting purchase contract at Rock Quarry Park with Muscle Sports Lighting LLC.

Number nine, home supper recipient agreement with preserving home for the homeowner rehabilitation program.

Number 10, redevelopment of loan agreement with the Durham Housing Authority for the redevelopment of tribute rising for sales heights.

Number 12, uh fiscal year 2026.

Yeah, 2026 Federal Transit Administration Section 5303 GPO amendment.

205.

Colleagues, I'm gonna go back to never mind.

All right, number uh number 13, amendment number one to contract number two one four three zero, which enable engineering south PC for professional engineering services for dam inspections and maintenance activities.

Number 15, public hearing number two on the fiscal year 2024-2025 consolidated annual performance audit and evaluation report.

Number 16, consolidated annexation 3306 page road.

Number 17, consolidated annexation Hamblin Reserve.

Number 18, consolidated annexation leave village center.

Number 19, downtown Durham Blueprint 2035.

Number 20, zoning map change, 3404 page road amendment.

All right.

All right.

That is our consent agenda with uh of course our public hearing items are the only ones that are pulled.

All right.

Make a motion.

Yeah.

All right.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.

So moved.

Second.

Then move and probably seconded.

Madam Clark, please summon the vote.

Thank you.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

All right, colleagues.

And uh as I mentioned at our last meeting, uh, just in respect of our time and getting through this agenda.

Um, I'm going to try and reel us in on our uh engagement and give us uh a time allotment as well.

And as we're going through the public hearings, uh, each member of the public will have three minutes to speak.

Um and when it comes to council members, we'll start our first round of five minutes and then the second round of three minutes, and then a third round of one if needed.

And uh Madam Clerk will help us with managing this.

Thank you.

We'll see the timer.

All right, so first up is item number 15, which is the public hearing on the fiscal year 2024-2025 consolidated annual performance and evaluation report.

And uh this is uh this is a public hearing, uh, but we'll hear your staff report first.

Yes, thank you.

Uh good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and members of the city council.

Uh my name is Braden Korwitz.

I'm a planning and performance administrator with the housing and neighborhood services department.

Uh, this public hearing is to receive comments on the recently submitted consolidated annual performance and evaluation report, better known as the CAPER.

Uh the CAPER details both the anticipated and actual reformance of the city's U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, uh formula brought formula block grant funding over fiscal year 2024 and 2025, which ran from July 1, 24 through June 30th, 25.

This report covers CDBG community development block grants, home investment partnerships, HOPWA housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, and ESG emergency solutions grant.

The CAPERS format is prescribed by HUD and its grants management platform, the integrated disbursement and information system.

The performance metrics in this report were informed by two planning documents.

The city's 2020 to 2024 consolidated plan and the 2024 to 2025 annual action plan.

Some information in this CAPER, such as reporting for ESG and HUPWA are submitted via other platforms as stipulated by HUD.

The reported activities from the previous fiscal year supported community development efforts that primarily focus on access to and the development of affordable housing and assistance to extremely low, low and moderate income residents, as well as persons in households with HIV and AIDS.

Public service activities bolstered the city's homelessness system by funding case management services for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Before its submission to HUD on September 26th, the draft caper was first made available for public review and comment from September 9th to September 24th, as per the city's citizen participation plan.

Copies of the report were made available on the Housing and Neighborhood Services webpage and at the following locations.

The City of Durham's clerk's office, the Durham County Clerk's Office, the main branch of the Durham County Library, and the Housing and Neighborhood Services Offices.

No public comments on the draft are received at the time of its submission to HUD.

As a final note, all of our planning and reporting documents regarding our HOD funding can be found on the department's webpage.

I'm available as needed for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Before we go on to the public hearing, colleagues, are there any technical excuse me, technical questions for staff.

All right.

At this time, I'll declare this a public hearing.

And I have one speaker.

Yep.

Haley Cunningham, are you in the building?

Hey there.

Welcome.

Welcome, Dr.

Cunningham.

Three minutes.

All right.

Thanks.

My name is Dr.

Haley Cunningham.

I'm an HIV provider and co-chair of the Coalition to End the HIV epidemic in Durham.

I'm here yet again to express our disappointment and concern regarding how Hopwa funding is being allocated and the lack of transparency and collaboration with the community.

On February 6th, community development admitted to City Council during a session that the prior two years of HOPWA funding remained, quote, untouched.

In May, a request for proposals was released for community organizations to apply for HOPWA funding.

Partners in Caring and our coalition and partnership with Healing with Care submitted applications by the deadline and should have been noted of approval or rejection by June 2nd.

Until September, we were led to believe that the RFP process was open and were told that we could not discuss HOPWA utilization with the city during this time.

We met with city officials multiple times and were told this.

This was intentionally misleading, given that city officials recently said to us in a meeting in November that they knew in May that neither RFP applicant organization would receive funding for reasons that remain unclear to us.

We were also informed that a HOPWA administrator at DSS was on the review committee for the RFP and the other reviewers also had conflicts of interest.

Ultimately, it was decided that DSS and the City of Durham would continue to be the only HOPWA administrators despite a record of poor performance.

DSS remains the only entry point for HOPWA and places additional barriers to receiving support, including requirements that homeless and unstably housed people provide proof of citizenship.

Healing with Care and the Lincoln Community Health Center have referred multiple people to HOPWA services through DSS in 2025, and none of their clients have qualified per DSS.

We are in the process of reaching out to HIV care and service providers across our five county region to better understand just how HOPWA funding is and is not being used, as well as how many people are in need of services given no one from the city or county has been forthcoming with this information.

Even the CAPER has gaping holes.

As of February of this year, two years of funding remained untouched.

Now the CAPER states that $755,500 of the $1.1 million from 2004 has been allocated.

Given the small number of people assisted with HOPWA funding over the last two years, mostly for utilities assistance, I worry that the vast majority of this has been allocated to paying city and county officials who are actually not making a headway and helping people that this funding is meant to serve.

We have submitted a formal request for comprehensive documentation surrounding the utilization of HOPWA funds, and we'll also be submitting a complaint to HUD.

We have asked to work with the city and county for the past two and a half years, and we won't stop until funding is allocated appropriately.

Thanks.

Thank you, Dr.

Cunningham.

Those all of the speak that is the only speaker I have for this item.

So therefore, I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

Colleagues.

No action.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Cook.

Thanks.

I like have no idea where you're looking when you're looking so.

Um Maggie, I have questions.

Sorry, I see that you're already here ready to go.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, Council Members.

Maggie Carnegie, acting assistant director with the housing and neighborhood services department.

Um I have some questions to follow up on our April conversation about specifically about the RFP that was going to be for resource identification.

Um wanted to know where we were on that.

And I mean, I think that originally the hope and dream was that there would be some capacity building as a piece of that.

Um I know that there was some issues with how we felt like we could work with community groups.

Um unfortunately, it sounds like we've gone kind of the opposite direction in terms of building trust.

Um so I was just hoping you could update us on the um that RFP on the resource identification part, and then um maybe we can talk a little bit about community engagement afterwards.

Yeah, absolutely.

So, Councilmember Cook, as you mentioned, in April, we reallocated some of our HOPWA funding to the resource identification eligible activity.

So we took funding from the 2023 and 2024 program years to make those reallocations to support that activity type.

Um, in the coming calendar year, the project team who is now managing and administering the the HOPWA program will be uh preparing for a strategic plan effort that isn't just strategic planning, we're more simplistically stating that is what that would encompass, but it would entail a needs assessment, engagement with partners and providers and stakeholders throughout the five county EMSA.

Uh it would also consist of system mapping and things to support us in developing a strategic plan about how to most effectively utilize these HOPWA funds to meet the needs of eligible persons in in need of services.

So that is in the coming year.

As far as the specific timeline, I would have to circle back uh with a formal response as to what that looks like.

So I sorry, I'm gonna have to go back a couple to a couple different things.

So the first question I have is I thought that the issue was that we were max we had a maximum amount of money that we could pull from those years to do the resource identifying and and or that I know there was a seven percent on administration cap, and then so I guess I'm confused on where the funds are coming from that we're able to pull into that RFP, and then also I the conversation that we had in April, it sounded like that RFP was coming like this year, as soon as the um the like HOPWA funding distribution one was done.

And but now I'm hearing you say that we're not gonna do that until next year, so I'm confused.

So there is uh firstly the the 7% project sponsor administration cap.

That's for anyone who is carrying out and administering one of those eligible activity types.

That respective sponsor has that seven percent allocation to spend on administrative calls, like indirect costs.

Direct staff calls spent uh administering like TIBRA services could be billed to the TIBER activity line.

So there is a distinction there just about what direct and indirect calls look like for this grant uh regarding the timeline and time frame of the resource identification or strategic plan uh body of work we were planning for that body of work to take place pretty immediately following that reallocation of funding.

There has been some just changes as a result of the reorganization and staffing, who's managing the HOPWA program, um, changes in leadership that have have had some implications on us moving that body of work forward, but the the new project team who's administering the HOPWA program uh really in its entirety is is working through that and and that has been a discussion point, but the specific time frame I again I'll have to circle back on what that's going to be.

Okay, we have a oh yeah, did you have something else?

And did I answer?

I think you have to question.

Okay, I'm gonna have a couple more.

Um so this we have a three-year period on performance.

That is correct.

And can you help me understand how that works with this timeline?

So we have a three-year period of performance for each respective annual allocation of HOPOL entitlement funds.

Then we as the grantee can request HUD extend that period of performance by an additional two years.

Um both the city and HUD have executed the grant agreement.

So each year's entitlement period of performance uh is is different.

It just depends again on that those respective uh execution dates.

So the 2023 program uh period of performance, that would uh end in next year.

I I don't know the specific date, uh, but that is something else I could follow up with the specific date of when that would end.

Um but as far as the older uh funding sources where we have funding available, we request period of performance extensions to HUD and we submit them.

There has been some lag as a result of the federal government shutdown in responses uh to some of those period of performance extension requests, but we submit if we see that we're not going to fully expend that allocation within the initial three-year period.

I think I'm getting tripped up on how it how it works with the um with the timeline when we're talking about we've we've done the the distribution to DSS for is that for this whole period and that ends like whenever the three-year period ends is also when our contract with DSS as the distributor ends.

Is that my understanding that?

So I think we're conflating period of performances and the respective timeline and time frame for expending funds from like a given year's allocation.

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

Okay, yes, that is helpful.

Thank you.

Um then my next question is about the um appropriate reporting for all the categories we had didn't have goals for two, I think it was uh supportive services and then permanent housing, maybe that we didn't have the appropriate priorities set for that.

That's correct.

We did have to have to make some updates to this consolidated plan that covers this report so we could actualize the the actual uh accomplishments associated with the various activities that were funding.

So where those where you would see those in this report, if you give me a moment.

So you'll see those on page three of the CAPER.

Okay, and in this chart, there's a couple uh goal areas that say provide support to people living with HIV aids, and then there's three separate goal categories that comprises all the activities that we're currently funding using HOPWA funding.

And so in column four of that chart, and I apologize, this is a HUD prescribed template.

I know it is not user-friendly, yeah.

Um but these various categories do encompass what equates to supportive services, permanent housing placement, tenant-based rental assistance, and short-term rent mortgage utility payments.

How HUD defines uh those activities and the they're called goal outcome indicators, those categories they fall under are reflected in this chart.

Okay, great.

And um, and then I guess my last question is that it was just brought up by Dr.

Cunningham.

Um that there was quite a bit of money that was unaccounted for.

Can you just talk about that expenditure?

Yes, of course.

So this report accounts for all the expenditures we incurred in this given time frame.

It is not specific to a program year.

So that is why you would see that we have seven or eight hundred thousand dollars worth of expenditures that could be across multiple program years, say 2022, 2023 HOPWA's allocations.

What we're responsible for reporting in the CAPER is any performance and expenditures incurred in the time frame covered by this CAPER.

So July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025.

Okay.

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

Okay, thank you.

Um I know last time we had kind of I said I had one more, but I had more.

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

Um, but it sounds like that might fall within the scope of the RFP to come.

Is that does that seem right?

I would say we've had conversations about the need for capacity building of uh potential project sponsors.

We are currently receiving technical assistance from HUD.

Um that is at HUD's expense.

We requested that technical assistance to better support our administration of HOPWA and the program just in general, and that is an item that we have spoken with our TA provider about is the need to increase that project sponsor cat uh the the project sponsor pool, those interested in uh administering federal funds and HOPWA funds and compliance with those.

So, as far as the other funding to pair, we haven't gotten to that point of identifying what could be that other funding to pair, but I'd add resource identification could be used dependent upon the type of the type of activity.

Um, and if we're under contract or have already identified a project sponsor, that could be paired or mirrored with, say, a local funding source or something else to help build that capacity.

Great.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

Thank you, Councilmember Rist.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Thanks again for the report.

I appreciate the staff, the hard work you've done.

I know this is an important piece we need to give to HUD every year.

Um, we talk a lot about affordable housing in this council.

Um, I care about that deeply.

So I wanted to ask a few questions about the affordable housing goal here.

Um I know that, and I appreciate the discussion about sort of the difference between some of the goals and outcomes, how we achieved uh those or how we did or did not achieve those goals.

And I know the city did not meet its goals for affordable housing production or rehab.

I appreciate the conversation there.

I had a question in particular about the rental assistance goal and why we didn't achieve that goal.

Can you say more about that?

Whether that's sort of internal stuff or kind of market conditions that made it difficult to reach that rental assistance goal.

I know that renters are particularly challenging in our city.

I think the numbers are like half of our renters are um cost burden.

So I would love your uh feedback on exactly how why we didn't meet that goal.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um, so uh a couple things I do want to identify is that this consolidated, or excuse me, the goals and priorities established in this report were created back in spring of 2020.

And so that carried us through our five-year consolidated plan period.

Then each year when we develop annual action plans, and then this CAPER report that reports on what did we actually achieve in meeting these goals throughout this five-year plan.

So some conditions have very much so changed since spring of 2020 when these goals were identified.

Um, especially looking at other funding sources and uses.

Uh there was a prioritization just bluntly of our bond funding and dedicated housing funding as part of the Forever Home Durham initiative that took some precedence over the federal funds that we were maybe envisioning using back in fall 2019 and spring 2020 when we developed uh that plan.

The other thing that I note is there are some programs that we're already investing in, but the outcomes haven't actualized.

So we aren't going to report an accomplishment until we have either a unit constructed and fully constructed per the standards uh for each respective funding source or the requirements for each respective funding source.

Um, or uh beneficiary has received a uh a service in totality.

So, an example when we're looking at the affordable housing work, rental units constructed, the Commerce Street Project.

There are 71 home assisted units in that project.

We executed an agreement with our developer and uh partner Durham Housing Authority in Laurel Street Residential back in June of 2024.

Construction isn't complete though, so we can't report on those accomplishments until construction's complete.

So we'll see the outcomes of that investment a year and a half ago in uh subsequent capers, just not now.

And so that's that's part of the challenge too as to why you see some of these goals haven't actualized.

Right.

You mean just kind of lags between the the goal and the actual production.

I get that.

My question was really more on the rental assistance side.

So to what extent, like to what extent, for example, market conditions were part of the factor that that led to us not meeting that goal.

If you could say more about that.

And so I'd I guess I to make sure I explain clearly, we haven't invested as far as using home or CDBG dollars for rental assistance, so direct rental subsidies.

We have utilized HOPWA funding.

We have used HOPWA for tenant-based rental assistance.

Um I do believe that in previous CAPER reports, we reported the HOPWA outcome under that affordable housing category for rental assistance, um, and then split it out as its own unique goal.

But we have not again used CDBG or home in that way.

The uses have predominantly been about rental unit construction, uh, rental unit rehabilitation, um, and activities more of that brick and mortar type.

I guess I'm I'm responding to this is on page 26 of the report where it says uh rental assistance goal was also not met, reflecting the abrupt loss of the Hopwa TBRA project sponsor and challenges with market conditions, rising rents, and limited vacancies.

So just that that piece is what I'm kind of would love to hear more.

Yeah.

So uh that is very specific to the HOPWA program and tenant-based rental assistance um that is administered through that HOPA program.

There have been some changes in our TIBAR provider.

Durham Housing Authority for many years was our tenant-based rental assistance provider.

Uh they ceased being that provider in June of 2023.

We then uh began working with Central Piedmont Community Action.

Uh they were the TIBER provider for the five county EMSA.

And then in October of 2024, they abruptly shut down without notice.

As a result, the city, housing and neighborhood services department now administers that TWAR program.

So between changes in TIBRA providers, there have been impacts and implications about the number of folks that we've served, just because there's been a change in who's administering that service.

There have also just been challenges in landlords being willing to accept um tenant-based or rental subsidies and assistance.

Uh we have tried working with the homeless system.

They have a landlord engagement group uh to help identify landlords small and large who'd be willing to accept subsidies uh to help kind of bridge that network and gap, and also leveraging uh partnerships we've established with development partners as a result of our investment in the Forever Home Durham Initiative.

But this is an opportunity where there are uh ways for us to improve like how we make those connections with with landlords.

Got you.

Thanks.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Colleagues, thank you all so much.

No action is needed on this item, so I guess we're all good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

A great evening.

You too.

Colleagues, next up, we're gonna have item number 19, the downtown Durham Blueprint.

Yeah.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, and City Council members.

My name is Nicole Thompson, and I am the president and CEO of Downtown Durham Incorporated.

PDI is pleased to present the downtown Durham Blueprint 2035 to you for your approval to adopt this plan as an official city plan.

Throughout our two-year process of creating the plan, we received feedback and input from over 2300 people, and with this engagement have crafted a detailed plan on how downtown Durham can preserve its unique character while supporting continued growth and vibrancy.

The blueprint includes a shared vision, seven targeted goals that each have deliberate strategies which are further defined through implementation implementable actions.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing, so um there are no technical questions initially.

I will declare the public hearing open this time.

And I have no speakers.

Mr.

Mayor, there is one person that signed up to speak in person.

Oh, I see it down here.

Pablo Friedman.

Pablo, are you in the air?

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

Welcome.

All right.

Good evening.

Congratulations, Mayor Williams, on your re-election.

Congratulations, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and all the new council members on the day.

I'm here tonight to talk about two things.

One is about the process for actually signing up for uh to speak at this hearing at the very beginning.

I'll talk to that very briefly and then I'll go into the rest of the remarks under three minutes.

One is I think the process for signing up to speak on an item needs to be a little bit better.

There was a crew of us that spent about 10 good solid 10 minutes waiting to sign up to speak.

And I think that process could be much smoother, whether by having cards or allowing people to sign up in advance online.

Just food for thought is this council develops better processes.

But on the item at hand, as those of us who were engaged in this most recent election cycle, one of the common questions we heard from labor was why is the municipal agency giving a lot of its oversight on public goods to nonprofits or entities outside of the city.

And I think this is a really good opportunity.

We've done two small area plants, one in the Lakewood area, another one in the Northgate area that are managed by the city.

And as somebody that does live in downtown Durham actually pays the bid tax that gets transferred to DDI.

I really believe this small area plan needs to be managed by the city and not by DDI.

I want to be really clear.

I think this small area plan has really good things in it, like really good things that need to happen.

But I think the process, the public oversight, needs to be managed by the city directly as opposed to a nonprofit.

I think there are a lot of examples where the city will often outsource things to nonprofits or things like that.

And I think that that's not the right decision.

So that's point number one.

Point number two on this whole process is I also think when we look at this small area plan, one of the things I think that's really important, those of us who live in downtown, pay the bid tax.

And then the city transfers that bid tax to DDI.

I think we need to relook at that because a lot of those public goods and services that are being done through a nonprofit could be more efficiently and better served to the taxpayers of Durham by the city itself directly.

So that's my public comments.

Give you back a minute because you have a long evening tonight.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

That's the only speaker I have, so therefore I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

And I will say that um we we do uh so the council has numerous uh quasi judicial boards uh and nonprofits that we outsource, uh, but all of those agencies or entities have oversight with representation, and actually tomorrow I'll be publishing the um I'll be publishing a memo that has the uh oversight assignment of each council member to each of those boards.

Uh in this is one of those boards, so it will have a council member on it, and I can't remember which one of you all so council member wrist is a representative of the council that will be uh providing an extension of oversight to this organization as it always has been.

Um and from the county, I believe it's still uh vice chair and another alum.

Um, but it's also a way that community members can be involved and have that community oversight as well.

So it it it it does extend.

Uh, but those comments are are well notated.

Thank you.

All right.

Yeah, council member.

If I could, Ms.

Mayor, thank you.

Um yes, I am the DDI representative from the council that have been so for two years since I've been elected.

Um it is one of the boards I'm most proud to serve on.

I want to thank the folks from DDI for being here today.

Um I've been in Durham since 1989 when I first came here.

Downtown was in a different place.

Um we've had a couple, if I'm not mistaken, a couple different master plans or for downtown that have been done.

Those took place when downtown was a much different place.

And so I appreciate DDI taking the time and effort and resources to really look at where we are now, what the challenges of downtown are now, and developing a plan, a blueprint for downtown going to the future.

I know that process included a lot of people, a lot of pop-up engagements in different sort of ways people could engage.

DDI has a very active board of folks who are downtown property owners, downtown residents, public officials, a broad-based representation there.

So I appreciate the process for developing that plan, being thoughtful and engaging the community in that.

If I'm not mistaken, also one of the reasons this board is being asked to approve the plan to the speaker's comments, is that in the past I'm not sure the council's actually adopted those plans.

And so by adopting this plan, we are saying we are ultimately responsible for the outcomes that are that are presented in the plan.

So I think it's I think it's really great.

DDI has asked us to approve it.

I'm glad it's on our agenda as a hearing.

I will gladly support the plan and have supported its development.

And I urge my count my council colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

Yeah, I have to say I enjoyed uh curling up on the couch with this plan like it was a good book.

And I appreciate all the thoughtful engagement that went in, the design elements that made it really easily accessible, the reference back to all the other many plans that we have.

Uh I encourage everyone here to dig in and really tie try and digest it as best you can.

Um but there are some real highlights for me, you know, fixing parking, especially for our working folks.

Um, you know, excited to see that, supportive services for our unhoused residents, all the two-waying and fixing of the loop, better bike and walk infrastructure, public art, welcoming spaces for all of our residents, especially especially our black and Latino residents, and more climate resilient infrastructure.

So there's a lot of really good stuff in there.

Um the key ultimately is not to have good ideas and plans.

Uh those are uh foundational, uh, but ultimately to be able to implement.

And there's a really critical implementation section in the plan that I encourage you to check out, and especially the you know, the the tactical action groups are the tags, where I encourage everyone here to look at the plan, you know, find an area that you're passionate about and sign up to be part of the solution to deliver.

Um there are some early action items that have been identified through this process.

And I think it's gonna be really important that we show forward momentum and and and success at ticking off uh some of those early steps and and show that we can deliver.

Um, you know, while we work on uh delivering other really critical projects for our community like 505 West Sheffield Hill Street, you know, the belt line uh and other initiatives that have been languishing.

Um you need to work at both of those those timescales uh and as quickly uh as we can.

So please do check it out and and sign up and participate.

So the this is a this is a uh small area plan.

This is the the city's second small area plan following the wall town small area plan.

Small area plans are really, really important because what they do is say, let's look in a focused area and let's look at it comprehensively.

Let's not just look at the zoning or just look at the streets or just look at the parks.

Let's look at all of those things together uh so that we can move forward on some of the best next steps.

Um if we don't do that, we're often in a position where those who are big landowners or those who are powerful, they are the ones who are presenting the potential future for all of us to react to.

This flips the script and says we as the people want to have a say in the way that we shape the world that we live in.

Um we should have we should be able to determine and set a vision for what our city, what our neighborhood, what our multiple neighborhoods should look like moving forward, what are the next steps that help get us there?

And when developers come in, when NC D OT comes in, when the city is taking action or or some large organization, they have a blueprint from which to work from that is presented and created by the people.

Um and so I think small area planning is incredibly important.

Um and as was pointed out earlier, uh, we have a uh a third small area plan following this one that is moving forward from the planning department.

And I I agree with uh with what was uh spoken uh to earlier, which is that the city should be doing this.

The shit the city should be doing long-range uh commun community uh uh driven planning.

I think that that's very, very important that we invest in, that we spend the time doing, and that it is owned by the city, by uh elected officials uh and by you all who who elect us and who participate and drive those uh processes.

So I think that's so important.

Um that being said, this was uh run by and conducted by uh downtown Durham Incorporated, and I think they nailed it.

I think they actually did a very, very good job.

Um they have a lot of good projects.

Um Councilmember Kopak uh provided a list.

I provided a list at our last uh work session, so I won't repeat them, but uh they're very, very thoughtful.

They're well well uh thought through and and done.

And what it does is it looks the devil's in the details for for how we build our city.

This looks at the devil, uh, looks at those details uh to make sure that that we get it right.

Now we can't do everything tomorrow.

There are a lot of capital investments, there are zoning changes that are needed.

There are a lot of things that need to happen.

Um this also presents uh I think I think a good a good action plan um with the tactical action groups idea.

So overall, I'm I'm a fresh professional planner.

I'm very pleased with this plan.

I think it sets a uh a high bar for us moving forward.

I hope that a lot of our small area plans look like this uh moving forward and that we continue to invest in our the people's ability to shape the world that we live in.

Thank you all so much.

So therefore, I'll uh entertain a motion to adopt a resolution amending the uh Durham comprehensive plan to include the downtown Durham Blueprint 2035 plan.

So second.

Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

All right, colleagues.

The next item is item number 20, zoning map change 3404, page road amendment.

Thank you, Mary Williams.

Mayor Pro Tim Cabiero and Honorable Council members.

Good evening.

I'm Andy Lester with the planning and development department, and it's good to be with you all tonight.

Before I begin, staff elect to state for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law.

And affidavits of all notices are on file in the planning department.

Pamela Porter of TMTLA Associates proposes to amend an existing graphic development plan, specifically Z17031 on three parcels of land located at zero one thousand and one thousand and two Oakmill Drive.

The current zoning designation is Plan Development Residential 5.788, and it is not requested to change through this application.

The applicant proposes to amend the existing development plan to allow for an additional external access point on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 3306 Page Road, specifically the next case Z2506.

No other changes are proposed.

The amended development plan with the new access point is graphically depicted with an arrow and is shown within bubbles on sheet three of attachment D.

As this application is an amendment to add an additional external access point to an approved development plan.

Some typical zoning map change reports sections have been omitted as they are not applicable to the request.

Thank you, staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any technical questions for staff.

All right.

At this time, I'll declare the public hearing open.

Um Madam Applicant, how much time do you think you need?

Two minutes.

I'll be brief.

All right, put five minutes on, please.

Thank you.

We'll have some time spare.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Council.

I'm Pam Porter with TMTLA Associates.

I'm joined tonight with um Jeff Palmer of Shenandoah Homes.

Um this is a really simple request and will facilitate the following zoning request.

Um we're just requesting an amendment on this to basically put a break in the buffer to extend a road.

Nothing else is changing on this zoning.

We're not changing density, we're not changing anything else.

We're just putting a break in the buffer because that was a zoning commitment, it's a graphic commitment.

In order for us to break the buffer to extend a road through, we need to amend the zoning, and that's simply the request that is in front of you.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions and Jeff is available as well.

So we thank you for your consideration tonight.

Thank you.

I don't have any other speakers, so therefore I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

Colleagues, are there any questions?

Yes.

I mean, I guess we can talk about it when we get to 3306, but can you just give us a heads up about why these why this is important?

Sure.

So we're we're requesting to amend this zoning to extend Oakmill Drive into 3306 Page Road.

That zoning and annexation, which you will hear about next, is to that is a request to facilitate the construction of up to 15 town homes.

So in order to build those town homes, we need to extend the road because we are not extending through to Page Road.

We're not making that connection.

So we need to amend this zoning to extend the road to request the subsequent zoning for up to 15 townhomes.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

So therefore, I will entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance by taking property out of plan development residential 5.788 and establishing the same as plan development residential 5.788.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded, Madam Clerk.

Please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And I'll entertain a motion to adopt a consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 160 D-605.

So moved.

Second.

And moved and properly seconded, Madam Clerk.

Please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Next up, item number 16.

Thank you.

A request for utility extension agreement.

Voluntary annexation.

An initial zoning map change has been received from Pam Reporter of TMTLA associates for one parcel of land totaling 1.82 acres and located at 3306 Page Road.

The annexation petition is for contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits.

The current zoning is residential rural.

The applicant proposes to change this designation, the plan development residential 8.876 to allow up to 15 townhouse units.

The zoning map change application is related to D250010.

3404 page road amendment, the case you just approved.

The properties are currently designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map.

The proposed plan development 8.876.

Zoning is generally consistent with the designated use on the place type map.

If the proposed zoning is approved, there will be no change to the place type.

Thank you, Stephanie applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions.

All right.

At this time I'll declare it a public hearing open.

And I have one speaker, and that's the applicant.

How much time do you think you need?

Three minutes.

Thank you.

Put six minutes on the clock, please.

Good evening again, Mr.

Mayor May Pro Tem, members of the Council.

Pam Porter with Team TLA Associates.

Um again here with Jeff Palmer of Shenandoah Homes.

Thank you to staff for the presentation.

Just to quickly recap, we're asking for annexation and rezoning of the parcel at 3306 Page Road from R R to PDR 8.876.

And this rezoning, if approved, will facilitate an additional an addition of up to 15 townhomes to the adjacent Page Oaks neighborhood.

The development will not have access to Page Road, which is why we asked for the previous um zoning amendment to extend Oak Mill Drive through to this parcel to allow for those townhomes to be constructed without making that direct connection to Page Road.

The zoning modification which you just approved will help to facilitate that, of course.

And um just a couple of notable commitments of the development.

We are committing to a minimum of 5% tree coverage, and there's no rec none required.

So we're committing to more than the required, which is none.

We are committing to a maximum of 70 percent impervious.

Um just note no impervious restrictions as this is not in a watershed overlay.

We are committing to use of native species for any new landscape plantings, the addition of a 10 use 10 foot multi-use path along the frontage of Page Road, which we are doing despite not making that connection to Page Road, a six thousand dollar monetary contribution to Durham Public Schools, a $15,000 monetary contribution to the Durham Dedicated Housing Fund.

And the staff mentioned we're consistent with the UDO, the comp plan, and the place type map.

Um and we did receive unanimous recommendation by planning commission in October.

And um thank you again for your consideration.

And I'm available for questions, and Jeff is as well.

Thank you.

Thanks.

You're the only speaker I have, so therefore I would declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

Colleagues, are in any questions.

Yep, council member Baker.

Just a quick question for staff.

Um sorry if I missed this.

Uh why no connection to uh page road.

I believe that was from the applicant, most likely.

Uh Pam can talk to that.

They may have received word from NC DOT about a connection.

But I'll defer to her.

Sure.

So this is basically going to be an additional phase to the Page Oaks neighborhood.

And we wanted to keep it simple and not create a situation where there was going to be a lot of road improvements that were going to be expensive and costly for building 15 townhomes.

So we decided to keep it internal to the subdivision.

So it's just gonna have a cold-de-sac abutting page road.

Yeah, uh Oak Mill Road will extend to the length allowed in the UDO and then stop.

Um we are, I believe one of the commitments is to create a pedestrian connection from there to Page Road and the 10 foot multi-use path.

We're just not having a vehicular connection.

Okay.

And C D OT required that.

The connection um you can prohibited the connection in to Page Road.

Um I don't remember if they prohibited it, but I think we had discussed it with them and they were fine with us not making the connection.

And it follows our connectivity regulations.

Yeah, that'll be determined at site plan stage.

So if there is an issue, they'd have to come back.

Okay.

Thank you.

Or make the connection.

So much.

Thank you, colleagues.

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Cook.

Go ahead.

Yeah, one more question for you.

At um the planning commission, there was some conversation about green building and potential EV chargers, and you said that you would talk to your client about that.

Do you have a question?

Sure.

So I don't I don't believe we are going to include any um green building at this time.

We'll discuss EV charging stations at site plan.

I don't know as if we're gonna have any required parking, like a parking lot that would require an EV charging station.

I don't think they're gonna be part of the individual units.

Um but if we do a parking lot, we can explore that at site plan.

But at this time we're not making any proffers to that right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember.

Thank you Ms.

Porter.

Also just a question.

Um this issue of the connection to Page Road with the sidewalk.

So um I'm looking at the BPAC comments, and it looks like they requested uh or uh uh right, they requested pedestrian cycle cyclist accessible connection to the neighboring property at Oakmill Drive.

And it sounds like your response was you will build the 10-foot shared path along between the terminus of oatmeal drive and the 10-foot shared path on page road.

So that will that that is the pedestrian connection will be there, correct?

To page road, yeah.

Yep, just not the vehicular connection.

Right.

And then you'll build that you'll build the 10-foot uh path along page road as well.

Correct.

Okay, thanks.

Well, thanks for being responsive to VPAC's comments.

Or that may be not part of your plan, but I appreciate your responding to their concerns.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

Uh then stated.

Colleagues, I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance, amending the unified development ordinance by taking by taking property out of residential rule county jurisdiction and establishing the same as playing development residential 8.876 city jurisdiction.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and probably seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

I'll also entertain a motion to adopt a consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 160D-605.

Move to adopt to consistency.

Second, uh yeah, I just saw that it's out of order.

Cool.

Madam Clerk, please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

All right.

And um I'm gonna go back.

I miss you didn't give it a it was out of order, and I've read number two first, never and then number three.

So we haven't adopted the first motion, and then we just did a consistency statement.

Yeah, I know you have to fix it first, sorry.

So do I see that?

All right.

I uh we have a little mix up in the order of the the motion, so I misread it here.

Um what I'm gonna do, colleagues is go ahead and call a motion for uh ask for a motion for um to adopt an ordinance and annexing 3306 page road into the city of Durham and to authorize the city manager to into enter into a utility extension agreement with capital properties of Raleigh LLC with the understanding that this would apply to the consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 16D-605.

So moved.

Second and a rezoning.

And a rezoning.

So motions one and two here apply by motion three.

All right.

I'll entertain that motion.

Was there a second?

Okay, good, thank you.

Uh Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna stop you.

I want to ask that we I'm gonna actually refess this for about ten minutes and then come back and we'll finish the last two.gov slash careers.gov slash careers.

All right, thank you all.

We'll continue with the staff report.

You can start up now.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um a request for utility and extension agreement, voluntary annexation, an initial zoning map change has been received from Worth Mills of Longleaf Partners for two parcels of land totaling forty-two point six one acres and located at twenty-five oh three and twenty-five twenty-three Hamlin Road.

The annexation petition, BDG twenty-four zero zero zero two zero, is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits.

The applicant intends to develop the site as a conservation subdivision to allow up to eighty one single family units.

A conservation or conventional subdivision, as well as limited commercial, public and civic uses are permitted under the current county residential rural zoning.

The properties are currently designated rural and agricultural reserve on the place type map and are outside the urban growth boundary of the comprehensive plan.

The annexation outside the UTB is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

If the proposed annexation and initial zoning map change are approved, uh staff recommend a change to the place type to designate the property as mixed residential neighborhood.

That is not part of the proposal, but it is located between the proposal and the existing UGB.

This is a direct translational zoning.

A direct translational zoning is one in which the existing residential world, Durham County zoning, is translated into the identical residential world, Durham City Zoning District upon the annexation of the property into the city.

Thank you.

Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions.

At this time, I'll declare the public hearing open.

Council members, Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of KB Raleigh Home or KB Home Raleigh Durham Incorporated, who is the rezoning applicant.

So the the purpose of this annexation request is to connect to an existing twelve-inch water line that exists along Hamlin Road today.

KB Home is Energy Star certified, which means that their homes come with energy efficient features, and they do have experience in Durham, including the Astor Ridge development, which was a 202 townhome uh conservation subdivision near Merrickmore Elementary School.

So KB Home has demonstrated that they can uh build and deliver affordable for sale homes in Durham and pursuant to a conservation subdivision.

So the 42.61 acres are outlined in red here.

They're on the north side of Hamlin Road.

All the property to the north of us is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Eno Industrial Park is shown on the left hand side of the screen.

The site today is primarily forested.

A lot of those mature trees are located towards the north along the shared boundary line with the Army Corps land as well as to the east, providing a buffer to our neighbors to the east.

A little bit of background, Ricky and Kelly Cates bought these homes about 15 years ago when they purchased these properties.

They were within the suburban tier.

They were envisioned to urbanize, they were anticipated to receive city utilities.

When the city council adopted the UGB in 2023, the Cates came forward, petitioned to have their properties included.

Their properties were not included in that 2023 vote by City Council.

There were only two individual requests that city council did include in the initial UGB, and staff at that 2023 hearing said that those two properties which are shown here now have private development that's able to serve those areas with city utilities at no cost to the city or county.

Farrington Mill Road area, which is about 274 acres, the Patterson Road area, which is about 198 acres.

This is the same scenario that we have now.

Private development looking to extend city utilities at no cost to the city or county, and we are much less than the areas from Farrington Mill Road or Patterson Road.

Hello, I'm Landon Lovelace with Hundred Foot Engineering.

Hamlin Road has an existing 12-inch water line that would be tapped too.

And there's an existing sanitary sewer outfall and industrial drive.

The project would build a public pump station on site that would pump up to a manhole in the Hamlin Road, and then about 2,000 linear feet of gravity sanitary sewer would be extended down Hamlin Road to tie to the existing industrial drive.

Anything that would be designer built pump station wise here would also be required to support future development that would be upstream of the pump station.

I'll be around at the end if you have any specific utility questions.

And here you could see an exhibit highlighting that sewer extension and the uh lift station there on the property.

So as I mentioned, this annexation would extend the current urban growth boundary line.

The exhibit shown here has the existing UGB in the dark red line.

The two Hamlin Road properties are outlined in bright red.

The current UGB line is only 217 feet from the western property boundary of 2503 Hamlin Road.

I did want to highlight as well those areas that are within the Falls Jordan critical watershed, but also within the urban growth boundary.

I know there's a lot of uh different lines on this screen, but what I did want to highlight are the red stars there, which are areas that are within the Falls Jordan watershed and also within the urban growth boundary.

The smaller yellow star there represents our two properties.

Currently, there are over 1,600 acres of land that are both within the urban growth boundary and within the Falls Jordan Critical Watershed.

By including these two properties, that would be a 2.8% increase in the amount of land that is both within the UGB and the Falls Jordan watershed.

I did want to compare the two development sort of scenarios where if this property remained in Durham County or if it was annexed into the city of Durham.

So if remaining in county jurisdiction, uh the Cates or a developer could build up to 40 homes, it requires 30% tree coverage.

Those would have to be served by septic tanks and community wells, meaning that those lots are going to be larger.

There is no open space required under the conventional development option in the RR zoning, and for a lot of that size, which is probably gonna have to be at least an acre to accommodate the septic tanks and community well, we would expect home prices to start around $600,000.

Compare that to a conservation subdivision in the city of Durham, which would allow up to 81 homes.

The tree coverage remains the same at 30 percent, but these are now on city water and sewer.

Uh the conservation subdivision does require at least 50 percent of the site be set aside as open space, and because we would be dealing with smaller lots, uh more compact development, we would expect those home prices to start near 350,000.

So a significant difference in the style and the price points of development if they are annexed into the city of Durham.

This concept plan prepared by Underfoot Engineering uh sort of highlights how this conservation subdivision could be laid out.

I'll note that the areas where we are showing lots are areas that are mostly cleared today.

We are preserving the uh largest groupings of mature forest, which uh abut the Army Corps of Engineers Land, as well as that um thick buffer along our eastern property boundary.

So, in order for us to uh develop this site for a conservation subdivision, a lot of thoughts gone into sort of where those homes could be located, where does it make the most impact to preserve uh that 50% open space and those mature trees?

I just wanted to highlight this slide as well.

This is the fiscal impact analysis prepared by the city uh by the fiscal year 2033-34.

The city anticipates that this development would provide a net cumulative gain of over 1.6 million dollars to the city.

We are less than a 10-minute drive from Duke Regional Hospital and the commercial area along North Roxboro Street.

We're even closer to the welcome venture park and the Eno Industrial Park.

This annexation, this development would bring additional homes uh within close proximity to uh a world-class hospital, commercial center, and uh other employment opportunities nearby.

So just to summarize this annexation is really to uh allow for the connection of utilities and to retain the existing RR zoning.

We do have some uh proffers that we are willing to offer if city council uh is willing to accept them.

So prior to construction drawing approval for an approved subdivision plan, the development shall provide a one-time contribution of $25,000 to Durham Public Schools, a one-time contribution of $25,000 to Durham's housing fund, and a one-time contribution of $25,000 for a fire and emergency services grant project.

I think that the city's reluctance to extend the UGB in previous cases stems from you know this fear of this possibility of setting a precedent for other developers who might want to do the same.

But we think that approving this annexation case would send a signal to other developers that this is the type of annexation the city would want to see if it were to extend the urban growth boundary.

It's retaining its existing RR zoning.

It's the intent to develop pursuant to a conservation subdivision, and it's proffers to address the city's needs in this area.

So if these properties can't be extended into the urban growth boundary, then I I just don't know which properties could be extended in the future.

Um we appreciate your time this evening.

We're available for any questions, um, but we'll reserve the rest of our time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

We have quite a few speakers for this one.

I am going to start with online residents.

Just to make sure they are online.

Uh Tina May uh Penny Mays, Tina Motley Pearson and Katie Ross.

All right.

All right, Penny Mays.

Can you hear me?

Penny Mays.

Yes, I can hear you.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'd like to speak against this project.

I live in the Gorman community.

We are already having a lot of traffic in my community.

This will add to it as traffic goes from Hamlin Road to uh I-85 for work.

Um also this project uh is in the critical watershed.

The more projects that we add that are part of the critical watershed, the more pollution we're adding to our watershed, and uh this is water that Riley's depending on.

Um this project also is just going to push more projects into the uh urban growth boundary, and um we live in a rural area and it's rule is rule.

It's um we who live here would like to preserve the the rural um uh uh flavor that we have in our community, and um the density um just destroys this.

So thank you, sir, for listening.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Penny.

Tina Motley Pearson.

Tina, can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you.

Hey there, welcome to the good.

Yep, you have three minutes.

Welcome.

Uh good evening.

My name is Tanya Motley Pearson.

My address is on file.

So this development does not meet the threshold for modifying the urban growth boundary.

It also severely undermines the validity and effectiveness of our adopted comprehensive land use plan and place type map.

This property should remain rural agricultural reserve.

Under current zoning, 40 units could be built, but up to 81 unit units if it's a conservation subdivision.

But considering consideration must include the environment, citizen concerns, and infrastructure.

Approving this development sets a bad precedent.

I'd like to quote a few comments from planning commissioner woke, County Commissioner Wendy Jacobs and City Councilman Copac when he was on the planning commission regarding this development.

Planning Commissioner noted that this application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan as it's outside the urban growth boundary.

She also notes there was considerable community opposition with the message that the new comprehensive plan was just adopted two years ago, and this parcel was not included in the UGB.

Zoning and annexation should only be allowed if there is a public health or safety issue.

And this project does not demonstrate any health or safety issues, nor does it reach any goals outlined in the comprehensive plan, and it expands into the critical watershed.

Commissioner Jacobs is strongly opposed to the rezoning for Hamlin Reserve for similar reasons.

It is outside the UGB.

It is currently zoned rural residential, which is consistent with the place type map designation, and notes that it can be developed for 40 homes.

Commissioner Jacobs points out that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with important comprehensive land use plan policy 118, policy 165, policy 167, and policy 168, which establish criteria for which changes to the UGB are valid.

Jacobs also notes that none of the criteria, such as public health or safety concerns, public health benefits like affordable housing that would warrant making changes to the comprehensive plan.

Changing the zoning violates adopted policies which discourage intrusion into the critical watershed and creates donut holes with disconnected pockets of the city and strain on public utility resources.

Jacob states that we need to uphold this commitment to our community and uphold the integrity of the urban growth boundary.

Newly elected city councilman Copac's comments as a planning commissioner also mirrors similar concerns with moving the UGB since it was recently established to protect the watershed and agricultural land.

He also notes that this development doesn't meet the test to demonstrate why it should challenge the UGB.

He states that many residents express concern about the community engagement with the developer.

We appreciate the comments of elected and appointed officials and agree that this development does not meet the criteria for modifying the UGB and that approval would undermine the integrity of the comprehensive plan, encourage urban sprawl, strain public utilities, and weaken long-standing commitments to protect farmland, natural resources, and rural communities outside the UGB.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Madam Clerk, either I'm going to have to get a stronger prescription or you're gonna have to make this font bigger.

I apologize.

Natalie Natalie Pickett, Billy D, Yvonne Sanchez, Claire Charmy, Charney, and Helena Craig.

That's weird.

Me holding the goats.

Okay.

We have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Natalie Pickett.

I address 1111 Paul Road.

I'm part of a group of neighbors in this area called Oxford Hamlin Community Coalition.

The most significant reason to vote no on this annexation is that it would necess necessitate expansion of the urban growth boundary.

The UGB was just established two years ago.

To expand the UGB right now will give us nonsensical sprawl along Hamlin Road, weaken the UGB all across Durham County and give other developers the green light to request even more non-contiguous annexation annexations that contradict the complan.

I want to share a few other concerns from my perspective as an Oxford Hamlin community member.

I live one turn off of Hamlin Road.

Hamlin is a two-lane road with little to no shoulder.

Along Hamlin between the old Oxford Road intersection and the Hamlin Reserve property, there are approximately 40 residential driveways all outside city of Durham, Durham.

The only way to travel to or from Hamlin Reserve is by car.

Hamlin Road is not safe for pedestrians or bike riders.

Since this is not a rezoning case, it is not clear whether this developer will eventually make any road improvements like sidewalk, shoulders, or bike lanes.

Even if they do, it's a non-contiguous annexation, so those improvements would be at least 0.8 miles away from where the nearest city sidewalk and rolled shoulder would resume.

Clearly, this development would bring more car dependency to North Durham.

Noncontiguous sprawl will make Hamlin Road even more dangerous.

We also want to note the ways that community engagement was lacking in this case.

You may have noticed that the July 14th neighborhood meeting had zero residents and attendance, which is uncharacteristic for Oxford and Hamlin neighbors.

I'd like to explain how that happened.

The first meeting was held April 21st, which several of us attended, but it did not count because it was mistakenly not recorded.

The next meeting was on May 13th.

Seven Oxford Hamlin neighbors joined, asked questions, and shared commons.

We asked the applicant to share the final meeting date with us once it was determined.

They said they would, but they did not.

The final meeting, which was held July 14th, had zero residents in attendance because we were not informed it was happening.

We know that due to the remote location of this property, most of us are not required to be notified.

However, we do believe that a corporation who will profit greatly by moving into our community should try a little harder to earn the trust of their potential future neighbors.

We have had productive conversations with City Council over the past four years about various cases in the Oxford Hamlin community.

We've all agreed that development in our area is still in an early enough stage for us to work together to get it right.

We realize that most of us live within the urban growth boundary, and we look forward to continued productive conversations about how to plan for developments that align with the comp plan and respect the existing residents here.

Unfortunately, we haven't found any conversations about Hamlin Reserve productive since it is so far outside of the goals of the complan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, hi.

My name is Billy D.

I live on Hamlin Road.

I'm also with the Oxford Hamlin group Natalie mentioned.

And I just want to second a lot of the statements that I've already been made, so I won't go on and on, but um I also want to share the expansion of this property past the current urban growth boundary seems nonsensical and really short-sighted in terms of all the issues mentioned the critical watershed, the nonsensical sprawl, and the item that um Natalie just mentioned about what felt like somewhat disingenuous um community engagement with this um particular project.

I'll just speak to that briefly as somebody who attended a couple of those meetings.

Um I feel sometimes it's really confusing to be someone who lives in a place and is trying to keep track of development when this kind of uh proposal, like we just saw kind of pits like oh, we have this one option, the Durham County option versus this one other option, the um conservation easement option that was just um shared by Worth Mills.

And I just want to say it's not that this or that choice.

I think uh a more long-sighted, thoughtful investigation of of what it would mean to go past the current urban growth boundary to really consider all the issues that have been already been raised and take seriously um the deep community engagement needed when um development is happening in places that are truly rural areas with a lot of farm farmland homestead kind of um areas.

And I'll just say as a resident of Hamlin Road, um it's already an incredibly dangerous two-lane road as somebody who has farm animals myself.

I've had a few animals be killed on that road by extremely fast moving traffic in like really um sad incidents.

And I will say it's there is a whole conversation to be had about putting this level of development in a place where the road infrastructure is not going to be safe.

There's no shoulder, there's incredibly fast moving traffic, including a huge amount of semi-trucks already, uh, school buses, and um, I just think there's a larger conversation to be had about um transportation infrastructure and all the environmental concerns and the larger question of why would um such uh change be approved when there is this large question about what the meaning of the urban growth boundary really is and um how we can think about that as a community.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next Yvonne Sanchez?

No, this is Claire.

Claire Charney.

You're good.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um thank you for having me here tonight.

Um I'm also recommending or hoping that you all vote no on this annexation request.

Um I my address is 224 Riley Drive, which is just right off of Hamlin.

That's the only way.

Riley Drive is a dead end street.

Hamlin is the only way I could get into the city or down to I-85.

Um, this property.

Well, first of all, I just I I guess I don't understand what the point of a recently voted on and elected UGB is if you immediately vote to to bring another property in.

I mean, that's been talked about, um, but I I don't think this is the right case for it.

Um, I also agree with Billy that that this there it's a false dichotomy between presenting, you know, the county version and the city version, $300,000 houses and $600,000 houses.

I personally, as a neighbor, I personally feel like that's irrelevant and um a little bit offensive considering our affordable housing crisis.

Um I'm also a neighbor, and I will also repeat what other people have said about about traffic on Hamlin.

There is no infrastructure on Hamlin Road.

We now have welcome venture park.

We have the um the new development on the corner of Old Oxford and Carver Hamlin.

There's no shoulder, there's no sidewalk.

If there are sidewalks, they're not contiguous with the other sidewalks to nowhere.

Um, and I I've I have I'm two roads down.

Once I get on Hamlin, I'm two roads down, turning right.

And I mean, I have people, it's not very far, and I have people tailgating me all the time just getting home to my rural property.

Um this just isn't the case for annexation.

And um, yeah, I I hope you all vote no on this request.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next.

Yvonne Sanchez.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Yvonne Sanchez.

And I'm actually here as a resident and owner on Hamblin Road.

I have two properties in very, very close to them where they're planning to build.

Um, close to Venture Park as well, and I had to go through that.

Um as a resident owner, I'm just concerned, like she said, the the streets, the we have no shoulders.

It's like very dangerous traffic at night, coming home.

And it's just we've had police at one time park there because they said they were getting all these calls of vehicle speeding, and Carver streets open.

So it's so much that's being done and not accommodating like the owners or the residents.

Um I heard him saying benefits for the city, benefits for this.

What about the benefits for us as owners and residents that we actually live on Hamlin Road?

I think you need to take that into consideration.

We do live there.

We we go by this, you know, every day.

Um if I wanted the city life, I would go back home where I was born in Chicago.

But I love North Carolina.

It made it my home, raised my daughter.

Um she went to school here, and I'm proud to say that Jerome has been my home for over 31 years.

So I think that's very important that you need to take that into account um into account that the owners and the residents do count.

And I know that we were growing, and I know that you know there's uh time for change, but rural is rural.

If I wanted to purchase a home, I would go to the city.

If I wanted HOA dues, I would go to where there's HOAs, but I don't.

I picked a role.

And it should remain rural, and it should, and you should take into consideration for us because I don't plan to leave.

I plan to stay there, but I would like for you to take into consideration that that is our home.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms.

Craig.

Good evening.

I wanted to start by naming that we have two neighbors online.

I don't know why you could not see them, but ironically, they're both Patricia's and they're waiting to be heard.

Um my name is Helena Craig.

I reside at 1017 Old Oxford.

I'm also here as a concerned resident and member of the Oxford Hamley Community Coalition.

As you can tell, our community was actively involved in the comprehensive development process that identified this parcel in question to clearly be outside of the UGB.

As such, there are three primary reasons that I personally ask you to vote no tonight.

It's already been stated clearly, but it is clear that this would set a horrible precedent for future development, not only in our area, but other areas that are clearly articulated to be outside of the UGB for a variety of reasons.

This one particularly abutts on the mountain of sea trail and the tributary to Falls Lake.

So we have to be super cognizant of the impact on our watershed.

Secondly, I don't believe that they have clearly articulated any community benefit to this proposal.

As I said, the site, this site was a beautiful agricultural parcel that directly above the mountain of sea trail.

We speaking to the disingenuous community engagement, we asked them multiple times do they have any plan to make the mountainous sea trail accessible to community to benefit more than just 80 households.

They hemmed in heart about that.

Most of what they presented to you tonight, we've asked for, they didn't share any of it.

This is our first time seeing.

We were told that because there was no development plan, they really could not and would not make any profits.

So it is super surprising to see three profits here tonight when we were told the exact opposite.

So that community benefit could have been to provide some much needed recreational opportunities in the area with a very unique property that offers that opportunity.

It also skirts due diligence.

No traffic assessment, no improvements to the roads.

I believe one of the callers mentioned we have had a huge uptick of traffic at Red Red Mill Road, the opposite end.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speakers, Donna Stanback, Donna Stanbach, Pamela Andrews, Wanda Allen, Thomas Layton, and Tommy Sawaia.

Tammy Sawaya.

It should be.

Is that the order you all going in?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

It's one day.

Thank you.

Can we get this in council?

I would like to hear my seat.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm ready if you guys are.

Welcome to everyone.

I'm Wanda Allen.

Um, my address is on record.

Thank you for having me this evening.

Uh I want to point out that the Planning Commission voted unanimously against this annexation and rezoning.

All of the Durham County Commissioners commented strongly against this rezoning and annexing.

As they both stated, the proposal lies outside the urban growth boundary.

The partial is in the critical watershed.

There is lack of infrastructure in this area.

This rezoning is not consistent with the comprehensive land.

There are nine policies that state no to this proposal.

And there was significant opposition from the citizens because it's outside the urban growth boundary.

Ms.

Allen, just to make sure everyone can hear you online.

If you could just speak right in front of that mic, you're fading in and out of the way.

The proposal does not meet the criteria for urban growth boundary changes.

The criteria to go outside the urban growth boundary is as follows.

Must address public health and safety consideration, significant public benefits, which none of these have been met in this proposal.

As the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners stated best, uphold the commitment to our community and uphold the integrity of our urban growth boundary.

Thank you.

Vote no.

Good afternoon, good evening.

I'm Donna Steinback, and my address is on foul.

This location area is described as having an agricultural and rural character, which we want to preserve.

Both parcels are in the public use value programs.

One parcels for agriculture and one parcels for forestry, as per the tax maps.

We still have a lot of active farmland, and we need to preserve that.

There are eight farms nearby listed as registered with the farm service agency of the USDA.

There is another property within one mile that is a volunteer ag district.

And then we know about the recently created agriculture conservation easement of 40 acres of from Bill Sparrow that is 8300 feet away.

This project represents valuable agricultural and rural heritage and is surrounded by this.

Regarding policy 165, this parcel is not contiguous and creates a service donut hole.

As this slide shows that to the southwest, southeast part is 2200 feet, and the west part is 3500 feet from the city limits.

Per the North Carolina General Statute, GS 16A 58.1, a non-contiguous area proposed for annexation must meet all of the following standards.

Number three is the area must be situated such that the annex and city will be able to provide the same services within the proposed satellite corporate limits that it provides within its primary corporate limits.

Well, we know that the EMS was not even analyzed for this on the service, those services.

As you know, the roads are state roads and they get limited support.

And this project is on the outer fringe of the city and other services like the public transportation, and the nearest police station is 11 minutes away.

This is definitely not consistent with the primary corporate limits of Durham City.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next I'm gonna go next.

Excuse me.

Timmy Soya and my address is on file.

I want to talk a little bit about growth.

Um recently in the Indy, um, our own Carl RIST did a uh article about land use, and you uh we referenced the Bowen Institute uh 2024 housing gap analysis, which showed that Durham had about 33,000 gap in housing.

Um so you know, PRD has been tracking housing.

We track all the housing units by the annexation since 2024.

We track that about 12,000 units have been approved by Durham.

I want to also tell the Durham residents who may not know this, and city residents may not know this.

RTP 3.0, the week of Thanksgiving got rezoned, which this allows 4,000 acres to be changed into 15 minute cities.

There's going to be multi-use there, and there's going to be high density in the RTP.

This is not in the city, this is in the county.

So if you assume 25% of that 4,000 acres is residential and high density with apartments being 25 PDR, there's 25,000 units.

If you add these two together, we reach our 33,000 goal by 2029.

And what we've been tracking, the 12,000 units doesn't even include any by right.

So we have the capacity that we need for Durham.

I also want to talk quickly about transportation.

You've heard about the other uh residents talking about how traffic has increased.

We're here at the data.

In 2023, you can see the 3,000 trips, about 17 percent increase by 2025.

And in Southeast Durham, which we've been tracking, the development, we're not even halfway built out.

So think about this.

That 17 percent is gonna double or even triple.

So I am highly encourage you to think of the citizens in this area.

We don't want to go outside the urban growth brownie.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

Good evening, Pamela Andrews.

Wake Forest Highway.

On October the 6th at the Durham Commissioner's work session, Hamlin Reserve was presented as the first case ever outside the urban growth boundary.

Commissioner Jacobs asked, could you clarify if EMS is included in the cross-benefit analysis?

Mr.

Lester currently says, currently, no, they are not.

I know that staff has had preliminary conversations with EMS.

Ms.

Jacobson again says, okay, I'd like to ask our county manager if we could help facilitate that, because this has been an ongoing issue for quite a while.

Remember, EMS falls under the county for funding, but they do not review annexation cases inside the urban growth boundary, our commissioners.

County Manager Hager then says, we've not been kept up with growth.

One example is in the past budget, we funded a new EMS group, and so we had not done that in about seven years.

EMS response times are alarming, as this slide shows.

Ms.

Hager has met with PRD numerous times and is working on this issue.

How is Policy 119 consistent when EMS has not been analyzed and is clearly listed in this policy?

It says emergency services, and it lists fire, EMS, police, community uh engagements.

It goes on to say how can our county commissioners keep up with growth numbers and a lack of infrastructure if they're not informed.

Remember in August 2024, when we were taken, a vote was taken to remove our county commissioners from hearing cases inside the urban growth boundary, which is about 70 percent of the county.

Our team raised concerns then the EMS response times are prime examples for our alarm.

Commissioners must stay abreast of annexations throughout Durham County as they impact our schools, EMS, and other county entities.

EMS is critical.

These cases can be life and death.

Seconds matter, seconds matter.

Policy 119 again shows that EMS police and community safety should be addressing this policy.

The parcel would stretch EMS and emergency services further in a non-contiguous area.

Infrastructure must be jointly analyzed immediately in Southeast Durham alone.

The population is increased from 51,000 people in Southeast Durham.

68 subdivisions in four years.

Commissioner Jacobs also stated a previously proposed City County DPS work group met, meant to coordinate infrastructure planning, never fully launched.

We really need to get the infrastructure group going right now, immediately, she said.

This site was strained our emergency services.

I also want to point out in April the 2nd of 2025, a code was a city code was passed, 70-129.

It was recently adopted and said that water and sewer extensions are not prohibited outside the UGB.

There's lots of calls here for people.

Here's a chest pain, no EMS.

We have to get EMS into control before we keep annexating more developments.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next Thomas.

Good evening.

I appreciate y'all letting us speak tonight.

My name is Talmud Layton, and I've been farming since my junior year in high school, which this coming year will be 60 years ago.

And um, I have gotten involved with quite a few agricultural organizations in the county.

And I would like to speak up for agriculture itself.

We are trying to keep this county as rural as we can.

I guess you notice I've still got my coat on.

I don't know what y'all were doing this morning at 8 o'clock, but I was going down the road on an open tractor to carry a roll of hay to some hungry horses down the road, and they certainly appreciated me getting there.

And I would like to be able to have our brethren that are trying to farm have farmland attend in 60 more years.

And I uh I happen to know Ricky Cates pretty well.

He actually has helped me harvest my hay crop a few times, and I don't want him to lose his ability to sell his property to a developer.

I just would like for it to be done in the proper way and not extend the uh city boundaries out.

As soon as they had settled the zoning for the year.

And it's uh the county was rural at one time, real rural.

And the way we kept the traffic off of the road I live on is we would get our 15-foot leveling her and start up the road with the leveling her, and no cars could go by us because every time I got to a bail box, we had to turn out and get in the other lane and go back.

But the way development is going now, we're going to have to sit at that mailbox for 15 minutes to let all the traffic clear on the passenger side of the road so we can get by.

But it's gonna give agriculture a really hard time to continue if we continue to develop out into the rural farming area.

And please acknowledge that Durham was raised as a rural farming community and would like to stay part of us would like to stay involved with it.

And I thank y'all for letting me talk to you tonight.

Hope you will disapprove this, and I apologize to Ricky because I know he'd like for it to go through, but you're still welcome to come help me get up paid.

But uh if you will, allow us to stay rural in part of the county.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh the following speakers will be our final ones.

Uh, Worth Mills Landon Lovelace.

Uh, okay.

Malora McCall, Robin Beer Foods, and Katie Ross.

Oh, it wasn't designated as such.

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Melora McCall.

My address is on file.

Could you speak a little closer to that?

There you go.

This annexation request outside the UGB is in the interest of a single property owner and does not meet the standard of being reasonable and in the public interest.

Residents are acutely aware that any exceptions made to the UGB set a lasting precedent impacting rural communities in the critical watershed, our drinking water sources, natural heritage areas, and the surrounding voluntary agricultural districts.

Such a precedent would weaken the integrity of the comprehensive plan and the values it represents.

Values intended to guide land use planning in a thoughtful, consistent, and equitable way.

Staff have indicated that the applicant has not demonstrated a clear community benefit as required by policy.

Instead, we have heard generalized statements.

In fact, the applicant could pursue conservation subdivision under our zoning without annexation, reaching the maximum intensity of 81 units, and presumably to meet the open space requirements discussed this evening.

Building 81 single family homes is inconsistent with the place type map to be assigned should annexation be approved.

And this proposal is not aligned with the comprehensive plan in any way.

The implications of this annexation go far beyond one property owner's financial benefit when selling land for development, and the applicants have elected to take forward an application that disregards alignment with Durham's growth strategy.

The gains resulting from an annexation approval outside of the UGB do not outweigh the harms to the policy as established with community and the integrity of the growth principles Durham is working towards.

Durham County agriculture is already facing intense development pressure, excuse me, and upholding policy 168, which clearly outlines three specific criteria an applicant must meet is one way the city can balance competing county and city growth needs.

This proposal does not meet those criteria.

It's not exceptional, and it's not deserving of exceptions to policies, a sentiment echoed by the Board of County Commissioners.

I urge you to protect the integrity of these policies, the health of our natural resources, and the long-term vision for Durham's growth by voting against this annexation request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next thought, Ms.

Bearfoot.

Good evening.

My name is Robin Barefoot.

I'm going to pick up the thread that was mentioned earlier in the meeting by Councilman Baker and Councilwoman Burris about fascism and authoritarianism and capitalism.

We none of us can beat capitalism by ourselves, but we damn sure better be trying at every chance we can.

I'm sorry, I need you to speak Jermaine to the Oh, I'm getting ready to get there.

I'd like you to get there.

Thank you.

I will.

But it seems to me that what we don't pay attention to here in Durham County is the change that Talmudge was speaking to, the dire change of our county and the expansion of the city in matters that are not to the benefit of the public good.

And they are taking what is a beautiful commodity and the land and the trees and the water and the resources, and they are turning it to profit.

The reason why there's an affordability issue in Durham County, which I'm sure you're going to get to at some point in these deliberations, is because private equity owns all the residences and they just recycle those open units for closed units.

And so I think it's really important that you recognize as a city council, and that all of us in this room recognize that we have agency to fight against the capitalist forces that have taken over so much of what our nation has stood for, what Durham has stood for.

Mr.

McKissick was here earlier today.

What a beautiful legacy that generation of Durhamides have left for us, and you rightly acknowledged it, Leo.

But we have got to stand up and pay attention to what they're doing and to not buy into the lies that they are peddling when they talk about how things can be 15-minute walkable cities and how we can build out and build out and build out, and we're gonna proffer this and proffer that and save some trees and plant natural saplings when we've cut down mature oaks.

Um we have to be realistic about what it is that they're doing.

Um I really want to encourage you to lean into that agency.

I want you to encourage you to think about a moratorium.

I want to encourage you to think about holding fast to the comprehensive plan and to the new UDO and to make sure that you are focused on developing Durham in the best possible way.

I also would recommend that if there's a therapy session that needs to happen for this city council, it shouldn't happen in front of the public.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Ross, welcome.

Hello, Katie Ross from Bahama, and that is North Durham County.

Out in the county, we really rely on this urban growth boundary as really the only protection from the encroaching urbanization that's coming from Durham.

Um I'm gonna address a couple of things that the uh applicant mentioned in his presentation.

First is that these landowners already testified before you at the time of the adoption of the urban growth boundary and the comprehensive plan.

Mayor, you earlier uh talked about accepting election results.

Well, that was similar to an election.

And the voters were all of our elected, and they voted to have the current urban growth boundary and the cates lost that case.

I would suggest to them that they accept that result and develop within uh the means that they can under the current uh under their current zoning and circumstances.

Um I'd also like to point out that the applicant's attorney or applicant representation uh talked about how um this wouldn't be a precedent, but then he said it would be a precedent because he said if it's approved, it will be a model for other developers to come in and ask for annexations with a comp uh uh with a uh uh conservation subdivision, that's the word I was looking for.

That's the word I was looking for.

So uh it will just be pushed and pushed and pushed.

The if this development is approved, approved, the next uh developer will come in and ask just to go a little further based on the same model.

And why would you say no?

You've got the precedent.

I'd also like to point out that KB Homes is the same developer that caused the collapse of wells down on junction road.

That's 10 10 wells that were ruined.

Those people still don't have water running, portable water, and KB homes has done nothing to correct that situation.

Uh finally, on um, I would like to say that in preparation for this, I went back and looked at the uh hearing for Mariah Ridge.

Mariah Ridge was unanimously rejected by this council.

Why?

Because it was outside the urban growth boundary.

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

Please deny this um application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Ross.

Those are all of the speakers that I have signed up for this issue.

And um second.

Um so Madam Clerk, I'm going to honor the procedures here, but I am going to ask uh Ms.

Yeah, I don't want to mispronounce Ms.

Craig.

Uh I'm going to ask those speakers to please submit their comments so we can make sure we have those as well.

All right.

So declaring the public hearing closed and back before the council.

And um colleagues.

Any comments.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Um thank you for the comments, folks who came tonight.

Appreciate you being here and and sharing your feelings with us.

Yeah.

So the uh as all these cases are this one's complicated.

I like the conservation subdivision concept in this part of Durham.

Um I like the affordable price point of this planned 81 things, single payment homes.

I do appreciate the proffers and all that.

Um I understand without approval, we still could have 40 houses there that would be on septic.

Um, understand that piece.

Um, however, this simply does go against the comprehensive plan, as many folks have said since it's outside the UGB.

Um I understand the problems that it presents for the property owner.

Um, but as I understand this as folks have spoken to um the conditions on the ground have not changed since we approved the plan just a couple years ago.

Um, and several speakers spoke to this and the input from the county commissioners that some of the things we require to move the boundary are not in place.

Um I think it's also worth saying um the UGB is not just a line on the map.

I mean, it is a line on the map, but it also represents our commitment to extending infrastructure out to that to that line, right?

That's what we've agreed to do.

We've struggled in the city, as we talked about in this council, making sure we have the level of service, the infrastructure, the roads, and so forth.

And so to me, extending the boundary now without still committing to the making sure the infrastructure is there within the Urban Boundary seems to be is not worth expanding it further.

Um moreover, I think as Ms.

Ross said, this is like a Pandora's box.

If we approve this one because it's on the edge, and there's other properties that some folks have referenced that are on the edge.

If we approve this one, then those other owners will certainly come back to us and say, why can't we be inside the boundaries well?

So to me, it's not the right time for this.

Um so I'll be voting against this uh rezoning.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh good evening again.

Um just very briefly, I will also be voting no.

Uh, I think that um I do want to say because Mount Mariah was similar as far as there were things that I liked about the case that didn't make sense.

For the folks who do live out there, the urban growth boundary was always intended.

There will be an assessment at some point, and I will say that a parcel like this will rank high in in moving in uh because of the things that were tacked, you know uh we decided against those are things that can be improved.

Those are things that can be improved.

And so I I don't want folks to leave this public hearing thinking that that line is forever drawn.

Obviously, there needs to be an assessment.

Uh part of its infrastructure, part of it is is there going to be a project that really does do that community benefit that folks were alluding to in their public um comments?

So I just want to be as transparent as possible.

And we we said the same thing amount with the Mount Mariah case.

It may not be today, but for those folks who are really saying it needs to stay rule, I don't think it's going to stay rule.

And I don't want folks to be caught off guard in that moment.

Does that mean now?

No.

Does that mean this project?

No.

Um and this does raise for me, and I we we've had this conversation at JCCPC, and I I want to flag it with this.

It's the same thing with open des open space designation on private property, same with agricultural.

I do want to raise that and have that conversation at joint city county planning around the other parcels like this around the city that we have put that designation on.

Uh I will say I have concerns around putting that designation.

It's one thing to say a city park or a state park is open space or that.

That is essentially publicly held land.

It's a very different thing when it's private property, and I want to make sure that we are being careful with that.

Uh so I will be voting no.

I appreciate the applicants um project.

I think that there are a lot of things that make sense.

Um, but uh I'm pretty I try and vote pretty consistently with our comp plan um as as best as possible.

Sometimes there's a policy here or there that maybe developer couldn't meet.

Um this these are pretty big policies um that uh aren't being met with this project.

Thank you.

Council member call back.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Yeah, I want to echo that I think that there is a lot of good in this project in this proposal.

Um it's a great call out for discussion around public access for for open space, but you know, I think it's worth acknowledging the 50 percent um you know reserve to not be developed.

Um, you know, the covering of water and sewer, the green building techniques, which I'd like to see more applicants bring forward, uh, and the price point of likely half the alternative.

And while we need to be careful about drawing bright lines and dichotomies, uh sometimes that is what happens, since we have to be mindful of the choices that we make and what those outcomes can be.

Um however, at the end of the day, for me, um, you know, with the plan set as they are, this does fall in a critical watershed outside of our urban growth boundary.

Uh it's non-contiguous, it does not provide a clear community benefit and a really close study of what the requirements are for you know uh making uh uh changes to the place type map and the urban growth boundary.

I don't ultimately believe that this meets that that test.

Uh and so despite there being great elements of this project, um, I don't see it as being in the right place.

Uh and I plan on voting no.

Council member.

Um this is uh this is an easy no vote for me.

Um although you know at face value there are some compelling uh aspects uh brought forward.

I don't think that there are zero good things about it, but there are far more reasons to vote no than to vote yes.

Um our comprehensive plan, the future land use map, the urban growth boundary, they aren't just about what and where to build, but also when to build.

Uh and this is uh clearly inconsistent with that.

Um satellite properties, um, especially far-off satellite properties really should not move forward with annexations, rezonings, and site plans and developments.

Um, even if they can tap into utilities, water, extend sewer, as this one is showing.

Um but that also means that uh services, uh, fire, police, all other services need to drive through a sea of county to get to an island of city and be serviced in that way.

Um and that is that is not fiscally responsible.

Um so that's that's one of the reasons.

Um we also have a new unified development ordinance that is in the works.

Um I think many people are aware of that, but on top of that, we also have a uh a countywide open space plan that has just been initiated and we are just now moving forward with that, which should provide some additional uh policy direction goals um and strategies for us.

So I I think that this proposal is asking us to put the um put the cart before the horse, uh react to a private proposal rather than examine our policies comprehensively.

So it's uh it's an easy no for me.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right, thank you so much.

Um I looking at it as face value.

Um I try to be as black and white about these things.

Um, you know, we need more housing.

We need more housing units.

Um, we need it to be more affordable.

Um adding more supply here would make it, you know, more uh more units available at a uh rather affordable rate.

Um but again I try and be consistent as well.

Um it is outside of the urban growth boundary, and it is um uh it I believe compelling is the right word, Councilmember.

It is uh there are a lot of things in it that are compelling, but I want to make sure that we're consistent and um don't want to set presidents you know one way and then change it another another time.

So I will be voting no.

All right.

And now that I've heard all comments, I will entertain a motion.

This was 17.

So moved.

Second.

So move and properly seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion fails unanimously.

All right.

All right.

It's not been annexing also.

So the uh motion fails.

So therefore, we will move on to our last item for the evening.

Ready to receive the staff report for it number 18 consolidated annexation, Lee Village Center.

Thank you.

A request for utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation.

An initial zoning map change has been received from Dan Jewel for 10 parcels of land, totaling 81.75 acres and located east of George King Road and west of Crescent Drive.

This NX annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits.

The current zoning is residential suburban 20.

The applicant proposes to change this designation to co compact suburban design, core, compact suburban design support one, and compact suburban design support two, all within a textual development plan to allow a mixture of residential and non-residential uses.

The properties are currently designated transit opportunity area on the place type map.

The proposed CSDC, CSD S1D, and CSD S2D zonings are consistent with the designated place type.

Thank you, Steph, and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you so much.

Um how much time do you think?

A little less than 10 minutes, Mayor.

All right, please put 12 minutes.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Williams.

Mayor Pro Tan Caballero, members of the City Council.

I'm Patrick Biker.

I live at 2614 Stewart Drive.

I'm an attorney with Morningstar Law Group, and I'm here tonight representing Sylvan Lee LLC.

While Sylvan Lee is the majority property owner for this case entitled Lee Village Center, I need to emphasize at the outset that Lee Village Center is being put forward by longtime family owners and not developers.

The Booker family has owned some of the acreage in Lee Village Center, literally since the American Revolution.

I think that was about 250 years ago.

More recently, the Booker family generously donated most of the acreage and buildings in Lee Farm Park.

And that is only about one-third of a mile away as the crow flies from Lee Village Center on the other side of I-40.

The majority of Lee Village Center has been owned by the Harris family since 1979.

I want to emphasize that the patriarch of the Harris family was the legendary city planning professor, Britt Harris, a fellow in the American Institute of Certified Planners.

He passed away in 2012.

In 2000, in recognition of Professor Harris's work, the American Institute of Certified Planners inducted him into its College of Fellows, describing him as, quote, a pathfinder who over 40 years ago foresaw the importance of computer simulations and planning, the need for applied location theory, and the salience of human values and human behavior in urban development, unquote.

Professor Harris's son Jed and his granddaughter Laurel are here with us tonight, and they are spearheading the long time long-term development of Lee Village Center.

I am also joined by Dan Jewell to represent these longtime property owners in Southwest Durham.

Over the past 15 or 20 years, Dan and I have become good friends with the Booker and the Harris families, and so it is a privilege for us to be with representing them this evening.

To give some background on this agenda item, our former comprehensive plan that was adopted 20 years ago in 2005 called for Lee Village to be a higher density mixed-use development as shown on the 2005 future land use map.

Our ownership team has always strongly supported that vision for this area of Durham.

And what was stated in 2005 was confirmed in the Durham Future Place type map, adopted in October of 2023, with the designation of transit opportunity area.

In our recently adopted comprehensive plan, a key component and perhaps the dominant theme is creating the 15-minute community.

Based on my 30 years of working with our planning department, I would say that compact suburban design is the best means available to implement that goal of a 15-minute community.

In that regard, it is instructive to look at UDO Section 4.5.3, quote, the compact suburban design district is intended to encourage development of appropriate urban streetscape and form through bicycling, pedestrian, and transit-oriented development through various subdistricts, summared similar to the downtown design district, unquote.

Accordingly, our team has been sensitive to the to the surrounding existing neighborhoods by designating areas within Lee Village Center across the Southern Edge as Support 1 and Support 2 as shown on this slide.

The support one and support 2 area designations are binding commitments of our rezoning application, along with the 30-foot 0.6 opacity buffer along the southern property line adjacent to the existing neighborhood.

Therefore, these subdistrict boundaries become enforceable zoning conditions if we are fortunate enough to receive approval.

Next, I wish to address Policy 165, referenced at the bottom of page 11, top of page 12 of attachment H, and that has to do with those infamous donut holes.

I am happy to report that we have made good progress on two out of three donut holes.

We have reached an agreement for submitting an annexation petition for the parcel at the end of Wendell Road that you can see on this slide in yellow.

We've also uh we also um want to address the parcel at the end of Hornbeam, that's along the eastern edge of Lee Village Center.

That parcel is going through an estate proceeding with members of the Harris family, and so we expect that parcel to be part of Lee Village Center after the estate is closed.

While the three parcels in the lower right corner at the end of Crescent Drive probably won't be annexed any time soon, at least two out of the three donut holes noted in the staff report should be fixed in the near future.

As shown on page four of your staff report, there are ranges of dwelling units stated for each subdistrict.

Taken as a whole, the number of dwelling units in Lee Village Center ranges from a minimum of 1,667 to a maximum of 2,294.

This lack of a specific number in this range of over 600 units reflects the fact that this is an ownership team and not a developer applying for this zoning map change.

Since there is no specific program of development, it is not possible to perform an overall traffic impact analysis.

Rather, every phase of Lee Village Center will have to perform its own traffic impact analysis at the time of site plan approval.

This allows for increased background traffic to be counted, which in the long run will make sure that the required traffic improvements mitigate all the traffic generated in this area.

You may well hear objections tonight based on traffic, and another fact to show how seriously our team took this issue is that drive-thru facilities for a restaurant or for a bank or for a pharmacy or for anything are strictly forbidden.

Convenience stores with gasoline sales are forbidden as well.

I reference these use prohibitions because it shows how the ownership group ownership group for Lee Village Center has taken concrete steps to reduce its financial return on the sale of this acreage.

Moreover, the owners have committed to treat the 100-year storm and exceed the required UDO tree coverage.

Also, based on the Planning Commission meeting where we where we received a 10 to 1 recommendation for approval, we added number seven on this slide to address any concerns about the natural heritage area.

Similarly, the ownership team has stepped up to the plate on affordable housing.

I personally do not know any other owners, again, who would willingly take this big a hit to their resale value.

I hope all the members of the City Council noted that there are text commitments on page four that impose affordable housing requirements on any residential developer who develops a phase within Lee Village Center.

I think it is pretty incredible that the Harrison Booker families have put forward a proposal to the City Council that complies with 27 out of 31 applicable comprehensive plan policies.

And while you have received an outstanding staff report on this agenda item, I would be remiss if I did not say in regard to policy 50 about being located within half a mile of the city park.

There are 12 acres owned by the UNC Botanical Gardens, only 750 feet to the north along George King Road from Lee Village Center.

And that would certainly meet the spirit, if not the letter of this policy.

In closing, compact suburban design is the zoning district that is probably better than any other zoning district at implementing the comprehensive plan for creating 15-minute communities.

However, we cannot create these 15-minute communities without the density needed to support that vision.

We have reviewed the letter sent by the attorney for the Chapel Hill Run neighborhood, which certainly is in opposition to the density that Durham's comprehensive plan has envisioned here for over two decades.

Furthermore, the road network associated with this agenda item was adopted in conjunction with that vision for transit oriented development on these 81 acres before any of the houses in the Chapel Run neighborhood were built.

Lastly, to address the right-of-way concern related to George King Road, we will revise the annexation plat to annex to the center line of George King Road with an effective date of March 31, 2026, which will allow us to correct the meets and bounds description and correctly produce the mylars necessary for the annexation.

We want to thank the planning department for its assistance and guidance as we move through this process.

For all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval.

Our team will be happy to answer any questions, and we wish to reserve the remainder of our time for rebuttal.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you.

All right.

That I'll start with.

John McGrath, Linda Harden, Ann Corrigan, Catherine Muttnick, and James Richards.

John McGrath, can you hear me?

Oh, okay.

Uh Linda Hardin.

Ann Corrigan.

Yes, I can hear you.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, there she is.

Yep, welcome.

You have three minutes.

Am I first?

You're first.

Okay.

I have two issues.

I live in Falconbridge.

I've lived there since 1985.

I think that the traffic analysis is utterly critical before this project goes forward.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 15-minute commute, but given the situation on I-50 on Route 54 at most times of the day, um, nobody's going to go anywhere in 15 minutes unless you think about traffic a little bit better.

Um the current plan shows two collector routes dumping into 54.

And for those of us who live near 54, uh, it's pretty bad most of the day, and it's worse that rush hour.

Um, I would like to see a traffic analysis done before this proceeds further.

My second issue is that of schools.

Uh, this is a very large development in terms of the number of families that may live there.

And throwing a few thousand dollars to the Durham Public Schools is not going to solve the problem.

Uh, right now Creekside School is way oversubscribed.

There's already portable classrooms there.

Uh Jordan is enormous.

And what we need is a new uh elementary school and we need a new high uh new high school.

And I do believe the developers should set aside a pro parcel of land for one or both of these types of schools and provide some money for building them.

Uh those are my two issues.

Traffic and uh and the schools.

Um I think it will be unfair downstream to ask residents of Durham to approve a bond for education uh if this uh development creates such a huge need for uh more school buildings that the developers have not committed to creating.

Thank you.

Those are my issues.

Uh appreciate the time to talk.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And uh next, Catherine Muttnick.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I am asking you to deny rezoning case Z230042.

I live in Chapel Run on Manderall, and my home backs up to uh uh George King Road.

Um, and I've only been here for three months.

Um, and it's become clear to me how unsafe George King Road is.

I regularly see cars, large trucks, utility vans, construction vehicles, and commercial vehicles using King George.

I'm sorry, George King as a cut through to avoid congestion at I-40, 54, and Farrington Road.

Often these vehicles travel at excessive speeds and ignore their speed when pedestrians are present.

The proposed rezoning would pave and reroute George King Road directly into the center of Chapel Run community, turning neighborhood streets into cross land, and including Crossland Macy Grove and Manerdale into a commuter through route combined with high volume traffic from the Lee Valley build-out, and also pushed onto Chapel Runway and Celeste Circle.

Our neighborhood and those around us were never designed for this level of traffic and cannot safely absorb the increased volume from a high density leave village build-out, along with future development planned along George King Road and in surrounding areas.

And just another thought during again, it's very congested around 54 I-40, Farrington Road.

Um GPS during those times will take people onto um onto um George King Road.

Um we are we're not opposed to growth.

We're opposed to growth that ignores safety hazards and fails to protect residents who who already live here.

Uh the proposal lacks real enforceable solutions to the existing speeding and cut through traffic.

Um traffic volume increases from Lee Village build-out and future developments, stormwater environmental impacts to homes, the community, and the protected areas, loss of neighborhood character, and quality of life.

Um, and just to um mention, I apologize if I um uh did not say this, but um again, the proposed um plan is to route uh George King Road into the center of Chapel uh run.

And then that'll go out into 54.

And again, we know 54 is a mess.

Um, and these communities just cannot handle that.

And the way of life, um, the safety factor for families with children.

Thank you, Catherine.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh next is James Richards.

Hey, I just want to make sure you can hear us all.

Can we confirm we're here?

James and Kelsey Richards, thanks.

Um I want to give Hamlin Roads community a lot of credit in terms of sort of contributing to things we wish we would have seen in the development for our community.

So things that they proposed, such as concrete utility plans, they proposed I mean, when we're looking at square footage of their acreage versus their per home estimates, we're looking at over a quarter of an acre per home, energy star certified.

These are all things that we would have liked to see in our proposed development.

To echo our previous speaker, I think none of us are necessarily opposed to community development in that respect, but responsible community development is at the forefront of our minds, and we look back at again responsible community development in terms of traffic in our tiny glorified cul-de-sac.

These are roads that you can barely fit around two cars that you have kids playing in the roads, you have dogs running everywhere.

This is a truly a small community at its finest that connects to a wonderful dirt road with trails off of it and woods that a lot of us um have really been drawn to and and adds to our property value as a whole in terms of preserving the George King community.

So a couple things that I I wanted to highlight again were a lot of things that our Hamlin Road community pointed to in their arguments.

Um I love their focus on energy star certified, sort of concrete utility plans and traffic plans.

And to be quite honest, I think that is a huge consideration for our community before we can move forward in approving any development plan given the extremely minimal input-output plans and how congested 54 can be on any day, if especially if you've subjected yourself to that between the hours of four and six p.m.

on a weekday, you know just how how bad that can be.

There truly is no concrete input-output plan at this point for the amount of traffic it would take if we're concretely proposing thousands, and I want to input thousands of both um commercial and residential units at this point.

I would love to be corrected if that is not the concrete plan at this point, but as far as we've heard, we're not talking 40, 50, 80, 100 units, we're talking in the thousands.

So again, we'd love for someone to come to correct us on that, but the last we checked, that was the uh tenfold community with we're proposing.

Um again, we just the tree coverage.

There are so many things, so many considerations that I've heard in multiple proposition tonight that we have not been afforded the respect of including that in their plans.

If that again, if that is something that's in the works that we just have not been pretty to, then I would have put I would appreciate that.

Um thank you.

That's that's your time.

Thank you so much.

All right.

I will now move to our in-person speakers.

Did you have two show?

Did you have a challenge?

Yeah, they are in person.

Yeah.

It's a Jack McGrath and John.

John's time.

All right, let me just sort of start with them.

All right, I'm gonna go ahead and call up a few names at a time.

John McGrath, Linda Harden, Joan Steins, Ryan Stewart, Yuri Harvey, T C, Yang Song, and Linda Hart, well, Linda Harden, how do you call?

Oh I see.

Oh, I see it, yeah.

TC Morphis.

I saw you.

And if you could just state your name when you come up, I just think your name is you're fine.

You can leave it as is.

That's good.

Good evening.

Hopefully, it's okay.

We're going a little out of order, but we've all kind of collectively worked together to hopefully um give you some time this evening.

Yeah, but my preserve road Durham, they do it all the time.

Uh just uh state your name's all baby shakes.

Yes, uh, my name is Ryan Stewart, and uh mayor and council members, I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns to you this evening about this rezoning.

I stand before you tonight, accompanied by my fellow residents from Chapel Run, Eastwood Park, and neighboring communities, united in our opposition to this proposed rezoning, as evidenced by our attire in gray and white.

To be mindful of your time, a group of us have collaborated together to present our issues in a more concise manner.

It's important to emphasize that we are all deeply concerned about each of these issues, regardless of whether or not we address them individually tonight.

Additionally, I was to submit a petition containing around 185 signatures and growing in opposition of this rezoning.

My efforts first involved going door to door to neighbors, during which I was welcomed into many homes and engaged in meaningful discussions about this project.

Notably, there were no positive remarks regarding the rezoning or proposed development.

I'd like to present some photographs of our neighborhoods, which might be important since I know some of the previous speakers uh described some of these situations.

So our community features single family homes situated on lots that range from a tenth of an acre all the way up to several acres along George King Road, and alongside that we also have a small section of townhomes.

Given that our beautiful area of Durham borders Chapel Hill, I believe it is essential to showcase these images, as many of you might not be familiar with the characteristics of this community.

It's crucial to highlight that certain roads in our area are quite narrow and lack sidewalks.

The rezoning proposal for Lee Village intends to utilize these roads for access to this new development.

And that combined with a woefully inadequate 30-foot buffer between the communities.

Considering the substantial scale of this project, I urge you to evaluate the impact it will have on our daily lives as residents, particularly since no traffic impact analysis has been conducted to address these concerns.

And one of the photographs you can see, and I believe the previous speaker noted, uh, that would be Highway 54 at 440 p.m.

during a weekday.

I wanted to mention I am not opposed to growth.

I relocated to the area about 15 years ago to pursue my education, and the enhanced quality of life I have experienced here is what to is what has encouraged me to remain.

I wish for others to enjoy the benefits of our area, but I think we have to ask ourselves at what cost?

As suburban residents, it's the lifestyle that drew us to our neighborhoods.

It growth is to occur, it should align with the current zoning regulations and reflect density comparable to our surrounding areas.

Okay, she's gonna give you a hand.

Okay.

Also um you can raise that back up.

Do you want this PowerPoint up?

Yes.

What's your name, by the way?

Yuri.

Thank you.

This isn't it, is it sure we could just start yet?

Okay.

All right.

Good evening.

I'm speaking today in strong opposition to the proposed rezoning applications of the Lehigh Valley area.

My position is based on a review of the application against existing infrastructure, comprehensive planning objectives, and long-term sustainability of the surrounding community.

Here's a lay of satellite imagery of the area.

As you can see, this is not a highly developed area with high-rise buildings and commercial areas.

This is a four-cent rural area isolated from commercial retail areas.

This area borders a Jordan Lake Corps of Engineer Protected Watershed I-40 and North Carolina 54.

There are hiking trails, wildlife hunting, fishing, and other outdoor activities.

The current density is unsustainable.

Since the light rail project was halted, this area has been subjected to aggressive rezoning that has derailed the original UDO concept for integrated transit and development.

As shown, the immediate area is already overwhelmed with an estimated 1,500 to 2,500 proposed and completed multifamily housing units within a short walk.

This extreme density is changing the area from a residential community into a purely transient housing hub, leading to diminished not neighborhood identity.

We propose development must now serve a balancing function, citing the council's own precedent about diversified housing types.

This area critically requires an immediate pivot to single-family detached homes.

There's a severe shortage of detached homes for existing multifamily renters who seek to establish permanent routes within the same community area.

With addition with adding as main new residents currently and potentially adding an additional 10,000 people, what are the plans to build a new police substation?

Is fire station adequate to handle the impact of these new buildings?

Is the water electric sewage adequate?

A new lift station was built, but it seems to be having issues and constantly being serviced due to off-gassing.

There are currently, as you can see, there is very limited road infrastructure to facilitate this additional up to 10,000 new vehicle trips.

In addition, the lack of proper streets can be concerning during construction within the need of heavy equipment.

Furthermore, once development has commenced and the proposed commercial retail space is open, if the roads are not addressed, how will commercial vehicles such as box trucks, large 18-wheelers, and other heavy-duty delivery vehicles access the site?

Based on research, George King has potential easement right issues to enable meeting required standards.

There's no current plan, budget, or schedule for the completion of the Falcon Bridge extension.

In order to complete this extension, North Carolina, Durham County City would have to purchase up to six private homes.

At present, this only the only potential access is on the residential street located in the Chapel Run neighborhood.

This road currently does not have direct access to Highway 54 and also does is not built to the required standards outside of the community.

These are the photos of the surrounding streets that show limited development and don't currently meet the standards needed to provide for large traffic impact.

This is George King Rail Road, North and South.

That's entryway.

This is the Nelson Highway, service road off of 54.

Again, very narrow roads, none undeveloped, no sidewalks, no cutters, no proper drainage.

I also want to say they talked about the owner being uh well, I guess my time is out.

Um good evening.

My name is Cindy Long and I live at 107 Medfield Court.

I'm speaking tonight in opposition to the proposed rezoning.

I'd like to continue the presentation started by Yuri.

Um slide it shows the current sidewalks for the residents.

And essentially there are relatively no sidewalks, and families, children and pets must walk in the street, which is very dangerous situation.

Today there is a relatively low number of vehicles, and the speed limit is only 25 miles per hour, but this is uh very rarely adhered to.

I and others have had many incidences of cars speeding on these narrow residential streets.

This concerns me as I've been in several near misses with cars driving dangerously on these streets.

There are also designated bike lanes.

This limits the intermodal transportation options.

Again, as this is an isolated area, there is no connectivity to either Durham or Chapel Hill except via vehicle use.

Approval of this rezoning would be premature, irresponsible, and would place an undue burden on existing community residents and municipal services.

We respectfully request that the council deny this application until comprehensive infrastructure plans and funding are secured.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Williams.

Uh Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, members of the council.

Uh thank you for your time tonight.

I know we're getting long, so I'm going to do my best to keep it under three minutes.

My name is TC Morphis.

I'm a partner with a Bro law firm.

Our office is in Chapel Hill, but I live at 2705 Stewart Drive in Durham.

And I'm here tonight on behalf of the Chapel Hill run of the Chapel Hill Run Homeowners Association.

Now, we have lots of folks in the audience.

You can tell who's opposed to the project tonight because we are wearing color-coordinated gray t-shirts.

Uh as you've heard, there are other folks who are opposed.

I'm not going to talk about the specifics of the project and problems with it.

The citizens can speak for themselves perfectly fine.

I'm here to follow up on the letter that I sent uh dated December 8th to City Council.

If members of council don't have that, I'm happy to provide a paper copy now.

Um short, there are two serious legal issues with this proposal.

We believe need to be addressed before council can uh vote to approve this project.

The first is regarding traffic impact analysis.

Uh and this issue has come up twice now, once uh during the September Planning Commission meeting and once uh during the December 4th um City Council meeting.

As you all are well aware, your ordinance provides Section 3.3.1 that unless exempted, the traffic impact analysis, TIA, shall be required for changes of use to determine if roadway improvements will be required or zoning map changes utilizing a development plan or site plans or preliminary plats that can be anticipated to generate at least 150 vehicle trips, a peak hour.

What's been proposed is a zoning map change utilizing a development plan.

When I am explaining and trying to argue about the interpretation of an ordinance to a court in North Carolina, we always look to what is the intention of the legislature.

That would be you, City Council, when this ordinance was adopted.

When there is clear language in the ordinance, that is the clearest intent.

That is what the court looks to to understand that intention.

Respectfully, this cannot be interpreted multiple ways.

It says can be anticipated.

And what the ordinance uh said every time this is brought up is staff has explained to you, well, they're going to present a TIA at the staff level or at the site plan level.

However, that is not what your ordinance says.

The ordinance is very clear that it says that can be anticipated.

I am not a traffic engineer, I don't pretend to be one.

However, it's clear that this can be anticipated.

I've been doing this for over 20 years with local governments and representing citizens and developers.

But I can tell you traffic engineers prepare traffic impact analyses based on the zoning alone every single day.

And so for them to say that it cannot be anticipated is simply wrong.

For staff to ignore the requirements of the ordinance is mistaken.

I believe that council has two options.

You may deny the zoning tonight, or you could have delay until a TIA is submitted, or you could change the ordinance.

But what you've got tonight cannot be done.

I will uh I see I'm out of time, so I will leave you to reuse my letter for the second point.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you.

Is that Linda Harden?

Yes.

Okay, yes, sir.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Actually, we're getting later into the evening and closer tonight.

My name is Linda Harden.

I live at 303 Crossland Drive in the neighborhood of Chapel Run.

I've lived there since 2019 after moving here from St.

Louis, Missouri.

I love living in Durham and in this community.

The people, the environment, the surrounding neighborhoods, and the woods next to and surrounding George King Road are so walkable and beautiful, and I would like it to stay that way, as I am sure you would as well.

I walk my dog multiple times a day and meet and talk with my neighbors outside.

These interactions make it a true community, something I would hate to lose.

I am not against development, not in the least.

I am not an MB resident.

However, I believe we should have planned, thoughtful development to make sure all outcomes are considered before moving forward.

We need to know what is best for the environment, the safety of the residents, and the character of the community before making such sweeping changes.

Based on the projections of housing units and the current lack of a TIA, which leaves so many questions unanswered, I cannot foresee how our neighborhood will not lose the character and safety we currently know.

Each homeowner purchased their home with the reasonable expectation of maintaining the neighborhood's character.

When you consider the proposed changes of such volume and the lack of overall infrastructure planning, it becomes very concerning and unclear of how this will be successful.

I also want to touch on a point about vision zero.

As you well know, this is a Durham initiative and an excellent one, whose goal it is to end traffic deaths in the city.

The current rezoning proposal without the proper infrastructure plan may easily put us in danger of going against the tenets of Vision Zero and becoming the next corridor on which the initiative will need to focus.

Please consider this issue now before it becomes an issue in the future.

Thank you for taking your time to listen to my concerns, and I urge you to vote against this proposal this evening and pursue more information to aid in a decision in the future.

Thank you.

Um good evening.

Um I'm Joan Stein's and I live on Celeste Circle, and we are the old community.

I've lived there for over 40 years.

Um everything that's been said tonight, I agree with about the opposition.

Uh I can testify about the traffic.

Things have been fine until most recently, this I would say like a year, traffic has gotten crazy.

It was never like that before.

And I'm one of those persons that go down George King Road because I don't want to have to deal with all the traffic.

I'm also one of those persons that greets my neighbors and walks my dog two or three times a day, and I use the woods, uh, but I walk all around the neighborhood and uh Chapel Run too, and even up where the new developments are at Falcon Bridge.

So I I see an issue with traffic, a huge issue.

Um I'm not against development either, but I I I think there has to be a better plan for where this traffic is going to go.

Um it's just crazy to think about.

I mean, I know a long time ago, light rail was supposed to be built, and that never happened.

So now we're considering building all of this with no regard for what's going to happen with transportation.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Respective council members and the mayor.

My name is Yan Song, and um I'm here, and I wear two hats.

The first hat is that I'm the resident of my mom with my mom.

My mom, uh, she's in his uh in her uh 80s.

She moved into this neighborhood because it's quiet, safe and walkable.

And I um I think many of our retired neighbors share the same uh same life as well.

Um so this is the first point that I was trying to make.

Um, I mean, many of the neighbors build their life around this neighborhood with reasonable expectations that this area remain safe and walkable.

And my uh second hat is that I'm a professor um in the Department of City and Regional Planning at uh UNC Chapel Hill.

Um so my uh area of expertise is in land use and uh environmental planning.

In my uh humbled area of expertise, um I do see still there are a lot of um quite a few remaining questions that need to be answered before pushing this um forward.

Many uh speakers have already talked about the traffic impacts, and I want to um speak briefly about the environmental impacts as well.

Um so when we, you know, when we do research and the teaching about this amount, this this sort of a scope of our development, we um ask for responsible development.

Um as planners, we are not against developments.

We love for um developments which are responsible.

Um in this case, if we rezone the um um the village to include more than 2,000 um units of um of housing units and uh a large blocks of our commercial uses.

Um almost for sure we'll lose a mature forest and we'll um break up the uh habitat corridor.

Uh we send more runoff on stormwater runoff sediments, pollutants uh into the little creek and uh downstream drinking water supplies.

Um, and and uh um uh another point here is that um the the all those stormwater runoff pollutants they don't stop inside the boundary of the development.

Um, they go into the existing neighborhoods, um Chapel Run and other um adjacent neighborhoods, so they don't stop there.

Um and all of those will increase the risk of flooding um and uh um heat as well because the current area serves as a natural buffer.

Um so Durham's comprehensive plan tells us to protect critical watershed and sensitive natural areas like this.

Um so in this case, without studying more into the cumulative effects uh of this development um again on the uh uh the things that I just mentioned.

Um it's just a little bit premature, it's just premature to make this decision forward.

All right, thank you for your time.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Hello.

Hi, uming uh uh mayor and mayor projam and all the city council members.

My name is Samantha Swan, and I live in Chapel Run.

I have lived here for eight years.

We chose to relocate to Chapel Run due to the protected land surrounding the neighborhood and walking access to Durham to re to rural Durham County.

And I'm walking less than two minutes from my house.

I have access to what feels like you're in a countryside with two horse farms, the North Carolina Botanical Garden Foundation's property called Villa Pinnaea, and properties with small ponds, meadows, and bucolic landscapes.

This area retains significant natural value due to its diverse forested habitats, wetlands, and wide variety of plants and animals.

The area around George King Road is a recognized ecological asset known for its biodiversity.

When speaking with a friend who is a botanist and a naturalist, he informed me that George King Road is a great resource for native plant seed and one of the few places in the area with a robust population of Flox Navalis, a beautiful spring blooming native flocks.

And when I looked at iNaturalist, an app that records observations of plants and animals and contributes to a global data set used for scientific research and conservation.

Over a hundred different species have been recorded along the road and surrounding woodlands.

I'm here to ask the council to protect this relic of diversity in the Piedmont, not only for our small community of Chapel Run and surrounding neighbors, but for all the floral and fauna, which also call this area home.

We need to preserve this vital green space for wildlife, retain its water quality, and protect its ecological connectivity.

It should be valued beyond its developmental potential and saved for future generations and species to live and thrive.

The impact of V of Lee Village to this natural habitat and to the wildlife's connectivity will be immense.

The type of dense community proposed, and I quote, the single, the largest single developed planned property in Durham and Chapel Hill, more than doubling any other planned development in either town, as was reported by Adam Powell in the local reporter in August 2024.

I live in Durham County, and I do not want to live in Durham City.

That is why I feel compelled to speak today, as we have to protect, value, and uphold the environmental principles that everything is connected, resources are finite, all life is important, and humans are stewards of nature.

If this high density rezoning is approved, much of this natural assortment and distinction will be lost.

The tree canopy, the forest, unique wildness, species variety, everything forever.

Let me end by paraphrasing Joni Mitchell.

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone.

They pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um is that the end of the coordinated speakers?

Go ahead.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayorville Jim and uh members of the council.

I'm uh Roby Swann and my wife and I have lived in the Chapel Run neighborhood for over eight years.

And I'm speaking to you tonight in opposition to the change in zoning uh for Lee Village.

Compact urban design is the zoning designation sought by the developers slash owners for Lee Village.

The area is currently designated as rural residential, a designation about as far from compact urban design as is possible as is possible in housing density terms.

I think you'll agree.

So why the drastic change?

This is because this is a legacy of the late Durham Orange Light Rail Transit Project, which was planned to run through and provide a stop in the proposed Lee Village area and thus transport in and out of the area.

This project, however, was abandoned over six years ago, yet this zombie petition remains.

Certainly in local needs terms, there's there remains no logical reason to turn this residential area into a high-density rental housing, office space, and retail sales zone.

We are not against appropriate development.

Indeed, if this area was to be developed with similar housing density to our Chapel Run neighborhood, I would expect there to be little opposition.

We need single-family dwellings.

Instead, Lee Villages to be in housing terms, yet another 2,000 plus rental housing units, adding to the stock of already 2,000 recently completed in construction or approved rental units already in our immediate area.

Please deny this rezoning request.

And thank you for listening and compliments to the season to each of you.

Thank you.

And just to be clear, you said your name was Roby Swan, right?

Yes.

Thank you.

Next.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Petra Tamashunis, and I'm also a resident of Chapel Run.

Um, my husband and I moved to North Carolina this summer, and one of the main reasons that we chose our home is because of the Chapel Run community.

The neighborhood is small, as you've heard, with only 84 homes total.

It's very quiet.

It feels tucked in and cozy, and that's was a huge draw for us.

I also am not against development, and my husband and I certainly expected that something would be popping up behind our home in that um stretch of land.

But like so many people, one of our biggest concerns with Lee Village is the traffic and safety implications on our small development as well as the surrounding area.

I live on one of the two streets in Chapel Run that are planned to be extended as part of the Lee Village proposal.

One of the pictures you saw was my little street.

It is very small, it's about a tenth of a mile.

It has 16 homes on it on very small lots.

Only one side of the street has a very small sidewalk.

And the road is very narrow.

If cars park on both sides, it's difficult to get a car through without care.

There are many families with children with dogs that walk and play through our our neighborhood.

And I just really have no idea how it makes sense to use a small street like that as an access point to an 81-acre 2,000 home development.

It makes me wonder really how much thought has been put into traffic flow and safety considerations.

As you know, outside of the immediate neighborhood is North Carolina 54 and I-40.

If you travel during peak times, you will be very familiar with the congestion with bumper-to-bumper traffic, and even cars are backed up in both the entrance and exits, exit ramps.

But if it's not required, it's certainly the responsible thing to do for all the people in this area, including future residents of Lee Village.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Finally, John McGrath.

Finally, we got you up here.

Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the City Council.

I wish to express my deep concern regarding the proposed late village development.

While the concept may once aligned with the regional transit goals, and those circumstances originally justified condensed density housing, that situation doesn't exist anymore.

There are numerous reasons to oppose this project, including traffic, quality of life, environmental degradation, taxpayer burden, excessive rental to single family ratios.

There's a few.

Damaging the area's reputation.

Those occupying affordable housing used to be impacted even more.

Local shops will struggle and or fail due to limited access, preventing the area from becoming anything like Metamont Village or other successful mixed-use communities.

Employers in the proposed science and technology building will face significant challenges recruiting and maintaining talent, unwilling to endure the transportation nightmare.

Taken together, these factors point to a troubling conclusion.

Lee Village, as currently designed, is point to be poised to become economic bust rather than a thriving district.

I'm also concerned that the city regulatory agencies may be placed in a vulnerable position by the developers plan to sell off parcels in small units.

Office towers, retail spaces, townhomes, each require different planning considerations, and fragmenting ownership will make it far more difficult for the city's regular agent regulatory agencies to ensure equitable distribution of resources, infrastructure, and services.

This approach increases the risk of inconsistent development and long-term management challenges.

Additionally, the proposed proposal to allow only 30 feet of natural buffer space between the new development and existing homes is a queer indication of planned overbuilding.

Such a quick question.

Are you do you go by Jack and John?

Yeah.

Okay, got it.

I'm a complex person.

My name's Wendy Woodall.

Um Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Potem, Council members.

My name is Wendy Woodall, and I am a resident of Chapel Run.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to all of us tonight.

I am the closer.

You've heard from residents and experts who care deeply about this area.

While each raise a different issue, they all point to the same conclusion.

This proposal is not yet ready for approval.

We want to be very clear.

We are not opposed to development.

We support growth, additional housing, and smart planning.

What we are asking for is responsible development that is supported by infrastructure and aligned with Durham's own comprehensive plan.

This rezoning represents one of the most intense development proposals in this area, yet critical questions remain unanswered.

There is no completed traffic impact analysis.

The high capacity transit that once justified this level of density no longer exists.

The environmental impacts on Little Creek, nearby protected lands, and downstream water quality have not been fully evaluated in a comprehensive public way.

Approving this rezoning now would lock in consequences that cannot easily be reversed.

Once the zoning is changed, the city's ability to meanfully address traffic safety, environmental protection, and neighborhood impacts is significantly reduced.

We are asking the council to pause.

Require the missing analyses.

Ensure the transportation plan is realistic.

Confirm the development at this scale can occur safely, sustainably, and in a way that protects surrounding neighborhoods.

This is not about stopping growth.

It's about doing it the right way.

We respectfully ask that you vote no at this time or defer the decision until the necessary information is available.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to our community.

Thank you.

I have Holly Shen, Durant Long, Chris Selby.

Megan Sullaway.

Melora McCall.

And Elizabeth Miller.

This is not a nobody said it was a PDF from the Chris Elby right here.

That's a good thing.

There you go.

Good evening.

Thank you.

I'm Chris Selby.

I live at 138th West Circle in Eastwood Park that's here on the map.

And uh our our neighborhood Eastwood Park was largely in favor of this collector street plan map as it allowed for the development of the Lee Village in this area here with these two collector streets, major collector streets here and here that skirted our neighborhood and connected directly with NC 54 here.

Unfortunately, this street here ends at the service road, and Lee Village does not plan to connect it directly to NC 54.

Over here, there is an intersection with the highway, but it is best described as a pinch point, unsuitable for collector street traffic.

Now, this other collector street over here is shown in this other image here as continuous.

However, there is a continuous row of houses right across here, and Lee Village does not plan to construct this connection.

Therefore, if they're allowed to connect to the stub out right here now, then collector street, heavy traffic from this area and points north will access NC 54.

Not via the collector streets, but by the service road down below and by these local, these other local streets here.

And these these is heavy traffic.

These are local streets.

They're they're narrow.

They have pedestrians, they have no sidewalks.

This would be not safe, and it would really trash our community with heavy traffic.

And it would greatly overwhelm the pinch point intersection on NC 54.

Another problem is this phased approval process for parcels, which is likely to be uncoordinated with roadway roadway improvements.

Take, for example, the parcel over here in the lower right corner.

It is unlikely to be attractive for development.

And this critical connection here could be delayed indefinitely.

Now, a last point I want to make is that there's one bus stop in the area located out here on NC by NC 54.

It is not going to be very accessible to Lee Village because this link, this link here is going to be absent, and this walking path here ends up way over here in a culvert.

So these plan is characterized by very, very poor connectivity.

And as such, this poor connectivity does not support high density development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello.

Hello.

Um my name is Hallie Shin, and I am here tonight on behalf of my neighbor to the immediate south of my property and myself.

Um my property is on Crescent Drive.

Um I am deeply concerned about ambiguities and inconsistencies caused by the use of a textual development plan in this case.

The zoning map change report um includes the construction of several new roads, one of which, Falcon Bridge Extension, anticipates a 110-foot ride of way running through multiple private residences south of Crescent Towns.

One of those is mine.

I have spoken with City Planning multiple times, and their response is to deny that Falcon Bridge extension will involve these properties and that the city would not use imminent domain powers to obtain the property.

City planning has assured me the only way these private properties could be used for the road is if the developers were granted permission.

And today the city attorney emailed me saying, quote, um including an image with a textual development plan does not convert it into a binding zone binding zoning commitment.

Yet I have multiple email communications from city planning referring to them as committed elements.

One, quote, the road network is committed.

Another quote.

If the zoning is approved, any future developer would be committed to constructing a road network similar to the one shown in the exhibit.

The only way to get out of that committed element would be through an action of approval by city council where there would be neighborhood meetings and public hearings just as they are having now.

The applicant could, in theory, remove the exhibit from its list of committed elements.

That would be up to the applicant.

I believe the applicant is trying to show how they intend to meet the collector street plan by committing the exhibit.

In the staff review of the development plan, a staff note says, quote, please note that everything in the Lee Village Center street and block diagram plan is a committed element.

In fact, the material in front of you tonight states explicitly the developers' intent to proceed according to the referenced street and block diagram.

On one hand, I have the city attorney and some planning staff stating that the road placement is inconsequential, others saying they are committed, and then I have the applicant's own attorney stating, quote, our team has worked with the City of Durham staff to create streets and connectivity for Lee Village Center over the past two years, and that is reflected in the image we have shared.

It's strange credulity to believe the placement of this road is inconsequential given the size and scope of this project.

There are alternate road placements that place the road entirely on the applicant's property, yet city planning has accepted this layout and is asking council to vote.

Why?

I would like some clarity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, y'all.

My name is Durant Long, and I'm speaking on behalf of residents whose properties are adjacent to the proposed development.

Tonight, I want to focus specifically on the process, because over the life of this application, the standards being applied have shifted repeatedly, and that puts everyone in a difficult position.

Here's what we've observed.

Early on, staff indicated that a traffic impact assessment, TIA, could be waived if the applicant submitted a straight rezoning.

Then, in spring 2024, staff stated that a TIA was required because the applicant submitted a rezoning with a textual development plan and commitments.

The applicant represented that the planning director had determined a TIA would not be needed, citing similarity to the city initiated Patterson Place rezoning that did not require a TIA.

Review feedback includes Ms.

Thomas directing the applicant to include a proffer indicating multiple TIAs at site plan would be conducted.

Director Young has indicated that this wasn't an applicant proposed approach that they have accepted.

After residents raised concerns in summer 2025, staff informed the applicant that because unit counts were proffered, a TIA was required.

In response, the applicant removed intensity commitments to avoid triggering the TIA requirement, and staff indicates they cannot require the applicant to provide the information.

Then, in October, Director Young confirmed that no text amendments would be pursued to clarify UDO requirements at the zoning map change stage.

And despite the absence of a TIA, the application was deemed complete and UDO compliant.

That's where the concern lies.

Taking this application forward for a legislative vote without meeting the UDO's required process and without using the legal mechanisms available to resolve acknowledged ambiguities exceeds the planning director's authority.

This has become a one-off handling of a development application, not because the UDO allows it, but because staff appears intent on progressing the case to a vote by allowing an alternate by allowing an alternative approach that the UDO does not clearly permit.

I respectfully urge council not to exceed its own legislative authority by approving a rezoning application that does not meet the specifications of the UDO, especially when the applicant was previously assured by staff that those requirements would not apply, and when the proper pathways to address the UDO ambiguity have not been pursued adequately.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Next one, all right.

Hey everyone, thank you so much.

I'm Brian.

Um it's very evident how deeply you care about Durham residents and uh community and the city.

Um kind of to sum up, I think what was just said, what uh this is like crazy, right?

Like if I said we're gonna build 2,000 units behind your house and we'll just dump the traffic in front of your driveway.

Right?

Like, are there hidden cameras somewhere?

Like this is nuts.

I mean, this is like real nuts.

There's probably I don't know, 150, 200 people hours just tonight on this.

I didn't tuck my kids into bed tonight, and we have a sitter watching them because I'm here about this.

So just something to think about.

I know you care so much about this city.

Um, and thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next.

Uh good evening, Mayor, Mayor Paper Temp, and Council members.

My name is Megan Soloway, and I live at 150 Celeste Circle in Eastwood Park.

I support growth and responsible development, but my concern tonight is specifically about traffic safety and infrastructure readiness related to the rezoning of Lee Village.

This proposal would add thousands of new daily trips, yet there is no publicly available analysis showing how roads, intersections, and traffic patterns would safely handle that increase.

Approving high-density rezoning without completed traffic and infrastructure studies puts the city in a reactive position where safety issues are addressed only after problems emerge.

That creates avoidable risks for drivers, pedestrians, and surrounding neighborhoods.

This approach supports growth while ensuring the city meets its responsibility to protect public safety.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

And I missed a few names.

I have uh Malora McCall, Elizabeth Miller, and Andy Lowe.

I think that's everyone.

That's everybody.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, that it is.

Thank you.

Melora McCall.

The City Attorney's Office has stated in writing that the planning director has issued an official interpretation under her discretionary authority pursuant to UDO section 3.1, specifically regarding Lee Village and the TIA requirements of Section 3.3.

This authority appears to have also been applied to determinations involving the meaning of shall in required elements such as 854 D1, 892, and 356E1.

I'd like to clarify that no formal request for interpretation from the applicant was filed with the clerk's office during review, and no written interpretation of section 33 or clarifications to 356E for textual and graphic development plans requirements is in the official record required under section 314.

Because no formal interpretation has been recorded, the due process protections for aggrieved parties have not been preserved.

The submission is consequential.

The submitted textual plan with supplementary exhibit contradicts the defined quote where only text is used to describe the commitments, end quote, and staff have confirmed elements were considered committed.

They have not been required to properly document repairing buffers and to submit a graphic plan, despite the UDO stating that, quote, if committed element cannot be clearly described through a textual development plan, the applicant must submit a graphic plan, end quote.

Staff advised the applicant to submit a graphic plan in second review comments, and the applicant replied, noting that, quote, it was previously determined by planning that a graphic exhibit would be acceptable, end quote.

For Carrot Clarity, a key requirement of graphic plans is existing and proposed intensity density for each zoning district or early overlay, square feet if non-residential, and units if residential.

If the applicant were required to switch to a graphic plan, one of the mandatory components would be the missing disclosure of existing and proposed intensity square feet and units.

That information is precisely what's needed for the TIA and what the applicant removed from their commitments just before the planning hearing.

Staff indicates they lack a mechanism to require this information.

However, the UDO clearly provides such a mechanism through the requirement to submit a graphic plan when commitments cannot be adequately conveyed through text alone.

In this case, the ordinances provide means to address the exact issues cited as unresolvable.

Given these procedural and statutory concerns, a legislative vote should not proceed under the assumption that an interpretation for Lee Village, Section 33 or 356 have followed proper procedure.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, hi.

Can you hear me?

Sorry.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem and City Council.

My name is Elizabeth Miller.

I am a resident of the city of Durham.

Attachment N in the agenda packet includes the committed elements of the Lee Village Center proposal, including the block diagram.

This exhibit is not labeled as conceptual or illustrative.

As such, it functions as a set of committed elements intended to run with the land consistent with staff's characterization of these materials in their review comments.

Rather than relying solely on textual descriptions, the applicant has submitted an exhibit depicting the proposed realignment of George King Road and Southwest Durham Drive and the Falcon Bridge extension.

These roadway commitments are presented as being aligned with the DCHC MPO comprehensive transportation plan, or CTP, with specific references in text commitments to F and 2I for the record.

CTP section 2.3 explicitly states that while the plan proposes recommended solutions, it may not represent the final location or cross-section associated with the improvement.

In other words, conformity with the CTP does not establish a final or fixed roadway location.

Similarly, the submitted block diagram and staff review commentary reference alignment with the adopted collector street plan, or CSB.

However, the CSP also clearly states that the exact location will be decided during the development review process based on development design, traffic impacts, and environmental factors.

Despite multiple communications with staff, these questions have not been resolved and instead have generated additional uncertainty.

I'm concerned that council may be asked to vote without a clear shared understanding of which roadway elements are being committed, how they align with adopted plans, and how they are intended to be reviewed and enforced as part of the legislative decision.

Finally, much of the handling of this case has been justified by comparison to the Patterson Place compact neighborhood rezoning.

However, Patterson Place was a straight rezoning.

While the applicant here was initially advised to pursue a straight rezoning, that comparison ceased to apply once a textual development plan was submitted.

At that point, the Patterson Place and Lee Village Center are no longer analogous.

The applicant does not control when a TIA is required for a legislative vote by proposing alternative timelines through profers.

The UDO, not the applicant, determines when a TIA is required.

And once a development plan is submitted, those requirements apply.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, uh good evening, uh City Council Mayor Williams and Mayor Pro Tem Caballero.

Uh my name is Andy Lowe, and I'm here to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning annexation at Lee Valley, or sorry, Lee Village.

Uh put simply this application follows the comprehensive plan as affirmed in 2006 and again in 2023.

Uh it follows well-established goals of the city council to build denser, more 15-minute like cities, less car dependency, things like that.

This uh parcel of land would allow for that.

Um and Councilmember Baker reminded us in our announcement in his announcements that the new UDO is coming up.

And actually, in that proposed new UDO, this parcel is zoned or proposed to be zoned as CX5, which is commercial mixed use up to five stories, which would be in line with what the proposal is.

So put simply I don't see any reason why we should not move forward with this as long as established city planning uh in a lines with the established goals of the city council over many of years.

I know there are two new city counselors, but I anticipate they probably share a lot of the same goals.

Umpportunity area.

I know the light rail is a source subject and long gone now, but there are other forms of transit, such as our buses and the proposed BRT, and would love to see opportunities to use those.

Um frankly, as a Durham resident as of 2021, I rent my apartment right now with my wife.

Um there's some comments about housing shortage or not, etc.

We would love to buy a house in the spring.

Um if there isn't a house if there isn't a housing shortage, I didn't really notice.

So anyway, um fully in support of of disappro of this uh proposed rezoning uh and hope the city council moves forward with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is uh Philip Post.

I live at 104 St.

Andrew's Place, uh just a little bit west of Lee Village.

I rise to speak against uh and ask you not to approve the rezoning tonight.

It would allow up to 90 foot tall buildings right next to natural heritage lands.

In fact, there might even be natural heritage lands on this parcel.

It's 81 acres, but when you subtract the required open space, it's 77 acres, and they're proposing up to 2,300 residential units plus other mixed use, and it's way too dense because it's supposed to be transit oriented, but there is no transit.

And as fact as you know, Durham has a future transit plan, and this site is not uh proposed to be served by the future transit.

So let's talk about parks.

The closest park is uh two miles away, and it's on the other side of Interstate 40, and you cannot uh get to that park either by bicycle or as a pedestrian.

So this development will be 100 percent car-centric, and it violates your ordinance and it violates your comprehensive plan, which encourages transit and walkability.

So I ask you to not approve it.

However, if you were to violate your own ordinance and violate the principles of your comprehensive plan, I want to speak a little bit more about the four acres of open space because that will be critical.

And if you don't care about the Durham residents who have spoken tonight, maybe you'll care about the thousands of residents who might live in this, they need some sort of open space.

And so I would urge you on the four acres required open space to make it contiguous and not be scattered throughout this acreage.

And I and I would urge the developer to designate where it's gonna be, and we've asked that at the planning commission level, but haven't been given that information.

And I would actually urge you to put it in the northwest corner where it could be adjacent to the three acres of open space that the Lee Valley apartments have already committed and to the 13 acres of Villa Pinea, which would actually constitute almost 17 total acres of open space if it were if it were designated there.

So I ask you to deny the rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I am going to recess us in the um publicly.

I'm going to recess us until 11:30 p.m.

And we'll be back in just a minute.

The Durham City Council meetings and planning commission meetings are now available to live stream on all devices via the City of Durham social media accounts.

To watch, simply go to City of Durham NC on YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter.

Devices include phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, streaming boxes and sticks, and smart TVs.

The easiest way to view the live stream on smart TVs and streaming devices, such as the Roku, Apple TV, and Amazon Fire TV is via the YouTube app.

Now you can follow along with the latest developments in the Durham community at dinner, your kids' game, the mall, in bed, during a breather, in the bathtub, and even on the International Space Station.

I know I can count on Durham for great sports in every season.

I always count on Durham for amazing cultural events.

Did you know that the city of Durham counts on these individuals?

In a city of more than 260,000 people.

And you know what?

It doesn't matter how much or young.

Whether you're passionate about the economy, the art scene, or the flight of the homeless.

In fact, we have nearly 30 boards, committees, and commissions that you can participate on.

The requirements are to be a Durham City resident and be current on your Durham City and County taxes.

Durham is your home.

You can count on Durham to be there for you.

Can we count on you to be there for our city?

Can we count on you to be there for Durham?

Can we count on you to be there for our city?

Can we count on you to be there for Durham?

So come on.

Get involved.

Apply today.

We can count on Durham.

But can Durham count on you.

Falling behind on your bills, even if you owe more than you can handle, you still have rights.

Most legit debt collectors follow the rules, but bad debt collectors don't.

They break the law.

So if you get a call like this, if you don't pay, we will have you arrested and deported.

Or this.

This is your final warning.

Pay up now, or we'll contact your employer and make them pay.

Hang up and report it to the Federal Trade Commission.

You have the right to be treated fairly no matter what.

That means debt collectors can't use abusive language, threaten violence, or harass you.

Or call you before eight in the morning or after nine at night.

They can't lie or pretend to be someone they're not.

I'm an attorney and we'll take legal action if you don't pay this debt right away.

Or get you to pay a debt that doesn't even exist.

They can't have you arrested or deported, or tell anyone about your debt.

Bad debt collectors like to knock you off your guard to get an advantage, create a sense of urgency, and rush you.gov slash complaint.

We've stopped a lot of bad debt collectors.

Help us stop more.

For more information about debt collection, visit consumer.gov slash debt.

Yep, we found out for this.

I feel odd it looks like sometimes it gets really late and uh we want to make sure that we are doing the due diligence here.

All right.

So we've heard all of the public comments.

Um applicants, would you all like to respond?

Good evening again, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, members of the City Council.

Could you move that mic closer to in front of you?

Is that good, Mayor?

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Again, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem, Caballero, members of Council, Patrick Biker for the families desiring to pursue this rezoning.

Uh, would like to address the chronology again, because I think that's been overshadowed with some of the comments, and then I'll dive into the uh TIA issue.

Uh it's in very it's as I mentioned earlier, we had a comprehensive plan adopted in 2005 that called for this to be a design district form-based zoning in order to support transit.

In 2011, as a community, we adopted a half-cent sales tax in order to do just that, fund transit.

That put forward the light rail system that many folks uh referred to, but that unfortunately failed in 2019.

Four years later, after a lengthy community engagement process by our planning department and uh certainly Dan and myself participated for many hundreds of hours, there was community engagement about the new comprehensive plan four years later, and that maintained Lee Village as a transit opportunity area.

And so these houses that were built after these decisions were made, uh with the exception of the most recent comp plan, this is the view of Crosland Drive stubbing out to Lee Village.

As you can see, it's a 42-foot wide back-to-back section.

It was designed to implement the collector street plan that was adopted as part of the transit-oriented development plan for Lee Village.

I'd like to move on to the TIA issue.

There are three reasons why the planning director was correct.

Why Plan Director Young was correct not to require a TIA for Lee Village Center.

Uh, first of all, most of these issues that you have heard about were discussed at the Planning Commission back on September 9.

Under North Carolina General Statute 160 D.

405 port Part D, any admin administrative decision by the planning director has to be appealed within 30 days of persons receiving actual or constructive notice.

And so these issues were discussed at the Planning Commission.

They were in the staff report that received by the Planning Commission when uh City City Council Member Copac was a member of the planning commission.

That actual or constructive notice happened on September 9.

Therefore, the time period within which and a period must be filed was October 9, 30 days.

Accordingly, that didn't happen, and therefore the planning director's decision stands.

I would move on to say there are two other important reasons.

One is equal protection.

On April 5 of 2019, the City Council approved the Patterson Place compact suburban design rezoning for approximately 600 acres.

Then on April 21, 2025, the City Council approved the compact suburban design district on 25 acres at Page and Miami, Page Road Miami Boulevard.

So to my knowledge, compact suburban design has only been used twice before by the City of Durham.

Neither of those rezonings had a TIA, even though the same issues that persons raised this evening, number of units, estimates on square footage, those all could have been put forward by the City, but they were not.

After that, several years later, we started amending the UDO to include design districts.

That is form-based zoning, not use-based zoning.

I believe the plan director moved forward without requiring a TIA because of the rational nexus and rough proportionality requirements of the U.S.

Constitution that apply to any local government in relation to traffic improvements.

Rational nexus means there has to be a logical connection, and rough proportionality means there has to be proportionality, so that you can't ask a small project, such as a small townhouse community to upgrade Interstate 40.

And so since Lee Village Center has a range of housing units from 1,667 to 2,294, plus unidentified non-residential uses.

It's impossible to scope a TIA and meet the requirements of rational nexus and rough proportionality.

Under the Supremacy Clause, the State and Federal law overrules the local ordinance, which is UDO Section 3.

In closing, there was discussion that, well, we should have just submitted a straight rezoning.

Then we wouldn't be talking about this TIA issue because it was straight rezoning.

The Booker and the Harris families wanted to put forward income restricted housing on their property.

They wanted restrict uses so that there would be no drive-throughs.

They wanted to commit to greenways on their property.

They wanted to commit to the 100 year storm.

All of these are above and beyond what the UDO requires.

So if we committed a straight rezoning, none of those would be on the table for the council to approve.

I think this falls into the category of no good deed goes unpunished.

So as you can see, this Chapel Run neighborhood was designed to tie into Lee Village.

These plans have been in place for over two decades.

The comments that, well, this should be developed with a mix of single family homes and townhouses.

That's not transit-oriented development members of council.

That is not.

And that would violate our comprehensive plan.

We are moving forward with a transit-oriented development at this location because our plans have called for it for 20 years.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

If we just build single family houses on this acreage, what do we get?

Completely autodependent, non-walkable, no 15-minute community, same old, same old, and it would not be following our comprehensive plan.

Again, Dan and I have put thousands of hours into these charrettees, neighborhood meetings.

Again, the outstanding community engagement that was done as part of the light rail, as part of the form-based uh the Patterson place uh compact suburban design, and then Lee Village.

I recall the first meeting I ever had with City Manager Tom Bonfield in early 2008 was to talk about Lee Village.

And now here we are almost 20 years later.

And so, again, these are owners, not developers.

They wish to have their property move forward with income restricted housing, enhanced environmental protections, and use restrictions that make sure this is a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood.

All the infrastructure that persons spoke about, we agree with that.

And that is why compact suburban design requires sidewalks on both sides, requires bike lanes on both sides, requires roads that are designed to calm the traffic and encourage people not to use their vehicles.

So we believe compact survival design is the right district for this 81 acres.

We respectfully ask for your approval.

Dan and I will be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, those are all of the speakers that I have.

And so therefore, at this time I will declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

I am sure there are questions.

Councilmember Cook.

Thank you.

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

Colleagues, you have heard my concerns.

I sent an email earlier today.

I braised them at the work session.

And I think Attorney Morpheus, I hadn't seen your letter that I went back and revisited it.

And it actually was completely in line with the uh with the um memo style email that I had written myself.

Um there is not a question, the statute is not unclear.

Uh a traffic impact analysis is required.

So we have sworn an oath.

I have sworn two oaths.

One to uphold uh the the laws as I was sworn in, but also as an attorney.

Um I can't in good faith vote on this.

It's not timely before us.

So it is gonna be my motion to send this back to the planning department.

Um there needs to be a traffic impact analysis, and we also need clarity on what is going on with the textual development plan.

I have read the answers from staff.

They are uh frankly all over the place.

They're not consistent.

Um if we don't know what is applicable, then we cannot vote on it tonight.

It would be a disservice to the citizens of Durham, and it would be against the oath that we took.

Um all decisions should have a lot of eyes.

This isn't an issue of competency, but it's a complicated rezoning that's 90 acres that's being done as a textual development plan.

Um, which it's unclear to me if that's really the right avenue for this.

But it's gonna be my motion tonight to send this back to the to planning department.

Um, and I hope that y'all will join me.

It is just not timely.

This isn't a comment on the application that's before us at all, but voting tonight would be in dereliction of our duty.

Um excuse me are you um Councilman McCooker, you make it a motion before we complete discussion, or are you uh stating that you're gonna make that at the end of discussion?

Um I'm not gonna participate in a discussion.

I think that as I've stated, this is not timely before us, so I would make the motion now before we would have any further conversation.

Okay.

Yeah, I would I would like to I want to get there.

I I would like to uh have a little bit of discussion uh and questions, and then I would entertain that motion.

Um if there's no second, then uh we won't address it yet.

Okay.

So um one thing I do want to say just to set the set the stage here, is um this is being proposed uh by landowners.

So it's it's not a it's not a development team.

Um it's not yet in the city.

Uh so there's a uh there's a rezoning on the here before us, there's also an annexation.

Um so there's no proposed development.

This is purely a rezoning uh request.

Uh it's not a project.

It's just a rezoning request.

Um it's a large site.

And so I want to emphasize those things because um there are a lot of uh interesting things about this uh proposal.

Um but it's not it's not immediately urgent um as as some cases uh feel like uh an R when they come to us.

So I just want to set the stage there with with that.

Um I have a few questions for the applicant Mr.

Biker, so we discussed um parks when we spoke before.

Uh you said that you were gonna reach out to the to the parks and recreation department.

Um can you talk a little bit about that?

Uh well, what we'd like to do on the record, uh Councilmember Baker is uh let me find the text commitment here.

Sorry.

Uh we would like to dedicate land for a public park.

And so for additional commitment number seven, um we'd like to say that the natural heritage area located at the uh southwest corner of the site uh will be limited to uh a public park subject to approval by the city of Durham, comma.

Open space tree coverage and construct the wetlands of stormwater treatment.

Uh as Dan and I were looking at it and talking about with our team.

As Dan and I were looking at it and talking about with our team, I'm sorry.

I apologize.

Yeah, here it is.

What would be really neat about this is that if the park is down here, there would be a greenway connecting it to the 12 acres owned by the UNC botanical garden.

And so that would get create sort of a linear park.

So you'd have a city park at the south end of uh Lee Village, and then the greenway connecting it to the uh 12 acres uh that's owned by the UNC botanical garden.

So create really a unique uh recreational opportunity.

So we appreciate the suggestion.