 We are live. Good morning and welcome to the June 22, 2021 meeting of the Durham Board of Adjustment. My name is Jacob Rogers. I'm the chair of the board. I'd like to start by acknowledging that we are conducting this meeting using a remote electronic platform as permitted by session law 2020-3. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina General Statutes and the city's unified development ordinance. The board typically conducts evidentiary hearings on requests for variances, special use permits, among other requests. Today's meeting will proceed much like an in-person meeting of the board. On the screen you'll see members of the BOA, additionally planning staff and representatives from the city and county's attorneys offices are attending in the remote meeting. Applicants, proponents and opponents were required to register in advance and also attend in the meet remote meeting. When a case is called for its hearing, speakers will be promoted within the platform so their video can be seen. I will swear in applicants and witnesses at the beginning of each case. Staff will present each case and applicants will then provide their evidence. Control of the presentation and screen sharing will remain with planning staff. Today's meeting is being broadcast live on the city's YouTube site and a link to this broadcast is on the website for the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin the evidentiary hearings on today's agenda, I'd like to provide some important information about the steps taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this remote platform. Each applicant on today's agenda was notified that this meeting will be conducting using a remote electronic platform. During registration, every applicant on today's agenda consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that participants in the hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. There's any objection to a matter proceeding in this platform. The case will be continued. To notice of today's meeting was provided by publishing notice in the newspaper mailed to property owners within 600 feet of subject properties, posting a sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mail notices for today's meetings contain information how the public can access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. These notices also contain information about the registration requirement for the meeting, along with information about how to register. All individuals participating in today's hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit or other material that they wish to submit at the hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted on the Board of Adjustment website as part of the agenda. No new documents will be submitted today during today's meeting. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the Durham Superior Court. Anyone in the audience other than the applicant who wishes to receive a copy of the formal order issued by this board on a particular case must submit a written request for a copy of this order. It's good to see you all. And are there any, well, first of all, would Susan, would you like to call the roll? Yes. Jacob Rogers. I'm here. Chad Meadows. Here. Micah Micah Jeter. Here. Ian Kip. Here. Michael Retzlis. Here. Tisha Waimour. Here. Jessica Major. Here. Michael Tarrant. Here. Natalie Bichain. Here. All right. Thank you. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? Good morning, everyone that lives on the road with the Plain Department staff here. There is one adjustment to the agenda case B2100026 is being removed from this agenda and will be placed onto another one. Staff does not have the exact date at this time, but please note that we'll be sure to notify the same way as we did before. So that means new letters as well as new Herald Sun posting at that time. Thank you, Eliza. Our next item on the agenda is the approval from the May 25th meeting. Trust everybody's had a chance to review those, but is there a motion to approve? That is move approval. All right. Anybody want to second that one? Retchals second. Retrus on the second. Susan. Okay. And Jessica Major is the designated alternate. So what I called her for the approval of the minutes. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Retchals. Yes. Ms. Wamor. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Ms. Jeter. I don't know if I was here. So would I say yes? Yes. Oh, okay. Yes. If you can and Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. All right, we get the that stuff out of the way we've got a full agenda today. Let's go ahead and you're the first case Susan, you want to take it away? Case B 21 000018 a request for a variance from the maximum fence height to allow a height of six feet along the street frontage. The subject site is located at 51 31 Granddale Drive is zoned residential suburban and in the suburban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time. Property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And to verify the seating for this case, it is Miss Major, Miss Jeter, Miss Wamor, Mr. Retchals, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows and Mr. Kip. All right. Good deal. Cole, is this one yours? It is three extra applicants in an hour. Yeah, we do need to do that. Let's put those folks in here. I've done this before guys, I promise. All right. If you plan on giving testimony on this one today, we'll need your camera on if we can to administer to go. Let's get you some planning department. I don't believe Sarah Ramzen has camera controls, but they are able to speak. Can you confirm that? Yes. Can you guys hear us okay? Yep. I can hear you. All right. So what we need to do is Before before you, before you, Zara, is your husband on with you as well? Yes, we're both here. Okay. Can you speak too so we can verify that he's there? Yep, I'm here, Cole. Okay. That's very true. All right. We'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony today will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. We'll need to hear from him as well. Oh, we said it at the same time. Oh, that's sorry. Yeah. And then also needed two separate verifications. Do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes. Yeah. All right. Thank you guys. Cole, you can take it from here. Okay. Good morning. I'm Cole Reniger representing the planning department. Planning your staff request that the staff for all materials submitted the public hearing to be made a public record within any necessary corrections as noted. So noted, thank you. Phase B, 21-0-0-0-1-18-18, sorry, request for variance from the requirements of fence height can only be up to four feet along the street frontage. Um, Granddale Drive, um, the applicant said wishes to place a six foot fence. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is in the suburban tier. Residential Suburban R.S. Hands-Onia District is in with the city of Durham jurisdiction. The existing use is a single family residence. Um, Telly Lewis, applicant and co-owner requested variance from the requirements of the fence height can only be up to four feet along the street. Wishes to instead place a six foot fence for unified development ordinance section 9.9.1.A, maximum height along the street frontage in the suburban tier is four feet. Staff will be available for any questions as needed during the process. And, um, the applicant has provided a presentation that I will now share. All right. Chad, do you have a question? I do. Thank you. Thank you, Jacob. And good morning, Cole. First off, I wanted to mention that I really, really appreciated the slide show that the applicant has submitted as part of this case. It was very helpful to see the kind of fencing that was proposed. It was also very helpful to see the anticipated location of the fencing on slide seven of their 16 slide presentation. So that was very, very helpful. I have three questions for staff. Um, staff, I've been looking at, um, section 9.9.1B. Um, and if I read that correctly, it says the fence must be four feet tall, uh, or have a maximum height of four feet anywhere between the, the lot line shared with the street and a point 50 feet inwards of the lot line. So it's not, um, that the, that the fence could be taller than four feet if it was behind the front facade plane of the structure. It's, it's anywhere within that, uh, initial 50 feet inwards from the, from the lot line. Is that accurate? That is correct, except when it comes to, like, if it's a side lot, like corner lot, um, where there's a that there is like street on two, that, that seems to be corner lot. It is 50 feet in, but it changes a little bit based on that. Okay. Okay. But you're correct. It could go in 50 feet at any height. Okay. Um, good. Thank you. Thank you. Um, my second question is, um, with respect to the purpose for that, um, that requirement that, you know, a fence that's, you know, within 50 feet of the front lot line have a, have a height of four feet. What, what is the, what is the stated purpose for, for that requirement? So the state of purpose is that it's nearly, if you're in a four, if you have a four foot or higher than four feet in your front yard, um, it's gonna, they feel like it's gonna, um, especially on corner lots, it's gonna, um, reduce the visibility of your turning, um, on intersections and right of way, or if you're a neighbor and someone has a four foot fence in the front of the yard, but it's still beside your tentacle, but it's blocking their view to my other driveway. I see. That's the only, the intent of the restrictions there. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So the purpose of that is just to make, maintain visibility along the right of way. Okay. Um, and one last question for you so that, so that I understand. Um, as I recall in past cases, when we have seen fences that include vehicular gates associated with them, there is a stacking space requirement, um, between, uh, the gate and I believe it's the lot line or is it the right of way line? Uh, and so I, I'm just curious about how that's been interpreted in the past with respect to the stacking space for the vehicle in front of the gate. Can that happen in the right of way or does that need to happen on the lot line? So stacking spaces do not, um, apply to single family residences. Okay. So if they had a gate that, um, if there's a gate blocking the driveway or, or limiting access to the driveway, there's no requirement for a vehicle to be, um, have a place to be parked outside of the right of way. All right. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Uh, any other questions for called before we continue? Shuffling through here. All right. Um, let's hear from the applicant. Hi, everyone. Uh, you can hear us. Okay. Correct. Hi. Can hear you. Okay. Excellent. Uh, well, thanks again for meeting with us this month. Um, at the starting point, I guess, uh, Cole, if you want to just kick in slide one. Yeah, I believe it's sharing. Can everyone see it or? Um, I still see this here. Okay. Hold on. Sorry about that, Van. I'll, I'll reshare. I shared it. There we go. Is that it? Everyone see it? Yep. I can see it now. Um, so we just wanted to kick off by, um, reiterating the intent of the unified development ordinance, which is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Durham City and Durham County. Um, and if we go over to the next slide, we just wanted to point out several of the concerns that we had pertaining to our health, safety and general welfare. Which is what's leading us to come to you guys today. I can't see the next slide, Cole. Just, just, um, let me know when you're ready to switch and I'm going to hand it to you. Yep. No problem. I can see it now. Um, so last month, uh, we submitted crime statistics for the neighborhood, a video of trespassers on our property, and we've also included this month a letter from our next door neighbor, Ms. Gloria, dated January 22nd of this year to the mayor of Durham, as well as to our city council member, Mark Anthony Middleton. And in that letter, Ms. Gloria validated much of what we discussed last month, including our strong concerns regarding crime, ongoing trespassing to our properties, and slow police response times. Ms. Gloria has been kind enough to take the time out of her schedule this morning to appear at today's session. I hope she was able to dial in okay, but she did voice her concern, voiced her support for our fence variance. Um, and if you recall last month, we also submitted photos of vandalism to our property on two separate occasions last year alone. Several videos of heavy traffic on Granddale Drive, a video of a loose dog across the street, and this month we even added additional videos of multiple deer on our property, which is a common occurrence. Next slide, Cole. In lieu of having to watch an entire video of deer on our property, we submitted just a quick snapshot of just twice where this has happened in the last month alone that we were able to capture in our cameras. While we have no issues with animals or mother nature, trust us, we love them. We're just not comfortable having, you know, wild animals on our property so frequently, and we're hopeful that the six foot fence would help deter this as well. Next slide, please. In terms of our hardship, we have a uniquely shaped triangle lot with majority of our parcel on the side and frontage road, which faces Granddale Drive. The heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic along Granddale Drive, which is a state road, impacts us quite a bit as our home is only one of three and the settlers no subdivision that faces Granddale Drive. The placement of our home with its frontage road facing such a busy state road certainly puts us at greater risk of harm, and we're hopeful again that the six foot fence will help reduce that. Next slide, please. We talked about some of this as we kicked off earlier, but we just wanted to highlight that for fences in our zone, there's no special, no minor special use permit required. There are no setback requirements for fences. There are no stacking requirements for our fences. We don't belong to any kind of an HOA, so there's no restrictions along those lines. The only thing that we have had to pay attention to has been the site triangle, and so although there aren't any stacking or setback requirements, we will be pacing our fence on our property, which is 30 feet from the street, and we've certainly taken into consideration and ensured that the fence would be within the site triangle distance requirements for corner lots, which is 25 feet. Next slide, please. So the reason that we're back here today is that some members of the board wanted to really see a plan, and so what we've done is we've illustrated over the next couple of slides, you know, what the fence will look like, as well as the planning and due diligence that we've conducted ourselves over the past several months. Next slide, please. So here's an image of our fence plan. The green shading illustrates our property, and the black line at the front illustrates the six foot aluminum fence that we want to have installed. Again, there are no setback requirements or stacking requirements, and our gate and our driveway will be facing inwards towards the house. The fence will also be past the 25 foot site triangle requirements, and you can see the image on the left corner of the home, which shows the site triangle distance that was already measured several months ago. Next slide, please. So the left side of this slide shows an image of the fence that we're trying to install. The top left image shows the six foot aluminum fence with pickets placed three and seven inches apart, which will line the frontage road along Granddale Drive. The height, spacing, and material defense would help deter scaling and improve the safety and security of us, as well as the community, as we have pets as well. And even though we didn't need to include it, we did include an image of the six foot white vinyl fence, which is going to line the back and side of our property. And last month, there were some questions around what really is the difference in the impact between a four foot fence and a six foot fence. And so we wanted to just put an image here, just as an illustration, whereby you can see that with a four foot fence, you can hop over that, but with a six foot fence, you really have to scale it. And so we're hopeful that this image helps kind of reiterate why we would feel more safe with a six foot fence versus a four foot fence. Cole, if you can click over to the next slide. And so we did a great deal of planning leading up to this meeting. And we wanted to point out that we met with and emailed several representatives from the city of Durham over the past, over the past couple of months, actually between October last year and May of this year, to confirm Durham ordinances regarding our fence placement, setback, lines and site triangle rules. We also ordered our materials, which are still on hold back in February, and took the extra measure to conduct our own property survey to confirm lot lines back in April. Next slide, please. All right. So here, this image shows the street directly across our home. And as you can see, it's lined with six foot wood fences, which are approximately 28 feet from Granddale Drive. As a reminder, our fence would be black aluminum, and it would start at 30 feet from Granddale Drive. So we feel as though it wouldn't necessarily have much of an impact on the neighborhood except to really improve the aesthetics since the fence itself is of a much higher quality. And it's quite durable. Next slide, please. And so there were also questions last month around, you know, how sort of most homes have fences that are located behind the home as opposed to around the perimeter. So we just wanted to show you a couple of homes around our neighborhood where there are six foot fences that surround the perimeter of the home, just like what we intend to do. This one actually shows a chain link fence. If you go over to the next slide, Cole, you guys will be able to see a similar fence around the property. This one's more of a privacy fence that they put around the perimeter of their home. Next slide, Cole. This image was actually the inspiration for our fence, to be honest with you. You know, it's six foot black aluminum corner home. It's, you know, seems quite safe and secure. And it really makes the neighborhood look nice every time we try to buy it. And this is what we would imagine our fence structure would look like at the front of our home. And if you go down one more slide to the next image, this is also a similar property, which again has privacy fencing around the home and around the corner as well. So I just want to show that there are certainly homeowners in the neighborhood that, similar to us, do prefer having, you know, access to their entire yard and have surrounded the perimeter of their home with fencing as well. And there were some questions last month about, you know, have we considered what the alternative designs would be we have, and we don't feel that they're, you know, better. They're actually quite worse in design, but we wanted to kind of show you some of that. So Cole, if you can click over to the next slide, I think there's only two left. Great. So here you could see that someone has like a four foot fence around their home of privacy. And then there's also like all of these high trees. So the only alternative that we would have that would make us feel even slightly safer would be a four foot privacy fence with potentially like eight foot hedges along the inside, which is still legal. But again, it's just, as you can see, when there's high trees like that, it does reduce the visibility. And it's not as aesthetically pleasing. There's also another image or the last final slide here, similar to the last one, yep, right here, Cole, perfect. This is actually a nearby horse ranch, which is right on the same street, Granddale. And again, you can see that they've got the four feet fence in the back and all of these really high trees that line the streets. And again, even though, you know, this is legal, it's not as visually appealing. It's quite difficult to maintain. It certainly blocks the view. And it doesn't really ensure the safety and security of us as homeowners or the community when compared to the proposed design of the black aluminum fencing. So this is really everything that we wanted to show you guys and hopes that it will give you a little bit more comfort in knowing that we've certainly put a lot of planning going into this. And we we are really trying to make sure that this variance is in line with the intent of the ordinance just to keep our family safe and to keep our community safe. Thank you, Mrs. Ramson. We've got Ronald Antonelli on here now. Ronald, are you planning on speaking? You're on mute, sir. I know. Thank you. No, I will as needed. I think that the presentation does speak for itself, and I thought that was well presented. If there are questions that are more of a legal nature than I certainly can can assist and would be able to speak at that time. Just in case there are, we'll go ahead and swear you in doing the oath. If you don't mind raising your right hand, do you swear? Well, I don't know that that's appropriate in the legal proceeding for counsel to be sworn in if I am not presenting evidence of known facts. So I don't feel that that would be appropriate. Now, certainly I can be sworn to tell the truth, but I would be strictly addressing legal related issues. So if that is required, I'm happy to be sworn in, but just wanted to make that point. All right. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Well, I have no staff here. Mr. Wardell, did you want to chime in on that? Since Chris had to step away for a moment. Do we need Mr. Antonelli? Apologize to the pronunciation to swearing? No, he doesn't need to swear and he's not a witness. He is answering questions from the board with regard to potential legal issues that they may have a question on. Obviously, myself and Krista would be here to answer questions from the board on legal matters as well. So he doesn't need to be sworn in. All right. Any questions for the applicant? Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak against this application? All right. We'll bring it back to the board. Cole, will you stop sharing for a moment? Thank you. Discussion? Chad, you got your hand up. Dude, thank you, sir. I very much appreciate the work that the applicants put in on their presentation, providing detail about the location of the fence and providing some imagery of what the front fence proposal would be like. After asking the question of staff with respect to the 50-foot requirement for fence height, I find that the location of this site and its particular configuration is such that there is no easy way for them to accommodate a fence of four feet in height without that fence being well behind the rear property, rear facade plane, much less the front. So from that standpoint, I'm satisfied. Also, based on the imagery they've provided, the fence that would be adjacent to the street is semi-opaque. And if the purpose of the fence height standard is to ensure proper visibility, I believe personally that the semi-opaque fence does help preserve visibility and meets the spirit intent of the ordinance. So I intend to support this application. And again, appreciate the work that the applicants have put in. I feel that if we had this information when we considered this last month, I probably would have been able to support it. So thank you for providing it. And that's where I'm coming from on this one. Anyone else? Mr. Riches? Yeah, I have to agree with Chad. Mrs. Romsen, you did a great job. This is exactly what I was looking for as well. I'm in support of it. Thank you. Anyone else? I'll reiterate a couple of thoughts I had at the last meeting when I supported it then. I understand what an aluminum fence looks like before I had submitted pictures, as well as I know the difference between a four-foot fence and a six-foot fence. Also visited and drove by this property before our meeting last month. So I'm also aware, as we all should be, of the location of the property as well as a corner lot. I actually felt that today being continued was a waste of the applicant's time. But here we are and if there is a motion for approval, we'll hear it. I intend to support it. Motion for approval, Kip. I think we have to read it. Oh, wow. Okay, then I'm not really ready to read it. I will make the motion. Go ahead. I hereby make a motion that application number B210018 an application for a request for a variance from the maximum fence height to allow a height of six feet along the street frontage on property located at 5131 Grandale Drive has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion for approval by Mr. Meadows. Is there a second? Kip, second. Mr. Kip. All right, Susan, will you call everybody? Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Waimour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yeah. Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. I vote of seven to zero. Your request for a variance has been approved. We wish you the best of luck and thank you for your patience in coming back to the BOA this morning. Thanks so much and thanks for Ronald for coming in. Chair, we really do appreciate your kind words. It's been a rough month, but we're so glad that we're past this and we're excited about putting up the fence. So thanks, everyone. Well, I hope you have a good day. Thank you all. Have a good day. Susan, would you like to call the next one? Case B2100020. A request for a variance from the structured parking design standards and to exceed the maximum parking permitted. The subject site is located at 1417 West Pettigrew Street, is zone compact design support one and in the Ninth Street compact neighborhood tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time. Property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter melons are on file. And to confirm the seating for this case, it is Ms. Major, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Wanmore, Mr. Ratchles, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows, and Mr. Kip. All right. Thank you, Susan. Would everyone who plans on giving testimony on this, please turn your video on. I think we've got everybody. We'll need to do the oath. And if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I need an answer from each of these. Mr. Smith? Yes. Mr. Grogan? I do. Yes. Mr. Gush? I do, yeah. And do you each consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, I do. Yes. Yes, I do. Okay, got it. Thank you, guys. Eliza, this is yours. Yes, it is. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and screen share. Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm Eliza Monroe representing the Planning Department. Planning staff request that the staff report on all materials submitted at the public hearing be made part of the public record where the necessary corrections is noted. It's noted. Thank you. Thank you. This is going to seem a little bit like a repeat. We have heard a case very similar to this one in recent time. So I do apologize if it seems like a repeat, a little arbitrary, but I will try and point out the differences between what we've heard before and what we're hearing today. Case B2100020 is a request for variance from the structured parking design standards and to exceed the maximum parking permitted. The applicant is Morningstar Law Group and the subject site is located at 1417 West Pettigar Street. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is zoned at Compact Design Support 1 or a CDS-1 is in the 9th Street Compact Neighborhood Development Tier. The site is currently the location of a congregate limiting facility. As you can see, highlighted in red, we're going to be primarily focusing on this back corner of the site here where there is some existing parking. For section 10.3.1a of the Unified Development Ordinance, a congregate living facility is required to have one motor vehicle parking space per two units. In addition to one motor vehicle parking space for every four employees, the use on the property consists of 137 care units and the maximum of 147 employees on site at any given time. This will require a minimum of 106 motor vehicle parking spaces and within the CDS-1 zoning district and within 400 feet of the tier boundary as this parcel is parking can be reduced to 80% of the minimum requirement by right and must not exceed 100% of the amount required per UDO section 10.3.1b.1. The site currently has 104 parking spaces, but a total of 168 spaces is being proposed. The UDO section 10.3.1b.ae permits the applicant to exceed the maximum parking if the following design standards are met. One, the parking must be provided within a structured parking and two or more of the following standards must be met. At least 50% of the parking structure area is a green roof. A minimum of 15% of the total parking provided shall be made permanently accessible and all street-frenchage portions of the parking structure shall be constructed to allow conversion to interior usable space. Additionally, within UDO section 16.3.2a, which is applicable to this site given its location within a compact neighborhood in the design district area, it states that parking shall not be exposed on the ground floor of structured parking and must utilize a frontage type pursuant to UDO 16.3.1. The ground floor or flintage along the right-of-way shall only be used as other than parking, which is if you go downtown often times will have a commercial out-facing use, but there might be parking right behind it. The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum parking permitted without meeting all of those design standards mentioned in UDO section 10.3.1b.ae and 16.3.2a due to an expressed need that they've noted here with some photos as well as their testimony for additional parking giving the amount of off-street parking that occurs in this area, particularly around to their site and the need for some additional parking for employees. UDO section 16.3.14.a establishes the four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance and these findings requiring approval identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet and staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. There were some documents received by the applicant, some updated documents, which are going to be these here in front of you, so showing some of the changes that they're proposing. We did hear this case back in March, so this probably is seeming like deja vu to some of our board members. This is a completely separate case, so this will be, I didn't want to talk too much about March as this is a completely different case number. It will need any motion, all that jazz, but there are some changes and those changes are the ones that we see ahead of you with this proposed design as well as these upper-level and lower-level deck designs, which the applicant will probably go into further details about the changes that they're proposing in order to be a little bit closer to the requirements. Thank you, Eliza. Are there any questions for Eliza? Sifting through here, I don't see any. Well, thank you. Mr. Gosh, you want to take it from here. Absolutely, and thank you. Thank you, Ms. Monroe, for your presentation. Good morning, Chair Rogers, Vice Chair Meadows, and members of the Board of Adjustment. My name is Neil Gosh. I am an attorney at the Morning Star Law Group at 112 West Main Street here in Durham. You all have seen this case or a case very much like this one before, so you might recall that we are requesting a variance from certain standards related to exceeding the parking ratio. We have a few folks on the line with us today. Mr. Richard Grogan with RGG Architects with us, but our first speaker will be Mr. Linwood Smith, who is the president of the Hillcrest Convalescent Center. So, Mr. Smith. Good morning. My name is Linwood Smith, Jr. I serve as president of Hillcrest Convalescent Center, a family-owned business founded in 1951 by my grandmother. Hillcrest's goal is to provide elegant care to our residents, taking care of them as if each were a member of our own family. And I mean that literally, three out of the four of the previous generation of owners spent their last days at Hillcrest. Over the years, we've made many improvements to our facility, but right now we have a parking problem adjacent to our facility which congests West Pettigrew and Poe Streets. During business hours, it is common to see Pettigrew choked with parked cars outside of Hillcrest, leaving a very narrow passage on what is supposed to be a two-lane road. We feel that this on-street parking situation is not only unsightly and inconvenient to our employees and visitors, but also it is not safe. It is for these reasons that we seek to commit Hillcrest resources on a parking facility. I'd like to discuss for a moment why the usual parking ratio for nursing homes does not work well at Hillcrest. We have a shift change for our team members in patient care twice a day during regular business hours in order to provide uninterrupted continuous care both the incoming and outgoing team members are present in the building at the same time during shift change. This means our team members' cars from both shifts are parked at the same time. Shift change occurs three times per day, seven days per week, which requires reliable parking, and that's just our patient care staff. In addition, we have administrative personnel and, of course, family and friends who visit our residents. A lot of the visitors are old and fragile too, and Hillcrest very much would like to provide safe parking for our patrons. Finally, the current congestion on Pettigrew caused by folks parking there can make it difficult for transport vans and emergency vehicles to access our site. Due to the growth of our business, we just do not have adequate parking on our site, and the public road system is impacted as a result. The leadership at Hillcrest feel that the two-level parking terrace nestled into the existing ground contours, which we present to the Board of Adjustment today, is an improvement over the status quo for parking on Pettigrew and Post streets. It is safer for our team members and visitors. It is modest, and it will be attractive. Although the proposed facility is not strictly compliant with the UDO, we seek to meet the city halfway to address the need for parking in this area. I will turn the presentation back over to our attorney to explain our request and the reasons for it. Thank you, Mr. Smith. And for the record, again, this is Neil Gauch, attorney for the applicant speaking again. I thought it might be helpful for me to first explain what the UDO requires in this instance. By right, UDO allows one to exceed the parking ratio if certain standards are met. Within design district zoning, which this property has, additional parking must be provided within a structure. Not only that, but the parking structure must include at least two of three mitigations. And I want to go through those one at a time to explain either how we are meeting that mitigation or why a variance is needed from it. The first mitigation is that at least 50% of the parking structure roof must be a green roof. We do need a variance from this provision, but we are proposing an alternate form of compliance. The reason we need a variance is because our parking facility is not a traditional multi-story parking deck. In fact, while this is a two-level structure, there is not a ramp from the lower level to the upper level. The other thing this facility does not have is a roof, which explains why we cannot meet the standard and therefore need a variance. So as an alternate form of compliance, we are proposing a green wall. You can see an example of what we are talking about in the exhibits included with your agenda package. We believe this meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the green roof mitigation. The second mitigation is that a minimum of 15% of the total parking provided must be made permanently publicly accessible. We do not need a variance from this provision because we will meet the standard. Either through signage or restricted access, 15% of the additional spaces will be permanently publicly accessible. This means that a limited number of spaces will be made publicly accessible to folks who do not intend to visit Hillcrest. We hope that this will help alleviate some of the on-street parking that currently goes on by drivers who are not visiting Hillcrest. So we do meet this standard. The third mitigation option is to make all street frontage portions of the parking structure convertible to interior usable space. This mitigation is related to another UDO requirement applicable to all structured parking within any design district. In all design districts, the ground floor frontage of parking structures along rights of way can only be used for uses that are not parking. Basically, the UDO requires commercial uses on the ground floor, which results in the parking on the first floor being hidden from view. We do need a complete variance from these standards. Firstly, in order to comply with these standards on this small site, we either would lose most of the additional parking we seek to create, or we would have to build a really tall, more traditional parking deck. The UDO requirements related to structured parking are written to address large, mixed-use development rather than to accommodate smaller scale uses like Hillcrest. So while Hillcrest does have a need for additional parking, it does not have a need for a full-on parking deck, which is why variances need it. Moreover, this is not a revenue-producing project for Hillcrest as is. So going bigger in order to comply with the UDO is not really an option. Additionally, Hillcrest is not really a downtown location. Sure, it is within a compact neighborhood tier, but it is between the freeway and the railroad track. In that sense, it is courted off from the walkability that the rest of downtown enjoys. It is difficult to imagine a worse downtown location for retail or similar uses than this. Trick compliance with the UDO would likely result in the creation of unmarketable heated space, the very definition of waste. But with the variance we are requesting, we will be meeting the intent of the ordinance overall. While we are not technically able to comply with the green roof standard, we will be providing a green element on the walls. We also meet the publicly accessible parking requirement without any variance. So the project does provide, in a sense, two of the three prescribed mitigations, which is what the UDO ultimately asked for. The hardship in this case is not the result of any action taken by the applicant. Though the current zoning on the property was approved through a 2012 rezoning, the city was the applicant for the rezoning and Hillcrest publicly opposed it. Now, the zoning on the property prevents Hillcrest from providing adequate on-site parking in a reasonable manner. So we are seeking a variance to address the parking issue and granting the variance will help achieve substantial justice. Hillcrest should not be prevented from providing parking based on zoning it did not request. Moreover, by providing additional parking, the city also benefits because of the addition of public parking and potentially the alleviation of ill-advised on-street parking that already occurs. For those reasons, we believe the project meets the criteria for your approval. Aside from that, this should be something which the city should be happy to have as parking downtown continues to get more congested. If now is the appropriate time, Chair Rogers, I would ask that all materials wide upon by the witnesses, including the staff report, our exhibits, and our application materials be entered into evidence and made a part of the record for this hearing. We thank you for your time and ask for your approval so that Hillcrest may carry out this important project. We are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Ghosh. Are there any questions for the applicant? Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Ghosh, for continuing to work on this project and continuing to be open to revision to meet the requirements. I understand the conditions and the past history on the site, and I appreciate your efforts in trying to comply with the standards. My question is this, the green roof portion of the site, could you go into a little bit more detail about the alternative compliance that you're suggesting and how this alternative compliance is something that should be considered, should pass muster? Yeah, absolutely. And thank you for the question. I should first say that we did indicate to staff that this was something we would be considering. So this exhibit that's up, I think is the perfect one to demonstrate what we're talking about. So this, unlike most parking decks or regular parking decks, this structure does not have a real roof. I mean you can see there's a section, if you're looking at the very top profile, there's a section that's kind of elevated above. That's really the only roof. And that's not what the green roof section is, or green roof mitigation is meant to talk about. It's usually the very top of a large structure where there might be the elevator, mast head, that kind of thing. That's what the UDO typically would consider as an area appropriate for a green roof. And the other thing that we talked about with staff is there really isn't a standard in the UDO for what qualifies as a green roof. So in talking about that, what we asked, what is the point of it? Because we can provide and are willing to provide a green element. And our understanding is that that requirement or that mitigation, the idea behind it is to kind of soften the impact of an otherwise monolithic structure. And actually, in a sense, I think the green wall, at least in my opinion, is actually a better way to do that because visually, it's something people actually will see from the ground as opposed to a green roof on a tall parking deck, which you might only see from a taller building down the street or something like that. This is something that when those drive by, they'll be able to see the green element, which will soften the appearance of the parking structure itself. And I think it's an interesting way to do this. It's our attempt to provide an alternate form of compliance. And it's something that I think is fairly innovative, which I think staff was at least supportive of and maybe even excited to see. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Ritchells? Yes. My problem last time was definitely the green roof issue and the design of the structure. Can you also expand on what you're planting there and what that's going to look like and how you're going to maintain it? Everything looks good on paper, but following through on that is another task. Absolutely. So let me touch on that. The first thing to know is that Hillcrest, I don't know if you've ever been to a facility or been by the facility, but Hillcrest takes great pride in the way that their facility looks. And in fact, they have a regular landscape contractor that is coming to Hillcrest. I don't want to say it incorrectly, but I believe it's at least once a week. I'm looking at Mr. Smith to see if I'm that right about once a week. That's when the landscape contractor is coming the frequency with which the landscape contractor visits Hillcrest. Anyway, the way that we imagine implementing this is I will say either one or both of two ways. So one way is that it'll be kind of a creeping plant, what it would be specifically, I don't know, but essentially installing a grid system along the wall to allow, let's call it vines, although I don't know exactly, I'm not a botanist, so I couldn't tell you exactly the plan. But you know what I'm saying, vines that will creep up the grid system and which will be maintained on a regular basis to trim them back so it doesn't look unsightly, but that grid system would allow for both the vertical creep and the horizontal creep. The other way to do it, there wasn't another exhibit that shows the top floor of the parking structure. You can see that there's some planting areas there. So those planting areas are part of the design. And so there will be plants there, but that can also be the point from which the plants start. So they could come up over the top of the parking deck and creep down. And that would be another way to do it. And so like I said, it could be one or both of those options. The way we would implement this, I think the grid system helps control that growth up or down the side of the wall. And then with the landscape contract that they have going, this will be an additional main item. You're correct about that, but it is something that Hillcrest would maintain on a regular basis through their current landscaping contractor. Thank you. I took the, I'm sorry. Sorry. Our landscaping contractor visits the site once a week and keeps it very nice. Thank you. Yeah, I took a drive last weekend through that whole area. And I think this makes a big change in the appearance and kind of fits more harmoniously in that area. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? This is Chad. I have one more. That's okay, sir. Absolutely. Mr. Gersh, I have one more question for you. And it relates to the, if we could go back to the elevations. Thank you. So in looking at the elevations, it looks like the areas sort of in between the green columns, if you will, I'm not an architect. So forgive my layperson explanation, but those appear to be openings in the structure. Is that, is that right? Yeah, finished. That is correct. Okay. So is there going to be any sort of screening or how will you be complying with 1632B6 that says opening shall be screened with material that is at least 60% opaque? So that still is a requirement. And it'll be, I don't know how it'll be complied with. That is the demonstration and you're correct that there is being acquired. But, but even in parking decks where there is you know, open elements like this, there's screen, there's a screen material. I don't exactly know what it is. Wood, and I'm asking you to speculate, but I'll just go ahead and ask you had mentioned that the possibility of maybe some draping vegetation that conceivably might grow down downwards. I don't know if that would qualify towards some or all of the 60% opaque screening requirement for those openings or not. But I mean, what are your thoughts about that? Well, that's interesting. I will say I don't think that we were intending for the greenery to be required a screening for that demonstration, but there would be screening for the demonstration as is required under the UDF. It's usually like a, I don't know how, like a metal mesh. Okay. Thank you. A last minute from staff. I just want to chime in on that note too. So it is, that is the correct assumption screening is required during the site plane review. That would be something that would have to be checked to ensure. And it's usually a decorative screening. If you could imagine the newest parking deck downtown that has the like painted screen, kind of, you can see through a little bit, but it's like a metal mesh really. So it's usually a decorative type screening. If you're looking at the newest parking deck in downtown, near city hall. So that would be required. And then the landscaping, if approved, would be in addition to that. But that would be checked off by staff during the site plane review that there's a certain amount of screening that meets the past year requirement. Any other questions for the applicant? Going through here. Sorry. I'll just speak up. I may not see a hand. All right. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application? I just, can I just touch on, I don't know if Richard from our group wanted to say anything, but I want to make sure that they join us. Richard, did you have anything to add? No, I think everybody's done a good job of presenting. And the grid that you were referring to is basically a trellis type structure that would be kind of a system of steel and stainless steel cables, et cetera. But it would be an attractive addition to the deck, we believe. So, and the screening would be incorporated into that. Great. Thank you, Chair Rogers. Is there anyone here to speak against this application? There was no one that signed up to speak in opposition of the case, Chair Rogers. Okay, thank you. Just any final questions for the applicant before we go into deliberations? All right. Eliza, would you mind? Thank you. Any thoughts that anyone would like to share? Mr. Retchels. Yeah, after driving, kind of drove that whole area last weekend. And you know, the three factors, the issues being the, you know, the first floor being a commercial roof or retail, it's definitely not going to fit in that area. I hate designing anything. So, but I am in agreement with the wall of greenery in the roof. I think they're doing everything they can to make this work. And I believe it's more harmonious now and I'll support it. Sorry about that. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? What do you anybody like to offer a motion? I'm prepared to make a motion. Mr. Kitt. I hear I make a motion that application number B2111, I'm sorry, B2100020, a request for a variance from the structured parking design standards and to exceed the maximum parking permitted on property located in 1417 West Patigrew Street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of this application. Got a motion for approval by Mr. Kipp. Is there a second? Retchels second. Second by Mr. Retchels. Susan, would you call everyone? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kipp. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Waimour. Yes. Mr. Retchless. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. By vote of seven to zero, your request for a variance has been approved. We wish you the best of luck and thank you for coming for the BOA this morning. Thank you. All right. I guess we're ready for the next case. Susan, would you like to call? Yes. B2100021, a request for a variance from the requirement that a sidewalk be provided on both sides of the street. The subject site is located at 1236 Terry Road is zoned rule residential in the Eno River watershed protection overlay and in the rule in suburban tears. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter melons are on file and the seating for this case will be Ms. Major, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Waimour, Mr. Retchless, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows, and Mr. Kipp. All right. Thank you, Susan. Sorry, you got something, Chris? This is Chris Peterson playing in the department. We think we might have a few individuals on the phone who may be trying to attend this hearing as well. Do you mind if we do still a call out to the individuals on the phone? If you're on the phone and you wish to speak or attend this, keep us star nine on your dial pad so that we know that you are intending on joining this case. Once again, that's star nine to raise your hand. Since we see that your register for case B2121, do you intend on joining this case as well? Yes. I'm sorry. Is this B21 at the end? Yes. Yes. No one on the phone is... It looks like there's someone saying that she's trying to get in, Ms. Evelyn Holt Fuller in the chat box. I believe that may be everyone. If you were missed over, just use either star nine on the phone or use the raise hand button and we'll get you into the meeting. Thank you very much. Sorry for the interruption. Anyone who plans on giving testimony or speaking in this case will need to have your video on if at all possible to administer the O. So I'm looking at Lucinda Evelyn and Walter. Walter, you have your hand up. Yeah, I just... I couldn't figure out how to turn my camera on. Oh, got it. Got it. All right. And Evelyn says her video camera won't work. All right, so this neat time will need everyone to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? And I'll call on each one of you as we go through here. Walter? I do. Don. I do. Lucinda. I do. Evelyn. I do. Patrick. I think that's everyone. I'll also need to go through here and ask if you consent to this remote meeting platform. I'll need an answer from each of you. So go start with Walter. Sorry, what is that? Do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. Don. Yes. Lucinda. Yes. Evelyn. Yes. Patrick. Yes. All right. Thank you. All right. Trying to see who has this one. Me. Oh, cool. I was looking around for you. Sorry, sir. Okay. Good morning, Dan. I'm a coordinator or coordinator for everything in the planning department. Planning staff requested that all materials submitted public hearings be made part of the public record for the necessary corrections as noted. Thank you, sir. Yes, so noted. KB 21-0021 is a request for a variance from the department that sidewalk must be provided on both sides of the street. The context area is highlighted in red. This site is rural residential zoning district in the rural and suburban development tier. The property is within the county of Durham. The existing use is vacant residential. And then Lindsey Krenchman, sorry, wrong case. Walter, Walterville, an applicant representing Highland Park Properties LLC request a variance from the requirement that sidewalks must be placed on both sides of the street in the portion of the project that is the suburban tier. The site is on rural residential and is in the rural and suburban development tiers. Pre-unified development ordinance 12.4.2. Sidewall must be provided on developments along both sides of the street, private or public, outside the rural tier. A portion of the proposed development is located in the suburban tier and must provide sidewalk as noted above. The applicant proposed the provision of sidewalk on only the northern side of Terry and Skateboard Roads. They also proposed no sidewalk through the cemetery existing east to end of the property. The applicant argues that sidewalks on both sides of the roads would require encroachment into a stream buffer and into a private cemetery which is on site here. This sheet on UDO section 3.14.8 establishes the fines list of load. The board must have made regarding the variance. Staff would be available for any questions as needed during the presentation. Thank you, Cole. Chad, you've got a question? Dude, thank you, sir. Hi, Cole. A couple of questions for you. Does the Terry Road right-of-way exist as it's shown in the plan? So as of right now, there is no actual road there. There is like a dirt path type road that's there, but no paved road. Is it platted in that location or is there flexibility in terms of the alignment of the roadway? Right now there is a site plan that is not approved yet. There could be redesign before that's approved. It's not plowed that way yet, but the site plan does show roads proposed there, but it could redesign the roads too. Okay. Second question, does the state permit sidewalks in a riparian area? So the state does actually permit it with mitigation. So it is allowed but with mitigation. Last question, can Scaly Bark, I guess I hope that's the right name. I think that's Scaly Bark, I think is the one that they're suggesting be realigned. I understand that the road stubs to I guess it's the east, can Scaly Bark be realigned without causing the creation of non-conforming lots for number 71, 72, 73, and 74? So I believe... Those are the four northern lots above Scaly Bark, north of the cemetery. I see what you're saying. I think, are you saying could they be... Yeah, could Scaly Bark be realigned without negatively impacting, without creating non-conformities on those proposed four lots? What's the minimum lot area? Or is... Well, Scaly Bark is also already existing. It's already existing. The stub is, but the segment from the lot line to where it connects with Terry does not exist. Is that right? That's correct. The Terry part is not exist. Let me look at the... Sorry, let me look at the minimum lot area. I believe it's 40,000 square feet, but I need to check the picture. Okay, perhaps we can move on and... Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. All right, any other questions for Cole before we continue? Would the applicant come forward? Yes. Good morning, Chairman Rogers. Can you hear me okay? Gotcha. Okay. Cole or Eliza, would you be so kind as to bring up the powerpoint that we turned in for this presentation? What it is, I got to share with you. Thank you. Well, thank you. Again, good morning Chairman Rogers, members of the board. My name is Patrick Beiker. I'm with Morningstar Law Group. Our office address is 112 West Main Street here in Durham. At this time, Chairman Rogers, we'd like to have my resume, as well as the resume of Don Sever, our site engineer with Summit and a duly qualified expert witness, along with the resume of Walter Vila, the property owner and a real estate developer with over 20 years of experience. We'd like to have those exhibits admitted into evidence as exhibits A, B, and C. All right. Exhibit A, list my experience and qualifications. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, I attended UNC Chapel Hill and obtained a law degree and a master's degree in city and regional planning. I have over 25 years working on development projects primarily in Durham, but across North Carolina. I also am a lead accredited professional and have enjoyed presenting to this board on many occasions. In preparing to testify this morning, I've reviewed all these submitted materials, including the application, the site plan. I've worked diligently with our team on the conservation subdivision for this assemblage. Also reviewed the staff report and its attachments. The site does contain over 95 acres. I personally visited the site, walked the site, and prepared to testify regarding the conditions that warrant the board granting the variance requested this morning. In regards of our order of presentation, I will address finding number one, and then Don Sever and Walter Vila will provide competent material and substantial evidence on findings one, two, and three as well. And then I will conclude our presentation by addressing finding number four. Could you go to the second slide please? Again, this is the site we're talking about. Highland Park under Walter Vila's leadership seeks to construct new single-family homes pursuant to a conservation subdivision. Due to the UDO requirements under section 12.4.2 that sidewalks are required on both sides for all streets in the suburban tier, we are seeking a variance to provide sidewalk only on one side of the street along the north side of Terry Road, so that we would not have to ride on the south side of Terry Road where it would go through a stream buffer. We also do not wish to install a sidewalk over an existing cemetery. For the following reasons, I think these variances are justified in accordance with four UDO findings. I will address finding number one. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. Could we please go to the third slide? Here you can see the relationship of the proposed of the required sidewalk and the stream buffer. Excuse me. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. First, it would require Highland Park to violate the UDO's requirements to preserve stream buffers for 50 feet. I'm old enough though when I started my career in Durham, stream buffers were actually not required back in the 90s. Those came in later on. I personally walked from the stream bed to the edge of the existing gravel road. I wish to emphasize for the board that this is an existing two-lane gravel road that has been in existence for 20 years. It would be the definition of an unreasonable hardship to relocate that road bed to accommodate a sidewalk going across adjacent to a stream buffer when it's clearly not necessary. All the house lots are on the other side of Terry Road. Obviously, because of the stream buffer, there are no house lots on the south side of Terry Road. Accordingly, for that reason, it is an unnecessary hardship to relocate Terry Road and install a sidewalk where, quite frankly, no one would ever use it. Terry Road, as I mentioned, was constructed about 20 years ago. I also want to emphasize that the cemetery that's on site was began probably 75 to 100 years ago. It's an unreasonable hardship to relocate the cemetery or to relocate the intersection of the proposed new road to Scaly Bar given the existing stub-out condition that's there on the ground today. For those reasons, I submit this as an unnecessary hardship and now I'll turn it over to Don Sever for his testimony on findings one and two. Don? Good morning. My name is Don Sever. I'm Senior Project Manager and I'm with Summit Design and Engineering Services. Address is 1110... Could you go back to the private? Keep it at that slide, please. Thank you. Our company addresses 1110 Navo Drive from Raleigh, North Carolina. Exhibit B to list my experience and qualifications, which I'll go through briefly. I'm a registered professional engineer practicing in North Carolina for the past 20 years. My education includes a bachelor of science degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1990, master of science in civil engineering and public works administration in 1984. I was brought in to prepare our site due diligence research to our engineering team and prepare the variance application that we submitted to the planning department on behalf of Island Park. In preparing to testify for this public hearing, I reviewed all the submitted materials including the application, site plan, staff report and its attachments. In regard to the unreasonable hardship these results from the strict application of the ordinance, I wish to add to Patrick's testimony based on my experiences as a professional engineer. Over the last 20 years or so, I've designed many projects in the trying to and I can't recall any project where a sidewalk was required in a stream buffer parallel to the stream, since that essentially defeats the environmental benefits derived from the stream buffers. Accordingly, it would be an unnecessary hardship to relocate Terry Road in order to accommodate a sidewalk, which serves no purpose since there are no house lots on this side of Terry Road anyway. I will now address the second finding required in UDO section 3.14.8 that the hardship results for the conditions that are peculiar to the property. First to amplify what Patrick said is a peculiar condition to have a stream within 50 feet of Cherry Road and a cemetery adjacent to Scalybark Road. Both of these conditions are hardships that are peculiar to this property. In addition, the rural residential zoning district that applies to this large assembly is a peculiar condition since the assembly should split between the rural and suburban tiers. And that is a condition peculiar to this property as well. If the entire site were in the rural tier, then no sidewalks would be required at all. I will now turn it over to Walt Beley, our lead developer and property owner designer to address finding number three. Actually, now could you flip to the last slide? Thank you. Good morning. My name is Walter Beley. I represent the current owner. Exhibit C lists my experience and qualifications, which I'll go through briefly. I graduated from the University of Florida 1998 to degree in civil engineering. Since 2000, I've been in the area and worked in the construction and real estate industry. I started working on this particular project about five years ago. At that time, the property was annexed in the city. It was owned PDR 2.5. It had approval to build a dense residential community of 289 lots. Due to the topography of the land and surrounding communities, we could not see a dense residential community working here. So we've spent two years trying to get this property DNX out of the city. We were successful and we're now in the county zone rural residential and we're trying to make a conservation neighborhood work with some of the constraints we have been given to us. I've worked diligently with our team in the planning department. The down zone is property and move forward with the conservation subdivision and preparing to testify for this public hearing. I reviewed all the submitted materials, including application, site plan, staff report, and its attachments. I will now move on to the third finding, which is that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. As stated in our variance application, the stream, Terry Road, and the cemetery all existed before the property was purchased by Highland Park LLC. As Patrick said, Terry Road was built about 20 years ago and we bought in 2018. My understanding is that the UDO requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street is a relatively new ordinance requirement that was adopted after we bought this property. The cemetery, we had commissioned a study done and there are some stones marked in the 70s and there are some other stones out there that the expert believes go two generations back. So the cemetery, best we can tell, could be 100 years old or somewhere in that neighborhood. Accordingly, none of the conditions of the property that are the subject of this variance request resulted from actions taken by the applicant. Just to point out, the connection on to Scally Park is a plan requirement. In my understanding from the engineers, we can't bend the road anymore to get around the cemetery. This concludes my testimony and I would have to answer any questions. I'll turn it back to Patrick Biker to address findings, finding number four and conclude our presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Patrick Biker again with Morningstar Law Group, like to briefly address the fourth finding required under the UDO for granting a variance, and that is that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. In regard to the intent and the spirit of the ordinance, this variance is in accordance with that because this proposed development protects the required stream buffer as outlined in section 8.5.4 of the UDO. This variance request also prevents the construction of a sidewalk through a cemetery, which demonstrates appropriate and sensitive development practices. In regard to public safety, the site plan accompanying this variance application shows that our team has done all that it can to preserve the required stream buffers, which are fundamental to enhancing water quality in this section of Durham County. I also strongly believe that substantial justice is achieved by granting this variance, since this is the last step in the lengthy process that Mr. Veely started with the de-annexation of this property by the General Assembly. After that, there was a public hearing to rezone the property from PDR 2.5, which again would have allowed for almost 300 single family lots on this assemblage to downzone the property to the site plan before the board today, which contemplates only about 80 lots. That rezoning was approved unanimously by the Durham County Board of Commissioners. Accordingly, we are maximizing the environmental protections on this site, and we respectfully ask for your approval of this variance to implement all the hard work that has been done to downzone this property over the last several years. For all these reasons, public safety is secured, environmental standards are enhanced, substantial justice is achieved by granting this variance. For all these reasons, I believe the applicant has met the four required findings of UDO section 3.14. The board has received substantial competent material evidence on the record in regards to first, that is that not granting this variance creates an unnecessary hardship, which would be relocating roads or relocating gravesites or creating the need to do substantial revisions to a conservation subdivision that's been under review for, I believe, about a year. I know it feels like longer than that. We've been working on it diligently, and I do want to thank members of the planning department staff, especially Bo Dabrinsky, for their hard work on the conservation subdivision. Secondly, the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property. Again, Terry Road was installed, constructed 20 years ago when stream buffers were not really on the radar screen, and it was put too close to this intermittent stream. I personally walked the site. It is less than 50 feet from the stream bed to the edge of Terry Road. Accordingly, that is a condition peculiar to the site and is also a condition not of the creation, not created by the applicant. Again, all the testimony today demonstrates that none of the conditions relating to this variance were created by the applicant. We've done everything we can to downzone this property in order to create housing to address our housing shortages in Durham. Lastly, the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the UDO. For all these reasons, we respectfully ask your approval. We'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Becker. Are there any questions for the applicant? I'll see Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Becker. I appreciate the work that you guys have put in. Conservation subdivisions are hard work, and it is meaningful that you guys are attempting to achieve that. So I definitely appreciate that. Two questions. Question number one, Terry Street and Scaly Bark, those streets connect other existing streets. So when complete, those streets would be essentially through streets. Is that right? Yes. Okay. And again, that's a UDO requirement. Those connectivity requirements were all analyzed at the rezoning before the Durham County Board of Commissioners. Just making sure that I'm understanding what's going on. Next question is, have you guys explored the possibility of a crosswalk or anything like that in the locations where you're seeking to terminate the sidewalk? Yes. Yes, there would be crosswalks. Don, correct me, but I believe we will have crosswalks so that where the sidewalk encroaches into the stream buffer, there would be a crosswalk to the north side of Terry Road, and then the sidewalk would pick up. So it would be continuous. It would just not be on both sides. I see. So in locations where the sidewalk would stop in order to accommodate the stream or the cemetery, there would be an improved crosswalk to direct pedestrians to cross the street for reasons of safety. That's right. Isn't that right, Don? That's correct. And we had also gotten approval for on Terry Road, three midblock sidewalk crossings that both engineering staff that had proposed and the DOT had then confirmed so that we can appropriately get the pedestrians to both sides of Terry Road, basically east of the stream. Thank you. All right. Mike or Mr. Ritchells, did you have a question? I saw your hand up. I did. Chad covered the crosswalk. I had a question about that as well. In the illustration here, is that a fence going around the graveyard? What does that mean, the TP, like the squirrely lines? Being that you're not putting a sidewalk, is it also being preserved with a fence? TP stands for tree protection fence. Okay. Got you. But okay, that's all I got. Thank you. All right. Mr. Kipp. Yeah, quick question. How many cars travel on that road per day now? And I guess I'm asking also that's the first part, how many units are you building? I'm just trying to understand what will the traffic count be? It would be approximately 80 houses. There are a handful of existing houses in this area. So there is vehicular traffic. It's so low that I don't think it would ever be measurable. And so that's really all there is to it. There are existing houses up there by the radio tower or existing buildings. But 80 homes is far, far, far below any required traffic study. Time to figure out traffic and pedestrian traffic. 80 houses on the site that you're considering today is 195 acres. The entire assemblage that we de-annexed from the general assembly and rezoned before the Board of County Commissioners is actually approximately 115 acres. So we're looking at a total of 80 homes on 115 acres, if you look at the overall project. Okay. Thank you. So it's well under one house per acre. Got it. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Is there anyone here to else to speak in favor of this application? Hearing none, is there anyone here to speak against this application? I don't think I'm speaking for or against as much as I would like to just be on record. So I'm a resident, current resident of the Scalybark T Road group. And we have small children. And since the project was proposed, it's been very clear that there are going to be serious traffic concerns for families, for young families. And likely there will be families moving into these 80 homes. There aren't many homes, just like the original gentleman said, that this is on originally was a dirt road. And we do not have current sidewalks currently since the removal of trees about four years ago, and then also increased traffic as as you know, the site has been looked over from various parties. There is just the speeds increase as the traffic increases. And there just been a lot of concerns with the walkability. And just knowing that the walkability of a neighborhood increases civic responsibility. I appreciate the preserving some sense of environmental responsibility as well. But we're just continue with the and hope that there's a civic responsibility that's preserved with the building of the houses. And the sidewalks. And I appreciate that there is a crosswalk that will be considered as well. We currently walk on the dirt road. So we definitely see the potential for lots of hazard. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I have to object on the basis that testimony about traffic safety must be provided by a licensed traffic engineer pursuant to state law. Certainly respect the neighbor's concerns and we're doing everything we can to accommodate them. I need to note that for the record. Thank you. Thank you both. Understood. Is there anyone else here to speak against this? And thank you, Ms. Layton, for speaking. Is anyone else here to speak against it? Evelyn, did you, did you have, I didn't know if you had anything to say on this before we close the public hearing? You're on mute. I'm sorry, ma'am. You're on mute. Can you hear us? There you go. Can you hear me now? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I apologize. I'm only here because of the variance out at, you know, you know, river West Bank on the Eno. I live across the street and I'm just trying to understand exactly what the proposal is. That's all. That's the only reason why I'm here. I think it's the last one. Let me see what number it is. I think it ends in a two, six. That's not this case, Ms. Hope Fuller. That's actually been, that's a case that's been postponed and we're not sure when that case will be heard. Okay. Okay. I didn't realize that I just got the notice and signed up that it was today. Nowhere. I'm enjoying it. Now I know what goes on in these meetings. Welcome to the party. Yes, a good educational process. So I'm going to go ahead and sign out. Will I receive notice when the meeting is coming up? Yes, you will. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Have a good day. Have a wonderful day. All right. Anyone else here to speak against this application? All right. Board members, are there any questions of to the applicant or the opponent looking around the room here? All right. Let's bring it back to the table. Is there any discussion among the board members? Thoughts? Mr. Meadows. Thank you, sir. So I'm still a little confused about Terry Road. It sounded to me like that road has not been platted and perhaps part of the site plan process would yield a platted roadway. I did not realize earlier on that this was a conservation subdivision. That has meaning for me. Conservation subdivisions, according to section 624H, are supposed to be designed around environmental features like riparian buffers, including along intermittent streams. So it's curious why this non-platted road didn't come up in the discussion about laying out the subdivision as a conservation subdivision way back when. And I guess that's neither here nor there. I know that's not why we're here today. But I guess from my standpoint, I'm still a little concerned. It looks to me like the road still could be moved. Yes, it would be a pain for the applicant. Yes, it would result in additional expenditure as plans had to be redrawn. That hardly seems fair. On the other hand, I'm curious why in going through the conservation subdivision process, there wasn't discussion about relocating the street then. As far as the Scalybark road situation goes, I understand the not wanting to put the sidewalk there, but the road goes through the cemetery too. There's already impact to the cemetery. I get that we want to limit that impact, but the roadway was going to impact that cemetery anyhow. I'm glad that they're having crosswalks. I think that's great. I'm glad that it's a conservation subdivision. I think that's great. I don't know that the Scalybark roadway alignment could have changed based on where the stub is, so I'm not sure. I think I support the variance for the cemetery simply because I don't think there was an alternative for the roadway alignment. The Terry Street, I'm just having more of a struggle with because I don't understand why the decisions were made to keep the road and its current alignment instead of moving it out of the stream bed when that could have been done as part of the conservation subdivision. I'm at odds and I'm hoping somebody can say something brilliant that will help me make a decision. Can I address that, Mr. Chairman? Sure. Members of the board, the Durham GIS list indicates Terry Road as a public right-of-way and when Mr. Sever and Mr. Villy and I and our others started designing this conservation subdivision, we had to design it around what was indicated as a public right-of-way. We don't have the right to change a public right-of-way, so we had to design around it. What records happened or didn't happen 20 years ago, we don't know because as Mr. Villy testified, our team only began working on this a few years ago when Mr. Villy applied the property after it had been timbered, after it was determined that there was no way to make a housing subdivision with almost 300 lots work at this location. Just by way of background, the reason why that original rezoning for up to 280 houses was approved here is because way back in the day, everybody thought there was going to be this road called Northern Durham Parkway or Eno Drive built through Northern Durham County. Well, that road never happened. Accordingly, water and sewer never was developed extensively in this section of Durham County and it made it impossible to achieve that type of density. I hear the question, but we have to play the hand that we are dealt. Again, according to the public record that I'm looking at right now on my second screen, Terry Road is a public right-of-way and the private development interests have no right to change that. If it's not, then the GIS is not accurate. If that's not accurate, that's unfortunate, but that's the way it works. So our conservation subdivision had to be designed around that public right-of-way and so that's exactly what we did and nobody brought up the question of whether or not Terry Road was in the right location or whether or not it was a public right-of-way during the rezoning public hearings. That was all carefully vetted by the staff. The rezoning, the downzoning was then unanimously approved by the Florida County Commissioners. So that's really all we could do. Mr. Beiger is correct. That is shown on GIS as plated. However, it's like I said before, he says it exists in gravel. It will show that it's dirt as well as an applicant that said the road is dirt. So it is plated. I'm sorry, I just walked the site, members of the board. There is a ton of gravel on Terry Road, a ton. I'm just going on but I can see. Yeah, I mean it's not a goat path. It is a substantial improved public right-of-way. It's not paved, but it's substantially improved and I hope members of the board took a chance to drive out there and see it because it's a substantial road that again was built about 20 years ago when obviously there were plans for a much denser development for the reasons that I just indicated. So I want to give you the benefit of my personal history with Northern Durham Parkway, the site visit that again our team has been rigorous about making sure that we design a conservation subdivision that is as environmentally beneficial as possible. So I hope we've answered all your questions. We're happy to answer any more, but that's really the background on this 95 acres that the board is considering for this variance. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Biker. Anyone else? I need to follow up. My apologies. No apology necessary. I was operating on the assumption that the road was not platted. That was the testimony that had been given. So that's where I was coming from. Yeah, I don't know. That's my sorry for that. Let's play a check again. All right, anyone else? I'll you know the reason why we're here for is not that this is any kind of you know use issue with housing. What we're looking at is a variance from the requirement that a sidewalk be provided on both sides of the road to only you know for the variance to only be on this one side. Any thoughts? Discussion? If you have an issue with this, it now is the time. All right, does anyone have a would like to make a motion? Regulus here. I'll I'll say a motion as soon as I almost found it. I present a motion to grant application with conditions. Everybody make a motion that case number B21000021 an application for requests for a variance from the requirement that sidewalk must be provided on both sides of the street. On property located at 1236 Terry Road has successfully met the applicable requirements of unified development ordinance and it's hereby granted subject to the following conditions. That improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of this application. We have a motion for approval by Mr. Rexlis. Is there a second? Jeter second. Second by Miss Jeter. Susan, would you call hold the board? Miss Jeter? Yeah. Miss Major? Miss Major, I think you're on me. Yeah, Miss Major? Yes. Miss Wymore? Yes. Mr. Rexlis? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Kip? Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. By a vote of seven to zero your request for a variance has been approved. Thank you for your time and we wish you the best of luck. Thank you very much. Appreciate everybody's time today. Thank you. Let's take a quick break. We're kind of halfway through the agenda now. Is 10 minutes okay with everyone? It works. So it's 10. I have 10, 17. Let's let's reconvene it. Let's just make it easy, 10. 30 a.m. All right. We'll see you at 10. 30. As we prepare to return to the meeting, if you are signed up to speak on case B21-0022, please raise your hand if you are not permitted to the panel. And Micah and Tisha, and then we'll get started. Hello. Chair Rogers, this is Chris Peterson of Planting Department. We're having trouble getting Travis Johnson over. He is signed up for this case as opposition. And so Mr. Johnson, if you could, you might need to sign out and then sign back in if you have your link available. We're just having trouble or we might just have to give you permission to speak without camera. Okay, we'll speak now. Well, I think we have everybody here, all of our board members. All right. Susan, would you like to call the next case? Yes. Case B21-0022, a request for a variance from that eight foot maximum wall height to construct a 25 foot sound wall. The subject site is located at 1805 T.W. Alexander Drive, zone light industrial and in the suburban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. The seating for this case is Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Regulus, Ms. Wymore, Ms. Jeter, and Ms. Major. All right. It looks like Micah's having a little trouble. She's on the phone here, though. I'm sure she'll try to. Micah, do you have intentions on, on joining, on video again? Are you able to hear us? Don't know. Maybe it's appropriate. Yeah, I can hear you, Gecko. Okay, good. I'm working on getting the video back up. Thanks. I just wanted to, just wanted to verify. All right. So everyone who plans on giving testimony for this case will need your video on. So looks like Mr. John Travis Johnson looks like you're having some video issues, but if you would, we'll need to hear from you and so unmute, but if you plan on giving testimony, if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? And we'll go through here, Daniel? Yes. Benjamin? Yes. John? Yes. I think that's all I see. Also, do you... Mr. Travis, it looks like he has his microphone on now. Okay. From what I can tell, it's not muted anyways. I don't know if we can hear him. Travis, can you hear us? Travis? All right, we're going to move on. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform, John? I do. Benjamin? I do. Daniel? Sorry, I do. Thank you, sir. Cole, is this one yours? Yes, it is. Thank you. Cole and Nager are visiting the planned environment. Planning staff request the staff board and all materials submitted to the public hearing to be made part of the public with any necessary corrections as noted, which we do have some corrections. And then the corrections are in the application and the plan shown are different. Applicant requests, instead of what plan chose, first of all, the application says, as well, the applicant is actually requesting a height of variance to be a maximum of 25 feet, which is the only change. All right. So noted, and thank you. The case B2100022 is a request for variance from the 8 foot maximum wall height to construct a maximum of a 25 foot sand wall. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is in the White Industrial Zoning District and the Saravan Development here and it is within the city of Durham's jurisdiction. Existing use is currently a warehouse. Daniel Tabana, representing Amazon.com Services LLC, request the variance from the 8 foot maximum height of a wall to construct a sand wall with a height of a maximum of 25 feet. The site is on White Industrial and is emitting the Saravan Development here and pre-unified development on its UDO section 9.9.1A. The maximum height of a fence wall is 8 feet and properly locating the suburban tier, not a long street footage. Applicant wishes to install a sand wall for benefit of adjacent residential property owners. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes the finding listed below or adjustment must make in granting any variance. These findings are view factors identified in the staff court and the applicant's responses to the findings and review factors are identified in the application, both in your packet. The staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. Thanks, Cole. I think Travis is unmuted and able to hear us. Travis, can you hear us? You're unmuted now. Now you're muted. It's going back and forth at the peers. All right, we'll come back. Mr. Meadows, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one quick question for Cole. Cole, you indicated in the staff report on page 2, number 4, that staff was suggesting the possibility of some evergreen plantings along the base of the wall. Have you shared that with the applicant and have they given you any response to that? So we have not shared the applicant. We discussed it in the staff report, but it was not sure the applicant about that. If they would like to provide that as something that would be helpful as a condition, they can provide that. It's just a recommendation for a condition, but the applicant would have to agree with that condition. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for Cole before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none, would the applicant come forward? Yeah, good afternoon, Board. This is John Barefoot, and I'll be representing the applicant, Daniel Tavano from Amazon. I'm a licensed professional engineer in North Carolina with a bachelor's degree from NC State in civil engineering. I work for Kimley Horn, which is a national multidisciplinary engineering firm, and I work out of the Raleigh location, which is at 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, and have been planning and designing a variety of commercial and residential, industrial, and energy projects since 2011. So this specific variance, we are asking for a variance on Section 9.9.1a, which limits wall heights for fences at 8 feet for no street frontage, non-electric walls, and the suburban tier. And in short, that limits us and our ability to mitigate sound on this site. And I'll kind of go through the story to tee up how we arrived there. So Duke Rillaty is the owner of the subject property 1805 T.W.U. Alexander that you see here on the map. They also own the Development to the West, which is another industrial project. And there was a development planned, which was approved back in 1999, and it showed four large industrial buildings similar to the 1805 building. But ultimately, the construction was done in June 2004, the 1805 building, but the other three large industrial buildings were never constructed. The adjacent single family kind of Bradbury subdivision, which is the subdivision to the north, that was constructed in 2004 to 2006, which is really in close proximity to this existing industrial site. And then the single family residential subdivision to the west, or sorry, excuse me, to the east of us across that kind of floodplain and tributary that you see there, that was constructed in 2003 to 2004. And so regarding the hardship, those are kind of the conditions that are peculiar to this property, the close proximity to those residential and these different use types. Amazon became a tenant in this building in 2016. And they have been there ever since. And they're currently using this existing industrial building as a warehouse and distribution facility. And that's a permitted use within the light industrial zoning. Amazon is not using the site or doing anything uniquely loud. They're simply using the truck port areas that surround the building as they're intended for the parking or staging of line halls or transfer trucks and the unloading and loading of those. And they're using this as a kind of a middle mile facility, which serves other last mile facilities and distributes products. So the facility is being operated 24 hours a day, which is not prohibited. And with Amazon using the facility as it's intended, the hardship really is not resulting from the actions taken by the applicant or the owner. They're simply using it as intended. But due to the close proximity to some residential neighbors, there's been some communication with them about sound levels and the desire to do something about those and mitigate the noise. So currently there's a visual buffer that exists between the truck court to the north of our building and the residential development to the north. And that's a berm that varies in height from about 10 to 12 feet up to about 16 to 18 feet at a maximum. And it has some vegetation to kind of speak to the point about the evergreens that was brought up. There is some existing vegetation on top of that berm. And there's some additional vegetation, which is blocking the view of the subdivision to the east, which would really screen the appearance of this wall that we're requesting. And so we can touch on that more if needed here shortly. But this visual buffer that really exists between the uses, it does a good job at offering some visualization of a buffering, but it doesn't do a great job at buffering from an acoustical standpoint. And the subdivision that's to the north, it's only 85 feet away from the edge of the truck court. And you went mind panning to image one and image two. I think those show a view from, you can see where those are labeled on the exhibit there, but there was some pictures we showed in the application and those show some ground level views from the truck court to those residences. I'll keep talking about the subdivision to the east. So for that subdivision, there is a visual buffer there as well. But in those houses are about 386 feet from the edge of the truck court. But you can see that's represented by image three that we can look at. But while there's more distance there, it's a flatter line of sight with no berm or any kind of topography change in those two uses. So we believe some mitigation of noise is needed there as well and could be done with a sound wall. The existing 1805 industrial building is approximately 40 feet in height. And I think that's another thing where you're having trucks that have air brakes or backup alarms or just the noise of the engine and that's refracting off of that building wall and being pushed outward to those neighbors. So some type of barrier there between the noise source and them could do a good job at containing those noise levels more on site. And I think I saw a flash of the images. Could we take a look at that one more time Cole? Yeah, just give me a second. I'm trying to give it to you to show up. It's just giving me a hard time. Okay. Well, and as a standard, Amazon constructs sandwalls on new facilities when they're adjacent to residential areas. But for existing facilities like this, if there's any type of dialogue with the neighbors where sound is brought up, Amazon likes to do whatever they can to mitigate any concerns and they desire to be a good neighbor. So they've already, Amazon has already made some changes to the backup alarms on trucks to some of those frequencies to mitigate noise. But that's had really a limited return. So we're looking to do something perfect. And those are really the physical existing conditions that are unique to the site. And they're kind of creating the need for enhanced sound mitigation. Amazon would desires and would like to kind of offer more compatibility between its operations and the surrounding uses. But our mitigation ability is limited by the ordinance on the eight foot height simply isn't high enough to block line of sight from the noise source to some of the upper story residences, the upper story levels of the residences. And so this is a view that's up on the screen now. This is to the subdivision to the east that is, you can see some topography drops down for like a creek and floodplain area. There's some vegetation, but it's, you know, kind of sparse. And I can still see some of the houses through the background, but there is a little bit of a visual screen there if we were to install a wall. And that photograph looks to be in the winter months. So I would expect in the summer there's substantially more kind of visual blockage. Moving on. So I think that the inability with the eight foot maximum height to really mitigate noise is kind of a core of our hardship. All three of the intense statements for each of the zoning's the light industrial and the PRD and the OI zoning that the two subdivisions are in, they all mentioned compatibility in some form with surrounding uses. And I think the light industrial intense statement really directly talks about that. And it says bad district is for sites whose industries whose operations or exposure location or traffic, the desires to have minimal impact on adjacent properties. And I think a wall is only going to further the spirit of that compatibility. And I think that's why we believe the sand wall height variance would be consistent with the spirit and the purpose and the intent of the ordinance. So the wall really would have no none or limited to no visibility from the right away along TW Alexander. The right away is and the road is quite a bit lower and the site raises up to the building level. And it's quite a distance away. So you almost cannot see it from TW Alexander. The adjacent residences currently see the industrial building. Here's some views that are up now of the subdivision to the north. So if you want to shift them just let me know and I can go through them. Perfect. Yes. So this is looking northeast at the subdivision to the north from the truck port. And you can see the burn here kind of at its lowest point, maybe where that tractor trailer is about 10 to 12 feet. And then it depending on the space difference between the houses and the lot line, the berm is able to kind of vary in height a bit, but it's limited due to how close these houses are to the truck port. And you can see there is some evergreen vegetation already ready in place along the berm. And the wall would be right along that edge of asphalt there. So I think some of those trees would even be in excess of the 25 foot wall height. And again, this is taken in a winter month where all of the deciduous trees have lost their foliage. And then if you go to image two coal, it kind of looks northeast, this image kind of looks northwest. Tell them when to stop. They're not, I don't know. Sorry. Keep going back the other direction then. Right here. So here's kind of the eastern side of the property northeast corner. And the berm is a little higher, but you can still see the upper story residences. And we believe that's where the noise source is. It has really a direct line of sight through those. And even the berm itself and kind of that vegetation is really limited in its ability to stop the acoustical noise that's being sent over the berm. So thanks, Cole. And then we've got, if you want to pan while we're at it back to those pictures of the wall, included like three pictures of just these are sound walls that were provided by a wall manufacturer just to give you some ideas of the aesthetic. And these varying heights, I'm not sure what the exact heights of these are, but this just gives make the board some idea of the aesthetics. Ultimately, our goal, like the ordinance lays out would be to match the architectural nature of the existing building. But these give you some ideas of kind of what sound walls can look like. And if you pan to the next image or two, there's a few more just for an example. And this third one's quite high here. I think that's, you know, certainly exceeding 25 feet. I did want to clarify Cole had sent an updated exhibit, but it looks like the old one was shown. The current design has two pieces of wall that are shown in pink. Currently, we would propose those to be 18 foot high. And then the wall section that's a little longer along the northern side of the property, we would propose that to be 22 feet. But our request is for a 25 foot max height just to offer some variability. Once we do final design to account for that area is pretty flat where the wall is proposed, but there may be some minor changes in topography. And we feel like we certainly would not exceed 25 foot probably going to be in that 18 to 22 range. So kind of just a couple more points. Really the sound wall with the building height being approximately 40 feet, the sound wall, you know, being around that 18 to 22 with a max of 25. There's some harmony there with that large industrial building and the wall. It's not, you know, too large. And I think it generally fits with the industrial nature of the site. It also, you know, won't have any averse effects on the natural light currently provided to those residences with 85 feet at the closest point. There is southern exposure from the sun, but with that distance being, you know, really about more than three times the height of the wall, we wouldn't anticipate any natural light being blocked or circulation of air and things like that that would be a negative on the property surrounding. It also wouldn't hinder any kind of emergency services to the property. And it really doesn't impede any vision, clearances or anything like that for pedestrian or vehicle or traffic on the site. So, you know, Amazon is not required to construct this wall. They just desire to in an effort to be a good neighbor to those who are in close proximity. And we think it, you know, Amazon and myself think this would be a beneficial addition to the surrounding community to kind of mitigate some of the noise on site. We have Benjamin Moller is an acoustical engineer who's on the call, and he's from Oyster Guard, and he's conducted an acoustical study based on some field survey topography. And that's helped us to determine the appropriate wall height that we should use and some of the material specifications. And so going to turn it over to Ben to touch on some of the inputs and outputs of his study, which was provided and some of the anticipated noise reduction that we think is feasible. Good morning, everyone. Can you hear me? My name is Benjamin Moller and I'm one of the principals of Oyster Guard acoustical associates. We are a New Jersey based acoustical consulting firm. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of Oregon and New Jersey. I've been practicing in the field of acoustics for 20 years now. So we see all sides of problems associated with site sound emissions and assist developers and end users with assessment and mitigation of that. So we have been involved in this project for a bit now and understand John laid out quite nicely the story of history here. It seems that before Amazon even took residence here that these uses have commingled for upwards of 15 years now. So any sort of acoustical impact that this site or this use might have on these residences has been basically absorbed or adapted to over the course of those 15 years. So despite that taking ownership of a use that has its specificities, we have had some random complaints and are looking to again work on a way to reduce our acoustical impact of the site. And so that's where we start the process. And what we have to look at is what reduction is going to be meaningful here. And acoustics is a science and there are a lot of research in terms of how to select criteria for just such that event. But when we look at a noise reduction from an existing condition of about one to two dB, that's really not a noticeable degree. It's very hard to discern small changes in that. And you'll also notice that when we talk about decibels that that's the unit of measurement for sound. But we're going to be talking about it in a logarithmic case, not a linear case. So when we talk about changes of one to two or three or six, it is on a logarithmic scale. And so that is actually of a huge amount of change even though it sounds like a small number. That's because we're talking about it on a logarithmic scale. So anyway, one to two is generally not noticeable. A change of three starts to become just noticeable for someone with good hearing. A change of six is generally the target. And that's going to be the noticeable reduction for a typical receptor. When we start to talk about reductions of 10 plus, that's going to be a significant amount of reduction. And the way we're reducing sound is we are taking that energy out and either redirecting it or absorbing it and reducing it to reduce the strength of that source. So as John kind of forecast already, the strategy here is to put in an acoustical barrier or some sort of wall or to block line of sight between our site and the neighbors to the north and to the east. And we are working on a detailed plan to come up with a strategy for that. And as you saw with our outline, we're looking to block the entire northern property line and then have it wrap around a little bit to the west side and the east side. And that's to block anywhere where we have a shortened distance between where the bulk of the truck activity is to those nearest residences. The berm that was done on the residential development side of the project does have merit. But I find that it's short in some places is not as uniform as you would desire. And so we have line of sight to a couple upper-story receptors because our site operates 24 hours a day. It's that nighttime noise that is has the potential, the greatest potential to develop or result in any sort of noise complaints. So the long story short, we're trying to implement something that's going to get at least a 60B reduction for those upper-story receptors. And then that will be a significant improvement and a noticeable improvement from our current daily operation sound levels to the future for the sound wall. So when we try to design this or when we work on the design of this, we use several techniques and resources available to us. But a big one is going to be acoustical modeling. And we are able to take in the CAD from the design team and put that into a model and develop a three-dimensional model of how sound propagates off-site. And the benefit of that is that we're taking into consideration the topography. So we do show what benefits the existing berm does. We're able to look at the height, the exact heights of the sources, where for a tractor trailer, you're going to have driving sound, which is roughly at around eight foot in height to your back of alarms and your air brakes, which are going to be more of three or four feet in height, and to be able to model those as accurate as possible. We are then also able to put a receptor at a second story, which is roughly 15 feet of upgrade on the north and east sides of the berm. So all of those factors are taken into consideration and are going to be important to determine the best and optimal geometry for our sound wall. So as John forecasts, we're looking at 18 to 22 feet nomally to the northwest, where our nearest docks run the west side of the building. And so when a truck is in the northwestern corner of the truck docks, we are forecasting a reduction of about eight to nine dB for those nearest residences up there. When a truck is traversing the northern side of the property, trucks have to kind of do it counterclockwise and then clockwise loop to enter and exit the property respectively. But when they're traversing the northern side, we see the greatest amount of reduction. And we're looking at levels of nine to 14 dB for various receptors. And then as the truck goes around the east side, again, as John spoke, that's the greatest distance, although despite there being a valley, the houses on the east side are going to nomally be at the same elevation as our truck court is. And over on that direction, we'll see reductions of about six to seven for the geometries that are put in place here. So the levels of those magnitude meet the goal of our project. We'll have a noticeable reduction for receptors offsite. And we'll be well received, especially for when we get, see some double digit reductions to the north, really tightening up and completing what that berm was intended to do, providing a uniform length across that surface to make sure that we shield the heights of the truck sources as they operate back there. And reducing our overall site acoustical impact and increasing the, reducing the potential for complaints, especially during the nighttime hours for our site. Yeah, thank you, Ben. And I've also got Daniel Tabano, a representative of Amazon here who's been tasked with working to find a solution to mitigate onsite noise. And if there's anything else you'd like to add, just kind of paint the picture of our goal and what our intent is. Yeah. Hello. Good morning. Happy Prime Day. I'm required to say that. Just kidding. We are, you know, one of our core beliefs at Amazon is, you know, customer obsession. So as we've grown, we've noticed the need to put in sound walls throughout the country. So this is not a unique case to us. We're doing this. I have three others I'm doing. All our new prototypes that butt up against the existing residential. We are, we're putting a sound wall in from, from permit, from original design. So it's just us being proactive to try to protect our customers. And it's not really any more complicated than that for us. So appreciate you having some time here for us and happy shopping. Thanks, Dan. And I mean, that really wraps up our intent and the story of why we think this, this path forward with a 25 foot maximum height wall will help to increase compatibility between these uses and why we're requesting the variance. All right. Thank you. Any questions for the applicants? Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that very thorough presentation. A few questions for you. The first being, have you taken an opportunity to speak with the neighbors about the wall's composition and height? Dan, feel free to jump in, but I don't believe we've had those conversations yet on the exact aesthetics with any surrounding landowners. And I believe the property that's directly adjacent to the berm is on, is owned by the HOA there. But Dan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's been specific conversations on aesthetics yet. And maybe, maybe it was, you know, we can, if we think we are, are loud and can get this variance to do it, I'm sure some of those will take place soon. I think we'd be willing to consider anything once we understand that we're allowed to do it. Okay. Next question. And thanks for the imagery of the other sound walls. I assume that those, those look like, like eye beams and, and concrete prefabricated concrete panels. Is that what you were anticipating in this application? Yeah. And then feel free to, after I speak to, to add anything, there's, there's, it looks like there's a variety of materials and applications that you can use. Some of them, Ben, I believe in, in your study, you found that we needed to have something with a seven PSF pounds per square foot or heavier. So that could be done with concrete, but there is acoustical panels with backing, you know, out there in the market by wall providers, and they can achieve that, that, you know, pounds per square foot of heaviness so that they can appropriately, you know, refract or or absorb sound. And we may, it looks like we probably wouldn't use concrete, we would use like some of those manufactured panels, but you are correct that you can use, you can use eye beams, you can use a variety of kind of support structures, but you place that acoustical panel material in between. Next question is, and it's, I understand you guys, I assume this would need to go for site plan review, and we would address stormwater concerns at that time, given that we're, we're kind of cordoning off that eastern side. Yeah, yeah, good point. We would anticipate submitting for a level one site plan after this process, showing the layout of the wall. The wall does have the ability to, to that bottom panel to be raised just two or three inches to allow the free movement of water, or it can be have some minor slots in it, just, just as a preview to that conversation. And looking at the topography, we feel like that, we don't anticipate any, you know, roadblocks there as we work with planning on the site plan. Okay, last question, two more questions. The, the aerial photo shows, and I don't know if it's up to date or not, there's an aerial photo that has a fence on your western lot line, and it looks like the fences has sort of a jog in it to accommodate vehicular turning movements on the adjacent site. The, the sketch of the wall location did not include that sort of curvature that was included on the, in the fence. And I was just curious if, if you guys were contemplating curvature or if that was going to be just a straight wall. So anticipating it would be a straight wall as a part of the site plan submittal, we, we would show truck, you know, full size tractor trailer maneuverability in an exhibit to ensure that we have the appropriate vehicle clearances. Totally separate, but we have been having some early discussions about that area and potential development to allow greater maneuverability there, but kind of a kind of a separate thing that we're looking into. Okay. The last question is, you know, there was a note in the staff report about the suggestion of evergreen vegetation. And I'm curious if, you know, you're, I'd like to hear y'all's thoughts about your ability to, to supplement the wall with some, at least on the northern side where the berm is, perhaps some evergreen vegetation with a minimum off-center spacing, you know, 36 inches, 48 inches, something like that. Is that something that you would consider? Dan, feel free to chime in. I think it's something we would consider. And John, let me, as long as it works like from a code standpoint or we can make it work, you know, permitting wise, I have no objection. We're doing it on a site here. I live in Atlanta. We're doing a site here in Atlanta, same request from some neighbors. So it's no issue for us. Thank you. Yeah. And maybe the only thing to add is I do think there is some evergreen screening on top of that berm. And if we, it looks like our asphalt currently goes right up to the property line on the north. So we do want to try to leave as much room as possible for the truck maneuverability within the truck court. And we, if we wanted to do some planting on our property, we'd probably have to back the wall off our line, which would kind of tighten the truck court space. And then the planting would probably take, you know, five or more years to really get a height where you could see it over the berm because that berm is, you know, at a minimum 10 to 12 feet. So I feel that there's sufficient vegetation there with the berm and the evergreen and kind of deciduous mix on top of it to really break up the contrast of the wall. But like Dan said, I think we'd be open to additional vegetation. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Ritchells? Yes. Being that you're being proactive, are you intending to increase any noises after the wall goes up? I know this is a 24 hour facility. No, I don't think there's any intent to change the current use or how we're using the space or increase noise levels. So really current operations should be sustained. And this will simply, you know, lower the offsite noise. Dan Phil free to chime in on that as well. Yeah, there's currently no plans to change the operations. It's been, that bill, I wasn't even at Amazon when that got built and it's still in, you know, still continuing to operate the way it does. I also just want to comment in from an acoustical aspect, though, that every site has its its capacity, right? And so the site is currently being used a lot to its full potential. But eventually that it's a saturation point. And so the answer isn't to do more at a site. It would be to go and seek an additional site and Dan could speak to that about coverage and, you know, loading and things like that. Yeah, I mean, we're always building in the North Carolina area. So I got a site far from there. So that's our capacity. My other question is based on the residential properties around the site is, is there are you in touch with the homeowner associations? And this is directly your plan here is directly because of complaints. So I'll just speak from what I know. And, you know, we're a huge company. So some of this gets lost in in translation, but I'm not part of the operations team there. So I don't, I mean, I don't even live there. So I get requested on my end to, to, you know, look into putting a sound wall in because of some complaints. I don't have all the information on who complained when or how. So what I, you know, once we understood there were some issues there, I reached out to John and Ben and, and started to formulate a plan. And then this is kind of where we're at today to see if we can do it to see if it's allowed. And then we'd be, you know, you know, happy to help out to alleviate some of those complaints, but I don't have any communication with the way or anything like that. All right, any other questions for the applicant? I got another question. I'm, I'm looking at the presentation. I'm just trying to figure out page 15 of the presentation. I guess I'm not exactly sure if that's north. I think it's north. Can someone help me with that page 15? Are you referring to photos? Is that correct? Yes, the photos. Yep. All right, one second. Just let me know which picture you're referring to. Yeah, sounds good. Yeah, sounds good. Is it one of these? Um, are you sharing your screen? Oh, I'm sorry. My viewer, we're losing transition there. Hold on a second. Thanks. There we go. Is this one or is it? No, below that. This one? That one. Yeah. All right. Is that north? This picture is directly east to the subdivision to the east. Okay. Yeah. I mean, my comment was those trees are definitely in pretty bad shape. You have a bunch of pines that are dead. So, I mean, I personally think there should be more buffer, although maybe I'm missing something. I also just want to chime in. I'd prefer to give approval for 22 feet, not 26 feet, um, because it does start to look like a bunker at some point and frankly, it does. Any other questions for the applicant? Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody here to speak against this application? Okay. Mr. Johnson, star six on your phone to unmute. Yes, I would like to speak in the repose of this application. Mr. Johnson, what we'll need to do is swear you in on the oath and if you don't mind raise your right hand and do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, I do. Thank you, sir. You have the, we'll turn it over to you for a couple. Thank you. You know, Durham County Adjustment Board afforded opportunity to speak corporations like the 10 of, 10 of, um, 1805, um, TWA, Alexander usually finds a way to lobby themselves of these types of hearings, um, out of it. So as far as being able to have any discussions, um, with this proposed project, um, yeah, as Mr. Barefoot mentioned and also the other representative, um, mentioned, um, HOA has not been contacted as far as with this proposed project there. We would like to be able to figure out, um, based around the complaints that's been, um, given, um, who actually submitted those complaints also and just going by who actually lives here based off that particular, um, property as far as 805 and in that proximity of that particular property there, it's always going to be noise, um, based around the road. Um, so as far as them building a wall and trying to create precedent behind the wall being that high, no other tenant in that business park, um, has that particular wall being that high and it's no need based around security or privacy. Um, it's based around people that actually know about or live in this particular area. So it's no threat for that element. Um, so, uh, we definitely wish that, uh, yeah, as far as this particular proposal be either revised or be re-rejected, um, by the adjustment board with those comments how you go back. Thank you, sir. Uh, all right, um, uh, applicant, do you, would you like to respond? Do you have any response to the rebuttal? Yeah, I think only response is what will certainly, if we can get the variance approved, we'll start conversations, um, you know, likely with that HOA, just, just get input on the aesthetics of the wall. Um, but really we're trying to see if, um, the, if we can build a sound wall tall enough that we can feasibly reduce the noise. And I think if we can, um, get over that, uh, you know, some of the conversations will start happening. Uh, I think what we don't want to do is, is go talk about like a solution, but not be able to implement one. All right. Uh, thank you, sir. Uh, any other further questions of the applicant? Have another question. Yes, sir. The application talks, the formal application talks about, uh, a different, let me go back to that, a different, uh, size than the 26 feet. Um, uh, talks about, where is it? 16 to 20 feet or maybe on page two, unnecessary hardship staff analysis. Right. Before I started to interrupt, um, before the presentation, I did say, um, that was a correction that we were noting that the application had said 25 feet and the plan had shown something different. Um, but they were requesting a 25 foot, I mean, a maximum high variance, um, which is different to what, um, the plan shows as well as the staff report. Um, the application did have 25 feet on it, but that was just something that we did correct at the beginning of the meeting. Got it. All right. Any other, any further questions for staff or? Yeah. I had a question from Mr. Johnson. Um, was, is he part of an HOA or does he live, uh, directly, um, in eyesight of this facility? If he's listening. There is a HOA and I am part of HOA. And what's the name of that? It's the Alexander crossing HOA. Mr. Johnson, um, and, and do you live immediately next to this, this site? Yes. Right behind that. That can be relative to which, which side is that Mr. Johnson? Nine and eight. Yeah. As far as the, the site that we're representing, um, that we were talking about the 1805, um, Alexander site. Yes. So your, your house is in on the north end of, of that side. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Um, all right. Any other further questions? All right. Discussion? So may ask a question. Um, I'm guessing that the HOA for the Alexander crossing, for example, where Mr. Johnson lives, they're outside of the notice area. Is that why they haven't been brought in on the front end? Because I mean, normally it would seem like the public should be able to weigh in on this, not in retrospect, once we've approved it. So just correct me if I'm wrong. Mail notices within what 600 feet is that, Cole? So I would imagine all of those homes behind this site, I'm assuming. Right. So it's, it's all, um, properties within 600 feet of the project boundary buffer, um, project boundary property lines. So anyone with 600 feet has notice of this, of this public hearing. Um, they necessarily didn't call to determine what it was, but if they had an issue, they, they should have showed up at this meeting. Right. Any other thoughts? Much less here. Um, so I hate, I think being that we're determining whether a wall can go up kind of needs to be, um, a meeting has to happen with the neighbors and the applicant. Um, I don't think, uh, unless we want to put it in, in the conditions, uh, that they do meet with HOA's, um, I'm kind of mixed, um, on this. I agree with Mr. Retchless on that. Um, I'm concerned that there hasn't been an ample opportunity for discussion. And I really appreciate that Amazon is trying to proactively address this. And I hope that they would be willing to have a conversation with the HOA, um, and maybe nail some of this stuff down, um, instead of asking us to, to make a decision. Crystal, you got something. Yeah. Thank you, chair. Um, Christa Kucro City attorney's office, um, staff can correct me if this is incorrect. Um, but there is no legal requirement for an applicant to meet with neighbors in this type of scenario. Um, and so that would not be an appropriate condition for the board to put on any, um, approval. And, uh, you know, there's, there are things that might be a good idea for an applicant to do. And then there are things that are legally required. Um, a meeting with the neighborhood would not have been required in this scenario. And so I just want to make that noted on the record. Thank you for that. I, um, you know, I, I, I share the same sentiments, Chad and Mike, uh, on this, uh, but at the same time, I also know that, um, notice has been given, um, that, uh, it is on, on these individuals to, to, to do that and to be involved. There is a, uh, sign up at the property there were mailed notices. And I'm quite certain that, that, um, that Susan could show us, um, how every one of those were sent and everything. So I struggle with that, um, just because, um, to me, it's one of those things where people always show up to oppose. They never show up to support. Um, and that's just generally how things work. Um, but, uh, I would like to say the first legal ad was posted on June 4th and the letters were sent out May 28th. Um, but I also would like to mention that, um, they also took property owners. So if someone's a renter or a tenant, they would not necessarily receive the letter only the property owner. That's right. That's, that's just my thoughts on that. Um, anyone else want to share anything? Well, Regulus, um, grandfather always said there's, there's two sides to offense. Um, and that's the person on whichever side it, it is posted. Um, Amazon being proactive, I would hope, um, and encourage you, uh, reaching out to the neighbors, but I'm not, I wanted to tell you that. Um, but, um, so I got. And I'd like to mention that, that, uh, uh, the attorneys would remind us about the criteria, um, in section 3.14 and whether or not the application, um, has, has met those criteria, uh, as the basis for our decision. Mr. Tobano, do you have something? Yeah. So just so you understand who I am, I'm construction manager, so I don't, I don't get involved with HOAs in that way. So I'll reach out to our economic development team. I mean, that's how this stuff goes for us. Um, and we'll, we'll be happy to talk to them about reaching out. I mean, that's not a concern of, I don't think anyone will have any real heartburn about that. Um, so we'll go ahead and start that ball rolling, but I don't, I'm not going to call up an HOA, right? So they're going to have to do that. Um, and we just, we were just, this was the route that we got told to go to, to get a variance on a, on a height. And that was, that's all we were trying to do today. The rest of getting it approved, you know, we'd obviously work with our neighbors and, and make sure we did it correctly, but that's all. All right. Any other thoughts? Anyone have, anyone else have any issues specific or not? Or if you'd like to make a motion, Mr. Barefoot? Yes. Oh, just one thing before you vote, um, in response to E, E and I believe I do think we would like to maintain that 25 foot height. Um, I know you mentioned 22 and the reason why I wanted some flexibility there in the design that we were showing, which is kind of an 18 to 22 foot versus that is if you, you know, have a wall height that's going along the flat area that's 22 feet tall, and then you hit like some small undulation in the terrain, we kind of like the ability to just dip there, but keep the top of the wall height consistent. And so I think that little bit of flexibility would allow for that without kind of stepping down the wall and always maintaining that, that 22 foot from grade. Um, so just wanted to say that. And that's why we wanted to build in like a little bit of slack in what the design showed versus what the maximum height. So once we do the final engineering, uh, of the wall corridor and lay that out, what we'll just have a little bit of breathing room there. Thank you, sir. Uh, Krista. Thank you. I'm Krista Cugresity, attorney's office. Just because Mr. Meadows referenced it, I wanted to drop into the chat, um, the findings required for variants. So there's the hyperlink there to the UDO if anybody needs to see them. Um, but essentially, you know, the board has to consider the hardship related to the property, not a self-created hardship. And that the variance, if approved, would be consistent with the spirit of the UDO. Mr. Chair, if I may. Absolutely. I just want, this will be the last, uh, you've heard enough from me on this case. Um, I'm in an unenviable position in that I think the applicant is trying to do the right thing here. Um, and by doing the right thing, um, it's necessary for them to get a variance from the standards. Um, I'm not sure that the applicant has carried the burden, at least for me personally, with respect to, um, indicating the, you know, the unnecessary hardship and, and the fact that this isn't self-created. Um, I wish that, um, there was more dialogue with, with the applicant and the adjacent landowners as that dialogue might lead to a configuration that helps address some of the criteria, uh, in section 3.14, at least for me, um, with respect to the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance. Um, and so, um, I, I, I find that, you know, approving the wall might help some of the problems that people are experiencing, but that turns on the approval of a variance of which we, in my opinion, the, the, the criteria have not been met. I would rather not deny the variance. Uh, I would rather the applicant go, uh, and speak with, uh, the, uh, the neighbors and see if they can come up with a configuration that works. I understand that's not appropriate or legal, but that is the, uh, that is, uh, my thought on the matter. I, if this goes to a vote will, uh, unfortunately, um, I, my vote will be no. Thank you. Thanks, Chad. Um, I'll, um, come along those lines. I, uh, I think that it seems to me that the issue, uh, you know, between, I guess the neighborhood and this property is, uh, more on aesthetics than it is the actual wall. Um, and I don't think that that's something that I'm interested in and, and I don't know, I'm not interested in discussing the aesthetics. I'm imagining that, that both parties have to live with something like this and they would, they would figure it out. Uh, and it's, uh, the burden would be on them to do so, um, to figure out for both parties what, what it was and it's acceptable. You know, looking at this on, on, on, should there be a wall here? I mean, yeah, I can see why, actually I can see why both folks, uh, would want this. So, uh, but I understand it. Uh, Miss Major, you have something. Sorry. Yeah. Along the lines of the aesthetics, um, I don't think anybody wants a 20 plus foot wall behind their house, but, um, I do have a little bit of personal knowledge that, um, this site does produce a lot of noise. Um, and that neighbors do complain about it quite far away from the subdivision that's right behind it. Um, and so I'm not a sound engineer, but we did have testimony from one about what was necessary. Um, and so I think it was competent testimony about what was necessary to, I guess, defray this sound from projecting beyond this site to the best of its ability. Um, and so I did think that the size of the wall was a necessity. Thank you for that. Okay. I do too. Uh, anyone else? Want to offer phones? Micah, did you, I'm not, I'm, did I see your hand up? Okay. Just moving around. Sorry. Any other thoughts or anybody want to offer a motion? I hear if I make the motion that case number B210022, um, for a request for the variance. Oh wait, is that the right one? Oh yeah. For the eight foot maximum wall height to construct a, sounds like we were asking for a 25 foot sound wall. Yes. 1805 TW Alexander was successfully met and applicable requirements of the unified development order is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information committed to the board as a part of the application. We've got a motion for approval by Ms. Jeter. Is there a second? Major second. And uh, Jessica major is a second. Um, Susan, what'd you call everyone? Mr. Meadows. Oh, Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Wymore. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Ms. Wymore. Yes. Thank you. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries six to one. By a vote of six to one, your request for a variance has been approved. We appreciate you coming for the BOA this morning, which you the best of luck and most certainly, um, encourage and hope that you work with your neighbors and have a good day. Um, Susan, would you like to call the next case? I would be two one zero zero zero two three a request for minor special use permit to allow a building height greater than 35 feet. The subject site is located at 5621 Chin Page Road and 55 30 primary drive is zoned office and institutional and in the suburban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file and the speeding for this case is Ms. Major, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Weymour, Mr. Richless, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows and Mr. Kip. All right. Thank you, Susan. Uh, so everyone who plans on giving testimony for this one, would you please, um, turn on your video or, yeah, turn on your video will minister the oath real quick. There is one other person that we're moving over, Mr. Griffin. So there's a little bit of a lag when he's being promoted as well as Mr. Wellen probably mispronouncing that. There are also two phone call persons who I am unsure if they would like to speak on this case. If so, please press star nine or if there's anyone that I'm forgetting to bring over, that's for this case. Please raise your hand. I'm not able to start my video. All right. Well, as it's Patrick. Okay, let's see. I'm going to ask you to start it. So you should be able to see it now. It should be a button prompting. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Franks. Actually, I'm just going to do that for everybody. And there should be a button on the screen. If you're communicating via screen, prompting you to do so. I see those two phone calls were elevated. I don't know if you all could speak. What is it? Star nine, six? Star nine. Yep. Mr. Ashton Smith, are you for this case? Yes. Okay. Thank you. And if they are, then they can. Yeah. So in order to, the folks on the phone, one's ending in 2141, one's ending in 9270. In order to unmute, you can press star six, nine. Star nine. I believe it's star nine. I think it's like two. If not, it's star six. Try that one too. That'll unmute you. We'll have to get your answer on the oath, but I'm going to go ahead and start this. Everybody playing on given testimony, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony today? You will be the truth and nothing but the truth. I'll come through individually. David? Yes. Stephen Franks? Yes. Ashton? You're on mute, sir. Yes. Thank you, sir. Patrick? Yes. Rob? We didn't hear you there. Yes. There we go. And Earl? Lou Ellen? Yes. Thank you, sir. And I don't see anybody else. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Earl? Yes. Rob? Patrick? Yes. Ashton? Yes. Stephen? Yes. And David? Yes. All right. Eliza, I guess this is a short. It is. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen and take over. Good morning, everyone. So that's two minutes left of morning. Eliza Monroe here representing the planning department. Plenty staff requests that the staff report and all materials submitted at the public hearing be made part of the public record, with any necessary corrections as noted. Okay. I tried to get it in there in 20 seconds. Okay. So case B210023 is a request for a minor special use permit to allow a building height greater than 35 feet. The applicant is Rob Griffin with Beth Page Application Partners, LLC. And the subject site is located at 5621 Chin Page Road and 5530 Primary Drive. The case area is highlighted in red on the screen. The site is zoned, office and institutional or OI and is located within the suburban development here. The site area, as you can see, is currently vacant. I'm pretty well forested as well. And there are a couple of environmental features which are visible on the site plan, which was one of the attachments. So Rob Griffin, the applicant is requesting a minor special use permit to allow a building height greater than 35 feet. On a site located at 5261 Chin Page Road and 5530 Primary Drive. And I'm going to pull up the site plan sheet that gives a little bit more of the overview of everything. And everyone should have a link to this if you would like to zoom in. I can zoom in after I finish up. As I mentioned before, the site is zoned OI and then suburban tier. And the applicant is proposing construction of multi-family apartment units, which is a permitted use in that zoning district. So we're not talking about the use itself, just the height. Per section 6.10.2a.4a of the unified development ordinance, the height of a multi-family development within the OI district is regulated as allowed for the residential suburban M district pursuant to UDO section 6.3.1a. Heights of up to 55 feet are permitted with the issuance of a minor special use permit per UDO section 6.3.1a.7. And the applicant is requesting a minor special use permit to allow the multi-family developments to be up to 45 feet tall. The proposed plan, which is above in front of you, as well as in the attachment shows that buildings one through three are proposed to be 38 feet and 11 inches tall and buildings four through six are proposed at 44 feet and four inches tall. Staff would like to note for the record that the site plan is substantially clear of comments. Staff has identified no issues at the time of support, but I would like to note that there was an interesting timing so that a section of the ordinance that was referenced was recently approved so that in the effective date was June 1st, which is after the application submittal date. So there was a waiver submitted because the ordinance was changing in the midst of their application coming in. So it is now effective June 1st, the application of course came in prior to June 1st. So just wanted to clarify that if there were any questions at all. UDO section 3.9.8a in B establishes four findings and 13 review factors that the applicant must meet in order for the Board to grant a use permit. These findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings and review factors are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet. Staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process and staff also has control of the screen. There are a couple of different exhibits and as well as this site plan, which have quite a bit of details on them, so I may exit out of this format so we're able to zoom in and out as needed. Thank you, Eliza. Chad, you got a question? I do. A very quick one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, Eliza. I missed it. What was the text change that was effective June 1st? I'm sorry. I didn't understand that. So prior to June 1st, there was an, what's called an omnibus. So there were changes that were staff oriented changes. So it was not something the applicant necessarily requested. And that was under TC 210001 omnibus 16. And it has an effective date of June 1st. And prior to that change, height, the additional height was not permitted. So they would have been limited to the 35 feet. The change now allows a minor special use permit. It became effective June 1st. It's been in the work for a while over the amount of time, probably as long as the site plan's been in the works. However, their application came a little bit before June 1st. So therefore they have to submit like a waiver or they submitted a waiver stating like, hey, this is coming down the pipeline. We're just a little bit ahead of the effective date. I see. So the regulations prior to June 1st would not have allowed the additional height requested, but they changed. And so now the applicant is seeking a minor special use permit to take advantage of the increase in height. Badest tracks. Thank you. Your problem at all. Any other questions for Eliza? Alrighty. Would the applicant like to come forward? Yes, Chairman Rogers, can you hear me okay? Gotcha. Very good. Chairman Rogers, members of the board. I'm Patrick Biker with Morningstar Law Group. My office address is still 112 West Main Street in Durham. I hear this morning to represent Buckingham Companies, the multifamily developer of this site. This site is within a over 400 acre master plan development known as Beth Page. Beth Page is located on the east side of Page Road and the north side of Chin Page Road in southeastern Durham County. We're here this morning to request a minor special use permit to allow for an additional 10 feet of building height as permitted in section 6.10.2a.4.a of the UDO as Eliza has just recounted. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that exhibits A through E, which will be relied upon by our expert witnesses. We ask that those be moved into evidence exhibits A through D are the resumes of our expert witnesses who will be providing testimony on the additional building height and then exhibit E is a real estate impact analysis by our team's real estate appraiser, David Smith. Right. So, noted. Thank you. Thank you. Again, the section that Eliza referred to actually allows up to 55 feet of building height within the OI district. We're only asking for 10 feet to go from 35 feet to 45 feet. Again, section 3.9.1b of the UDO gives the Board of Adjustment jurisdiction over minor special use permits. And so our testimony today will demonstrate that the proposed plan that's on your screen today meets all the requirements for approval of this additional height as set forth in the UDO. You're going to hear from our team of expert witnesses. First of all, you'll hear from Mr. Ashton Smith. He's an engineer and a site designer with Kimley Horne who's worked on this site plan. Secondly, you'll hear from Mr. Earl Llewellyn, also with Kimley Horne, who's our traffic engineer for this project. Third is Mr. Rob Griffin. He's the Associate Director for Development and land with tri properties. And he is the co lead developer for the overall best page development. And then lastly, Mr. David Smith. He's a real estate appraiser who's been here in Durham for many years. He will testify that there is no adverse impact on property values. So as you hear that evidence, please keep in mind the legal standards. It's our burden as the applicant to provide competent material and substantial evidence on the record in support of each of the findings in the UDO. Once that is completed, we have established a primal fascia case entitling us to this special use permit. And again, this request is a little unusual. We're not talking about a use today. We're simply talking about an additional 10 feet in height, which again is to go from 35 feet to 45 feet. We feel confident that the testimony and the exhibits that you're going to hear this morning that have been submitted to the board demonstrate our compliance with all required findings in the UDO. And if there are not any questions for me, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Ashton Smith. Hey, good morning, board. My name is Ashton Smith. I'm a professional engineer at Kimley Horn. My office that I'm working out of is at 421 Payetteville Street in Raleigh, North Carolina. I got my bachelor's degree from NC State in 2005 and have been working throughout the triangle over the past 15 plus years doing site civil engineering. I'm also licensed in several of the surrounding states. But my primary focus is in residential, multifamily, single family, commercial, some industrial use, and I also work with a lot of renewable energies. And let's see. And with that, I'm very confident in anything site civil related. Let's see. Hold up. Sorry. Lost my spot. In my role at Kimley Horn, I work directly with my design team and provide mentorship to the younger staff that is on the design team. I mentor the analysts and I work directly with them on detailed design information, you know, especially for this project and other projects that are under my seal. In my role, I also quality check all the plant sets and coordinate with the project teams and the staff that is reviewing the plans. So my lead with this project is I'm a project manager on the team. I've come in to help Kelsey, who is the lead engineer, but she is out on vacation this week. But I have been doing quality review checks for this project. And I have worked with the staff to help make sure the plans are good, make sure the design is good, and meets all required code to help protect the public safety and make sure that we're in harmony with the UDO and the site. I'm here to discuss the overall design of the project and make clear the base of your knowledge that I have worked on the site plan and I have worked with the design team and I can answer any questions you may have in regards to that. Over the last three or four months, I've been working closely with the staff to develop the site plan you see before you. The site plan for this project has been preliminarily approved by staff as mentioned earlier. And the issuance and special use permit we are requesting today as Patrick said it was for 10 foot of additional height, which was just recently approved by Durham. A couple of the review factors that I'd like to touch base on. Veteran UDO section 3.9.8B in regards to lighting. Generally speaking the review factor is not impacted by the request for additional height. Lighting will meet all UDO standards still. Parking lot, pedestrian walkways and service loading area will be lit appropriately. In regards to signage, again, signage is not implicated by the request for additional height, but all new signs will meet the UDO standards. Utilities. Request for additional height does not affect the utilities, but the site plan does demonstrate water and sewer utility serving the site. Open space. Request for additional height does not affect the amount of open space required. Our site plan exceeds UDO requirements. Specifically, the UDO requires 80% open space and we have 20% shown on the site plan. Likewise, the UDO requires 20% tree save and our site plan shows 30.4%. Environmental protection. No environmental features will be impacted by the request for additional height. Environmental features on the site will not be impacted regardless of the request because of the request because of the request height increase. There are creeks that are on site, but we are staying away from them and their buffers as well. Screening buffering and landscape project boundary buffers will be required for this project and the site plan indicates the location of the buffers are shown. The effects on the nearby properties. In my expert opinion, the request for additional height will not result in any noticeable increase to noise, odor, or site lighting at the site as a result of granting this minor special use permit for the additional tentative height. Additional height will not result in any material visual impact since this is a similar multi-family development as the surrounding areas and as part of the overall master plan for the several multi-family developments. The compatibility. Again, the request for additional height is appropriate in this location given its proximity to other multi-family buildings in the vicinity. I stated on page five of the staff report for the agenda item. In addition, it is in my professional opinion that the request for additional height is consistent and compatible with nearby properties. Consistency with this policy, the proposed development is consistent with the guidelines of the comprehensive plan, the regulations within the UDO, and all other adopted plans pertinent to this site. Inclusion. In my professional opinion, the proposed height is compatible with nearby properties, and the site has been designed in a manner that minimizes adverse effects of two nearby properties. Finally, it is my professional opinion that the site has been designed in compliance with all environmental protection regulations applicable to the site. There are no questions at this time. I would like to invite Mr. Earl Louis-Elm, our traffic engineer, to speak more about our project. Thank you. You've got a question for Mr. Smith or someone else? I do, and it's a very, very simple one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Mr. Smith. Just a quick question for you. The townhouses that are to the north and, I guess, east of 1st Edition and or primary drive, do you know how tall those are? Are those two-story or are those single-story? I believe they're two-story. Thank you. If I may interrupt, the ones directly north of the circle are three-story. The ones to the left of that have not been built yet. Okay. Would you happen to know the anticipated height of the structures across primary drive? No, I don't know the ones. Okay. Thank you. David, are you next? I think I'll go to Earl Louis-Elm next if that's all right, Mr. Chairman. Of course. Take it away. Good morning. I'm Earl Louis-Elm, traffic engineer with Kimley-Horn Associates, located at 300 Moore Street here in Durham. I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from NC State with a focus in transportation. I've been with Kimley-Horn for 12 years and I am a licensed professional engineer in North Carolina. I prepared the traffic study for the overall Bethpage Resoning project back several years ago, as well as multiple updates and phasing analyses for those. I'll now address the transportation-related review factors from the UDO. The site is designed with two access points to efficiently dispersed traffic and there's a robust sidewalk system, both internal and external to the project, which will not be affected by the requested increase in height. The site includes adequate provisions for parking, travel lanes to ensure safe movements, and bicycle parking is provided in accordance with UDO standards. The site also accommodates access and circulation of anticipated service vehicles. Accordingly, approval of this site, excuse me, special use permit and site plan will have no adverse impact on adjacent properties as all traffic associated with the project is addressed with improvements shown on the site plan as well as the overall development plan for Bethpage. In conclusion, it's my professional opinion that the site plan for the proposed building is in harmony with the area, meets the requirements of the applicable special use permit. It's also my professional opinion that the site is designed to be in an appropriate manner to be safely accommodating of automobile traffic, including emergency vehicles, and the site will not adversely affect health safety of the public and the site adequately addresses all the review factors in the UDO. I'm happy to address any questions. Thank you, Mr. Lew-Ellen. Patrick, back to you. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Patrick Beiker again for the applicant. Our next witness will be Mr. Rob Griffin. I would like to emphasize Mr. Griffin's role in the overall Bethpage development. It's been a privilege to work with Mr. Griffin for several years now. We've had several rezonings throughout the 400-plus-acre assemblage go to the county commissioners of the city council over the last several years. With Mr. Griffin's leadership, my recollection is there's never been opposition to those rezonings, and they've all been unanimously approved. And so he has a unique role as making sure that development within Bethpage everything is compatible. Mr. Griffin has a strong working relationship with a gentleman named Mr. Kevin Walls, who's one of the neighborhood leaders in the Creteside neighborhood. Mr. Griffin works with Mr. Walls on all the entitlements, procedures, proceedings that we've gone through over the last five to seven years that Mr. Lew-Ellen and I have also been involved with. And so as part of this proceeding, preparing for this hearing, Mr. Griffin did discuss this proposal with Mr. Walls in order to obtain his input. Normally that if that were referred to by a non-expert, that would be considered hearsay. But since Mr. Griffin is an expert in the field of real estate development, I submit to the board that it's not hearsay since it's foundational to a basis of his expert witness testimony. And so with that, I'll turn over to Mr. Griffin so he can introduce himself. Again, he's a Durham native, knows Durham very well, and he has done an exceptional job making Bethpage one of Durham's most successful master plan developments. Mr. Griffin. Thank you for having us and for listening today. Rob Griffin and the trial properties are located at 545 Page Road in Durham. And it applies to state planning and geography. Been in commercial real estate for 22 years, was with scientific properties for seven years with the redevelopment of Golden Belt and Venomal Center downtown Durham. Been here with trial properties now the last seven years. The trial properties represents Bethpage acquisition partners, the landowner for this site, as well as another currently 36 acres, approximately 100 acres all told in the beginning going back to 2006. We've sold off a significant portion of that. Bethpage acquisition partners was the commercial development partner of the Bethpage development with reader partners being the residential co developer. They did all the horizontal site work and development for Creekside of Bethpage, which is the 55 and over age restricted community to the north. They also sold on lifestyle land, which you see just directly north of this site on the site plan on your screen. I mean, our goal is to work together to ensure most successful development, not just successful in terms of a sale and profit, but ensuring that everything meshes well together and that all parties are happy with the outcome and with the age restricted development to the north. Anything we do to the south has an impact to the livelihood and overall benefit that they see of living at Bethpage. To Patrick's point about Kevin Wallace, Kevin is one of the early residents in the Creekside community, the 55 and over development. We have sought Kevin's counsel. He serves as the head of the residence association there. We've consulted Kevin on every item we brought to them. All of the commercial land at Bethpage was originally zoned industrial, white industrial, and as we have rezoned pieces of that out of white industrial to OI with the goal of having developments that aren't as negatively impactful to the Creekside community. Kevin has been right there at our side. We bring him up speed on everything we're doing. We don't want any hiccups. We don't want anybody called flat-footed. To that end, Kevin provided an email testimony. I understand email is not an acceptable form of testimony in this hearing, but he did email his support of the additional height on behalf of the residents at Creekside. Let me see if I can get to mine. I did want to point out if you're looking at your site plan that's on your screen, there are existing three-story apartments that Lysaw communities has built that actually back up to the Creekside development. As mentioned previously, they have heights ranging from 35 to 39 feet. First-edition drive, which sits between that development and the area in question, actually serves as a ridgeline with our land falling away as you go south away from Creekside. Any additional height that is granted here is, for lack of a better term, eaten up with the falling topography. So this is not going to be seen. These replines are not going to be seen above what gets developed on the lifestyle site because of the ridgeline of first-edition drive and the falling topography. Any additional height given here will be even width or lower than visually what you see at a lifestyle. I'm available to answer any questions you may have and turn it back over to Patrick. Thank you, Mr. Griffin. If there are no questions for Mr. Griffin, our last witness is Mr. David Smith. David, take it away. Good afternoon. My name is David Smith. I live at 2007 Front Street in Durham. It's also where my office is. I used to serve on this board several years ago, so I appreciate what you all do. You do a good service for the city and the county. I am a state-certified real estate appraiser. I hold the MAI and the SRA designations of the appraisal institute, the most highly regarded designations. I've been appraising property for over 40 years, mostly in the Durham area. I believe you have a copy of my qualifications in exhibit D. I've been asked to determine if increasing the building height of the proposed apartments will adversely affect the property values of properties in the general vicinity. I believe you have a copy of my report in exhibit E. I visited the site of the proposed apartments. I also inspected those properties in the area of the proposed apartments. To determine the effect of the proposed apartments, I used a technique known as match pairs analysis. In this analysis, properties that are similar in most respects are compared to determine the effect of a characteristic. To determine the effect of the proposed apartments, I used sales of townhouses since that is what is near the proposed apartments. I located four properties directly across the street from an apartment development, Avila Springs, with buildings the same height as the proposed apartments. Also located four properties in the same area but away from apartments. The properties were very similar in almost every category. The only significant difference other than location was square footage. Since the properties were analyzed on a per square foot basis that considered that. The resulting average square foot selling prices of the four different types, one was $131.13 and the other was $130.80, with actually the ones across the street from the apartments being the ones a little bit higher. But it's so close that it's virtually the same. Based on this, it is my opinion that the proposed apartments at 45 feet in height will be in harmony with the area and not substantially injurious to the value of properties in the general vicinity. I'm available for any questions. And if not, I'll turn it back over to Patrick. Thank you. Thank you, David. Just in conclusion, Patrick Biker, the attorney for the applicant, for the record, we move into evidence. All the exhibits relied upon by our witnesses and the staff report and the site plan that's before you. As I mentioned, it's the applicant's burden to provide substantial material, competent evidence on all findings required in the UDO. We have done that and we respectfully ask for your approval of this minor special use permit to increase the height of the buildings on this site from 35 feet to 45 feet. Our teams happy to answer any questions. We thank you very much for your time today and respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you. All right. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Retchless? Yes. Hello. Good afternoon. Just the 45 heights. Is that to the apex ridge of the roof? That would be, it's based on how the UDO calculates site, Mr. Retchless. And so it's, it's, yeah, thanks for moving it to that appropriate page of the site plan. You can see it's based on, you take the four corners of the building and you average those and that's how you come up with the height of the building. And it is, again, for the tallest building a little bit under 45 feet. Yeah, there should be a vertical elevation in the staff report and the site plan. There we go. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. Any other questions for the applicant? Points of clarification. All right. Is there anyone, would you mind, Eliza, would you mind stop sharing that? Thank you. Is anyone here to speak, else to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none. Is there anyone here to speak against this application? Staff was not made aware of anyone that signed up in the opposition for the case. Thank you. Eliza, do you have a recommendation for us? Yes, I do. Staff recommends approval of managed special use permit case number B2100023 with the condition that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the information submitted to the board as a part of the application and the site plan case D200226. Thank you. All right. Any discussion among the board members? Thoughts? This is Chad. I'm ready to make a motion, sir. Take it over. I hereby make a motion that application number B2100023, an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 5261 Chin Page Road and 5530 Primary Drive, has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the information submitted to the board as part of the application and site plan case D20000226. All right. We got a motion for approval by Mr. Meadows. Is there a second? Regulus second. Regulus on the second. And Susan, take it off. Take it away. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Vote of seven to zero. Your request for a minor special use permit has been granted. We appreciate you coming for the BOA and wish you the best of luck. We've got one more case on the agenda. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We can break or we can get through this last one. What are our thoughts? Mike says moving on. All right. Well, let's do it. Susan, would you call the next one? Yes. B210024. A request for a variance from frontage type requirements and sidewalk requirements. The subject site is located at 605609 and 611 Jackson Street. Is zone downtown design support one and in the downtown tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time. And property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the signpostings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Ms. Major, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Weymour, Mr. Retchless, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows, and Mr. Kibb. Thank you, Susan. All right. So let's do some swearing in. Everyone who plans on giving testimony, if you'll turn your camera on. I think we've got everyone. Chris, you got something? I want to call to the phone callers one more time. If anyone's calling via phone and wish to participate, please use the raise hand function. Thank you. Which is what, star? Star nine. Star nine. All right. Don't see it. All right. If you'll raise your right, hand will administer the oath. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth and Cindy. Okay. Thank you. We're here. Hold on. Hold on. I'm just. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Jared. Yes. Jarvis. Are you Jarvis? Are you there? I guess we can't hear you, huh? All right. We'll come back to him. Do you also, do you consent to this remote meeting platform, Jared? I do. And Cindy? Yes. Jarvis, you all with us? All right. And we got you on the oath as well. All right. Who's got this one? It is me. Take it over. Okay. Just want to check. Can you hear me now? All right. Sorry. Wait. There we go. Good afternoon, I guess. I'm a foreigner here, representing the planning department. Planning staff requested the staff for non-material submitted public hearing to be made part of the public record with NRAC corrections as noted. As noted. Thank you, sir. Okay. There's an error here, but BK's 21-0-0-0-2-4 is a request for advance from design district frontage types along Vickers Avenue and an active use dimension of at least 20 feet of interior depth and several requirements being provided from building face to back of the case area is highlighted in red. The site is in the downtown design district support fund in the downtown development tier is in the city of their jurisdiction. The existing use is vacant commercial and a converted residence. Sorry about that. Now, I guess, bird eye was the thing is the name of lowering homes across the variance from design district frontage types along Vickers Avenue, active use dimension of at least 20 feet of interior depth and several requirements being provided from building face to back curb. As per unified development ordinance studio section 16.3.1a requires that all street-facing private and public street use a frontage type. The applicant proposes to provide a store front frontage type along the Jackson Street, but argues the due to the 10 to 14 feet in drop along Vickers Avenue, makes the frontage type unfeasible. The applicant proposes an active use approximately 70 feet along Vickers Avenue. In addition to not provide a frontage type video section 16.3.2.8 requires that the ground floor be in active use. The apps can also request for this as there will be no use in parking per UDO section 16.4.2a requires sidewalk from the building face to back curb. The applicant plans to only have a six foot sidewalk that leads to street access instead of the whole area. They plan to leave exist existing vegetation in this area. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes the findings listed below that the Board of Adjustment must make in granting of variance. These findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicant's response to the findings and review factors are identified in the application both within your packet. Staff will be allowed for any questions during the hearing process. Thank you, Cole. Mr. Meadows, you got a question. Thank you, sir. One quick question, Cole. In the second paragraph, you indicated that the applicant is seeking variance from the glazing requirements. I did not see that. So that is a correction that has been made recently. Staff determined that because of the building frontage type being removed, there is no requirement for glazing because glazing is in correlation to the frontage type. If there is no frontage type, there would be no glazing requirements. Okay, so one follow-on question and just primarily for my edification, the building facade, I'm sorry, the building frontage type standards, are those applied solely to the ground floor or are they applied to the entire facade? So those are the design district. The frontage type is generally the building podium. So it is usually ground floor elevations that are usually counted. There is some other things that apply to parking decks and stuff, but as far as this building, it's just the frontage type. Any other questions for Cole? Applicant, Cindy, would you like to take it away? Thank you. Cole, can you bring up our presentation? Yes, one more. Thank you. Do you want the presentation first and then the press report after? Sure. Okay, hold on. It's just being in pain right now. I'll have it in a second. If you want to go ahead and I can take a second for it to live. Great. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. We're here today to seek various requests from the ordinance provisions for the Jackson Street condominium project. We will present findings of evidence of unnecessary hardship will result in strict application of the ordinance. Hardship will result from conditions peculiar to the property. The hardship not resulting from many actions of the owner or property owner. And the variance requests are consistent with the spirit and purpose and intent of the ordinance. We'd like to accept the staff report into evidence and I'd like to introduce our qualified witnesses as experts in the respective fields. My name is Cindy Hoffman. I'm a professional landscape architect. I've been with over 20 years experience. I'm licensed in North Carolina as well as I'm a senior project manager at Stuart here in Durham. Next, Jared Martinson, architect with over 20 years experience and director of the Durham office at MHA works, we'll be speaking. And then Jarvis Martin, a state certified general appraiser with over 40 years experience principal at Stuart Martin and McCoy here in Durham. Laureate Holmes to seek invariance requests from ordinance provisions along a portion of Vickers Avenue. And specifically the frontage type applicability. The UDO calls for all facades fronting along public and private streets to have a frontage type. Secondly, the second request is structured parking at the ground floor. UDO requires frontage along a right away to be uses other than parking and active use to have a 20 foot minimum depth. And thirdly, third request would be a sidewalk standards. The UDO specifies downtown design support one district requires sidewalk pavement from the building to the face of back building face to the back of curbs. So we're talking about the width portion of that requirement. And we're only talking about a portion of Vickers Avenue. And we'll show that as we walk through next slide, please. As you can see here, our project is comprised of three parcels 605 609 and 611 Jackson Street with frontage along Vickers Avenue. Our shape of our property is a triangle shape configuration totaling 0.53 acres half an acre. Across Jackson Street is 605 West End departments. And across Vickers Avenue, the Grove, it's a town home under construction. Currently existing on site, there's a small house been converted to a business as distinctive properties realtors. And Vickers Avenue has a varying right of way width from 80 feet near the intersection to 132 feet wide toward the south end of our property. The steep topography and the right of way from back of curb or from the sidewalk, existing sidewalk is 19 feet of change in elevation. And there's a lot of existing right of woods and large trees vegetation in the right of way. And you can see this in the photos to the right. The first photo shows the intersection of Jackson Street and Vickers Avenue with the small house business. Second photo is Jackson Street with the downtown streetscape across across the street at 605 West End departments. The third photo shows the grade change even at the corner where it starts sloping off from Vickers Avenue down to the site. And then fourth photo shows Vickers Avenue's existing streetscape. Fifth photo shows further down Vickers Avenue where you can see more of significant grade change that 19 feet between back of curb sidewalk and the right of way line. And the last photo there is Vickers Avenue with all the existing heavy vegetation in the right of way. Third slide. Next slide please. So on the three parcels along Jackson Street and Vickers Avenue there's like I said 0.53 acres and a triangle shaped configuration. Our zoning is downtown design support one district. The comprehensive land use plan calls for multi-family residential and our proposed use is condominiums with retail non-residential use on the ground floor. There are 55 units and 61 parking spaces planned just over one space per unit. The maximum building height permitted is 100 feet and we're proposing 75 feet about six stories. The build two line along Jackson Street is 12 to 18 feet from back of curb along Vickers Avenue because the right of way encumbers the entire build two zone with zero to four feet and that's where we're showing it there. The proposed frontage is storefront. Jackson Street we're meeting all the requirements there the commercial use on ground floor with residential above and Vickers Avenue we're wrapping the commercial to the extent possible before the grades drop off significantly. So the variance request is for the frontage type with an active use for a portion of Victor's Avenue and the hardship being grades significant grade change as well as the right of way width being so wide at that portion. The Jackson Street downtown street scape standards along Jackson Street are commercial uses along ground floor with the entrance to the parking garage, 12 foot wide sidewalk with worth banding it back a curb, street trees, site furnishings including seating, bike racks, trash receptacles and decorative street lights. Along Vickers Street we're carrying also use the downtown streetscape standards but there's only a six foot wide walk with brick banding at the back of curb. Again street trees, site furnishings, decorative street lights and we're proposing amenity at the corner and the NCDOT right of way to activate the street with outdoor tables and benches and seating. It's about 1500 square feet plaza and it will have movable site furnishings and some landscaping. So our request for the streetscape standards here is to reduce the pavement width from the back of curb to building face to the six feet and our hardship against the topography and the right of way width. Next slide please and that slide too you'll see section 1A to 1B and then the next slide we'll see this section. Oh I'm sorry you're correct, missed the slide. So the UDF definition of ground floor is either ground level or street level. It's the floor of a building whose finished floor elevation is closest to the grade of the adjacent street. So Jackson Street elevations at 387, Vickers at 389 so our ground floor finished floor elevation is 388. Again the frontage type along Vickers the lowest level of the proposed building is 10 to 14 feet below Vickers Avenue. The Vickers Avenue right away proposed building facade is 32 to 38 feet from the back of curb and the frontage does not interface with the street. There's no relationship. Our active use along Vickers we're not we've carried the 70 feet of commercial use around the corner and then there's the parking deck and that we're showing the purple there we do not have a frontage type there for that 20 foot minimum interior building depth. The ground floor active use is along Jackson Street wrapping the corner and the upper level parking ground level along Vickers. It's where the grade slope significantly along Vickers right away. The street scape sits the lowest level of the building sits 10 to 14 feet below Vickers and the building facade is 32 to 38 feet so there's no relationship between the streetscape along Vickers to the building and there's no other representative it's not representative of the streetscapes in the downtown district with large walks or pavement width between the back of curb and building facade so we again request the streetscape variance because of topography and right of way width and see the section line for 1a 1b and go to the next slide you see the section for the 1a 1b more more representative and this is at the corner it's parallel to Jackson Street we're at the Vickers Avenue intersection that you see is higher there's a some great change there to our plaza on the corner activated use the ground floor ground level is commercial and parking use and then the lower level parking is below grade next slide please here but the lower we see the plan view of the lower level of the parking deck with the ramps and that you see a stairwell egress path at the lower level of the parking up to Vickers Avenue and the section line 2a 2b and next slide please the section of 2a 2b see the ground floor level is parking the lower level on grade with the stairwell and egress to Vickers Avenue so again we request for the frontage type with for a portion of Vickers Avenue and the streetscape from back a curb to building base next slide please oh next slide and Jared Martinson will be presenting the next slide their few slides hello and good afternoon my name is Jared Martinson I'm an architect with MHA works architects in Durham North Carolina would like to introduce myself as a as a professional and expert witness I have a master's degree in architecture from Virginia Tech licensed in the state of North Carolina and as Cindy mentioned have been practicing professionally in North Carolina for over 20 years I'm the director of mixed use and multifamily projects as well as a project manager for our firm our firm is located at 501 Washington Street sweet G I have designed numerous similar mixed use and multifamily projects in the triangle and in Durham within the guidelines of the UDO and I've reviewed the submitted materials and am familiar with the project and the project site I'd like to take you through a little bit of specific to the building elevations that are on the screen in front of you Cindy did a great job explaining some the relationship of the lower level and the ground level and the relationship with the site and I thought I would marry that a little bit with a description of what's happening vertically on the site and so the elevation at the top of the page is the Jackson Street elevation at this elevation from right to left we are proposing an active use compliant with the UDO a location of vertical circulation compliant with the UDO our electrical transformer our vehicle entry to the parking our residential lobby and an active use on the corner near the plaza where Cindy mentioned that intersection of Jackson and Vickers above that ground level we're proposing our residential uses the elevation to the plant the page south is our Vickers elevation again from right to left we're proposing a continuation of that active use as it reaches around Jackson to Vickers and we're showing our structured parking on the ground level we do have our vertical circulation with which extends from our lower level all the way up to our residential levels and that is attached to the exterior staircase that Cindy showed you in the site and building section on a previous slide our structured parking at the lower level is primarily below grade and again everything above our ground level is residential use the bold line that you see at the floor line of our ground level is a representation of the elevation of Vickers to further illustrate the unnecessary hardship of the site and the conditions peculiar to the property as illustrated in these elevations where the site allows the project is proposing to meet all of the requirements of the UDO specifically 16 3 1 a 2 the frontage type of which talks about frontage types that applying to all facades fronting along public and private streets as well as 16 3 2 a structured parking ground floor where you have a ground floor frontage along a right away can only be used as other than parking so again we do believe we're meeting the intent of the UDO where where possible however where structured parking is proposed to be visible on vectors we are proposing a design consistent with 16 3 2 b including not representing the sloping nature of the interior structure utilizing a similar finish to other building exterior walls utilizing decorative screening and opaque walls to screen vehicle head or tail lights as well as providing openings screened with material which is at least 60% opaque while allowing natural ventilation to those areas cold can you go to the next slide please thank you sir um i now have two uh aerial perspectives which um assistant illustrating the building's compliance with the ordinance where possible as well as the conditions peculiar to the property so as Cindy referenced we're dealing with a site elevation change of about 10 to 14 feet below vectors and so what we're representing here are some spot elevations along that portion of the vickers frontage to help demonstrate that hardship um we're dealing with the steep slope and the topography in the ncdot right of way which Cindy referenced we're also dealing with the width of that right of way and the fact that the building facade is located 32 to 38 feet from the back of curb along vectors additionally we're looking at the challenge of the configuration of the property specifically speaking the triangular and the unique shape creates challenges for maximizing density as defined within the company cool can you go to the second slide please the next one thank you so this slide is very much similar to the one we just saw we've removed some of those dimensions and tried to add in some of that existing and proposed vegetation that is going to remain that vegetative in that ncdot right way as well as also illustrating our proposed sidewalk and street trees to meet ordinance requirements along so why do we believe our design is favorable and consistent with the spirit of the ordinances um number one where possible we're providing structured parking at the ground floor and recognize that parking shall not be exposed on the ground floor and therefore along Jackson and a portion of vickers are meeting the intent and the requirements of the ordinance with that but due to the existing hardship of the site an active frontage is frontage is not being proposed along a portion of vickers avenue because of the vertical grade drop the horizontal distance from vickers as well as the use of vickers i think it's important to understand that vickers is two lanes of one-way traffic kind of weaving downtown there and that between Jackson street and the overpass to 147 there are no other purpose further we are proposing to provide active use floor area fronting parking where the site allows it and that is 100 of Jackson street and approximately 33 percent of vickers also like to point out and i previously mentioned the location of some of our service area locations and this also gets into the udo requirements as well that primarily our service area locations which include the electrical transformer areas of vertical circulation vehicle drive access and things like that are all being located on Jackson due to the hardship of the site limiting the opportunity to locate them on the frontage in summary we're proposing to follow the excuse me we propose the following to demonstrate that our variance requests are consistent with the intent of the ordinance and that is a storefront frontage type is going to be provided along the ground level of Jackson street and about 70 feet along vickers avenue before the grade drops in that right of way 10 to 14 feet below the street elevation making a frontage type there non feasible we're going to provide an active use along vickers for 70 feet and screen the structure structured parking along vickers consistent with the requirements of the udo and again those are decorative screens window frames and existing vegetation and we're also going to provide a six foot wide sidewalk and streetscape along vickers in accordance with ncdot requirements it's my professional opinion that the proposed site development is consistent with the comp prehensive plan and development within the dds loan zoning it's my professional opinion that unnecessary hardship results from strict application of the furnished type requirements and the active use in front of structured parking requirements outlined in the udo resulting from conditions unique and peculiar to this property as Cindy and I have outlined today it's also my professional opinion that the requested variances are consistent with the spirit purpose and intent of the ordinance for the reasons that we have explained and with that concludes my testimony I believe Mr. Jarvis will be following me to talk about the viability of commercial space as an active use along that vickers frontage thank you Mr. Chairman hey Jarvis take it away okay I'm Jarvis Martin as stated earlier I'm a principle with the firm of Stuart Martin McCoy I have the sra designation from the appraisal attitude and I've been appraising property here in Durham and trying on areas over 40 years I'm a state certified general appraisal have that license and also hold two degrees from North Carolina Center University and I've had the privilege to appear before this board on numerous occasions in my professional career at the request of the applicant I have reviewed the site plan that's been discussed in detail in a topography that has been outlined in detail I have visited the site and the surrounding area I was asked to try to make a determination to gauge the lack of commercial or finished space on vickers avenue whether it would have any adverse impact on the surrounding properties to do that I looked at recently completed spaces or developments here in the downtown area that are somewhat similar to what's being proposed with active retail a finished space on the ground floor coming from the parking area and found two recent locations one at 105 North Magnum Street and the second one at the 500 North Magnum Street and then North Morgan Street and looked at these facilities in terms of what space was available which is detailed in my report and how much of that space has been leased and given that we understand that the recent pandemic has had some impact on deviability of commercial space and activity in general but the Morgan Street site has been on the market for over two years and currently still has a large amount of vacancy some 46% and the Magnum Street site which was finished during the pandemic only currently has one lease tenant per the information on the realtors website based upon the fact that it's this development will have finished or commercial space on the Jackson Street side it is my professional opinion that the lack of this additional space will not impact the surrounding properties without have any adverse impact and that the overall development is in harmony with the neighborhood and therefore in my professional opinion recommend that the variance be granted thank you sir thank you Cindy turn it back over to you thank you just to conclude and wrap it up summary wise we appreciate your time and consideration of our variance requests from the ordinance provisions for the Jackson Street condominium project specifically the frontage type of flickability we're all facades fronting along public and private streets to have a frontage type the structured parking at ground floor udo requiring frontage along the right of way to be used as other than parking specifically because there is not a relationship between bickers avenue and the ground floor and then our sidewalk standards in the downtown design support district requires sidewalks from the back of curb to the face of building and being the wide wide wide way with that we have just not applicable we will be glad to answer any questions the board may have regarding the variance request and we thank you for your time all right any questions for this applicant looks like mr. retches hi yes thank you for that presentation who maybe this is for the city but who who approves that decorative screening in in replacement of the frontage type is that something you can answer coal or sorry did you say decorative who approves the decorative screening yes yeah that would that would go through the city review we do have decorative screening departments that are listed on the video and we would make sure that it meets those standards for decorative thank you tomatoes thank you mr. chair question for the applicant um is there grading proposed on the site now and would you mind talking a little bit more about why the decision not to grade along vickers was made um there is going to be some grading on site uh the the property or the area with the steep slope is in the ncdot right of way which is property that we don't control um and being the wide wide way with that's the ncdot is prerogative I'm sorry follow on if I may sure um okay so the lot line actually commences after the bot this the slope bottoms out in other words the the property boundary is located at the at the bottom of the slope is that am I is that right yes thank you any other questions for the applicant I have a question mr. camp from previous knowledge I understand this site has some walk I got big drainage feature under it or there's a water flume or something or other did that have impact on the site on the the planning of the site or was that taken care of underground plans are to reroute the utilities including storm drainage into the right of way and um tie it back to over on vickers avenue so it will be um where it currently drains through the site that will be rerouted okay any other questions for the applicant I have another question mr. camp in looking at um the I guess it's a rendering it seems like this building is two stories higher than the one across the street at 605 chapel hill street is that because of the subterranean nature of the basement and parking area or maybe 605 chapel hill street didn't maximize their height and I don't expect you to know about that but just asking jaren did you want to take that one or you want me I am I'm pulling up a copy of my um rendering now um mr. kip it appears that from those kind of aerial perspective perspectives that we represented that the project on the other side of Jackson street is approximately four stories tall along the Jackson street frontage I can't speak to that project um as I was not affiliated with it in any way um our project is proposed to be one two three four five six stories along that Jackson street frontage and in complete compliance with the current um UDO requirements we're permitted um under the UDO 100 feet height and we're only at 75 that's correct thank you any other questions for the applicant all right is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application see in nine is there anyone here to speak against this application if we've got some callers uh in the room uh if you want to speak please dial star nine to raise your hand all right uh seeing none as well uh board discussion thoughts I met as I'll share one thought I thought the exhibits were exceptionally well done in this application um extremely extremely helpful to see the material that was prepared and it was well presented uh so I I just thought that that was just just outstanding and and I'm I'm going to support this Dean I'm all right anyone else I'll add to Chad Retzlis here that the the slope definitely takes away from having being able to to develop that and um yeah they've done a fabulous job of details on exactly what is proposed here and I'm for it as well all right um anyone else what anyone like to offer a motion meadows go ahead sir I've already done mine you go ahead um yeah so I hereby make a motion the case number b210024 an application for a quest for variance from frontage type requirements and sidewalk requirements on property located at 605 609 and 611 Jackson street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and it's hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application we've got a motion for approval by Mr. Retzlis is there a second meadows second meadows second um is it yes uh mr kip yes mr meadows yes mr rogers yes mr retzlis yes mr weymour yes mr jeter yeah mr major yes motion carry seven to zero uh vote of seven to zero your request for variance has been approved we wish you the best of luck and thank you for coming before the b o a today thank you so much thank you have a nice day you too I almost said this morning but we're past that um all right uh the the next uh case on the agenda has been postponed I think we've got somebody in the uh in a room that was signed up for that uh this has been postponed to a later date and we are not sure when uh notice will be given for that uh so we'll skip that uh our next item on the agenda is the old business the rules of procedure and this was uh discussed or at least presented at uh last month's meeting I think we would talk about it a bit uh this will need a vote on by everyone and uh any discussion first or christa do you want to are are we ready um we discussed it last time and I think that you all have it if I'm happy to answer any questions um and we did not receive any proposed amendments from anyone on the board um so the the rules as drafted um are ready for your consideration all right um was any discussion or like somebody like to make a motion I have a quick question if that's okay um and it's not so much about the procedures that or the procedures manual as it is about practical kind of real world application I assume that we will be returning to in-person um meetings again soon will we be receiving paper um packets or will we be getting digital material um and if it's going to be digital um will will we be able to bring electronic devices or how might uh board members access their board packets during meetings um has has has that been discussed yet or or contemplated yeah before we went virtual we everybody had the option of of it receiving the documentation virtually or digitally or by mail I think half of us or maybe a little bit more than half of us opted for the the digital and we brought our laptops uh there I know for at least six months before we left of went virtual uh I you know that's what I was doing um and then those who wanted the paper um still had that option and Susan I'm guessing that'll be the same case correct I'm assuming so yes thank you just I guess Susan's the one that sends these uh you just communicate with her with your preference thank you and Chad if there's a concern by any member and they need a laptop or an iPad I think that can be worked out as well I know through the county it can um so whether you're a county rep or a city rep uh they you can have someone provide you what you would need to you know to review the um the packets okay thanks all right any other questions or discussion on this is there a motion for to adopt the new rules of procedure procedure excuse me anyone can make this motion all nine of us I'm motioned out Mike I haven't spoken for five hours so Micah you y'all both were talking at the same time Tarant you want to take that is that what it is I can take the second that's fine I just had to say something we're glad you did Micah are you taking a motion oh no I was just asking was it something formal or can I just say I motion that we adopt the new laws that's right the new rules of procedure Ruzan procedure I motion that we do that and Mike has the second um and I guess we'll need to go through everybody Susan will you yes um Miss Major yes Miss Jeter yes Miss Wymore yes Mr. Redschluss yes Mr. Rogers yes Mr. Meadows yep Mr. Kip yes motion carries seven to zero Natalie and Mike get to vote as well yes okay cool so that passes uh no I don't see any new business on the agenda we do have an approval of orders on a few of them um no and each one of these is going to need a motion in a second so let's try to get through these pretty quickly well can we take this just a little slower than normal um yeah on the first one on the b20 43 um Wymore was absent and Tarrant was not seated so who can vote on that so um so Kip Meadows Rogers Redschluss Jeter and Major I believe are the ones that can vote on that no Miss Jeter were you not at the meeting I don't think I was here for me okay I will cross you this was the case with the EMS and the fire station uh combination uh that's one that yeah that should be up if Natalie you were sitting yeah yeah I was sitting on that one Natalie all right all right um need a motion Redschluss motion Meadows second Redschluss is the first Meadows is the second okay mr Kip yes mr Meadows yes mr Rogers yes mr Redschluss yes miss major yes right and the next one was motion carries five to zero motion carries all right sorry Susan um the next one was voted on today uh continued so b21 00018 it was a unanimous vote so anybody who voted on this one can vote on the order I did have that on b21 18 from May that Jeter was absent and Beau Shane and Tarrant I believe we're sitting on that table this is actually something we need to chat about real quick I think they had enough votes but uh the votes that are taken up that were taken on this case uh I believe Tarrant and Beau Shane should have been sitting on this case but they were absent is that correct during here oh they were here they are here and uh Christa yeah Christa who goes to the attorney's office so we didn't have the correct seating um regarding the continuance in terms of the people who did vote we still have the requisite number of votes for the approval um so I think that we'll need to just make sure that that's reflected in the minutes and Susan that's something that we can coordinate on on um I'll wait on okay thank you so does that mean that uh um uh Micah and Jessica can't vote on this order I think that would be correct yeah so the five of us uh the others so that'd be people that cannot vote on this case is Jeter and who major okay okay so we'll have Meadows Rogers, Retchers, Kip and Wymore on on this one and Meadows was that a that was a minor special use permit or was it a variance yeah variance um so can you verify for me one more time who will be able to vote on this it'll be Kip Meadows, Rogers, Retchless and Wymore yeah and that's enough for the city uh correct me if I'm wrong Christa you need six right six out of seven for variance no I think it's three fifths I think I think it's five out of seven I'll double check really quick just to be sure I was right after we did this vote Brian I freaked out a little bit and was messaging because I suddenly thought it was the camp that you needed yeah all all city cases are three fifths majority vote so it's five out of seven okay okay um the five of us can uh can vote on this order uh anybody want to make a motion me meadows motion approval 18 who's the second retchers second retchers all right okay you're ready for a roll call I am okay that would that would be mr kip yes mr meadows yes mr rogers yes mr retchless yes miss wymore yes and miss boshane yes no Natalie doesn't vote on this one okay I'm sorry all right so motion carries five to zero that's correct and uh b210019 I'm guessing this is from last month um and I don't know I don't have it on my agenda here on who's eligible to vote on this I apologize I know that Ian voted no on this one that's all I know I don't know who was seated all right so I I remember this being a six to one Susan I dropped it in the chat I saw that I've got that right now thank you so much and if that once I have the motion I have the people to call okay do you want me to to say it Susan oh I'm sorry I didn't hear who made that motion okay and who said I think they were waiting to hear who's eligible so the people eligible are I'm sorry here okay so the people that can vote are meadows rogers retchless wymore tarant boshane that's it boshane makes a motion thank you Natalie meadows second meadows second mr meadows yes mr rogers yes mr retchless yes this wymore yes mr tarant yes mr shane yes motion carries six to zero um next one b210020 this is a unanimous vote today anyone who sat on this case or everyone who would like anybody who sat in on this case retchless motion thank you like who's got the second wymore second wymore second mr kip yes mr meadows yes mr rogers yep mr retchless yes mr wymore yes mr jeter yeah mr major yes motion carries seven to zero all right the next one b210022 mr meadows cannot vote on this one uh there's six can you skip two one right oh i hate when that happens all right well b210021 there's a unanimous vote anyone who voted today can vote on this he wants to make a motion i'm meadows i will meadows who's the second might jeter second jeter second okay mr major yes mr jeter yeah mr wymore yes mr retchless yes mr rogers yep yes mr meadows yes mr kip yes motion carries seven to zero all right the next one is b210022 uh is this the one does it need to do you need to redo anything run or or christ i think that's the city count case you do so you want to wait on that one okay yeah thank you all right we're going to skip 22 b210023 unanimous vote again anyone who voted can make a motion wymore is that what i heard sure i make a motion yep yes thank you okay mr kip yes mr meadows yes mr rogers yes mr retchless yes mr wymore yes mr jeter yeah mr major yes motion carries seven to zero good deal b210024 this is also another unanimous vote um who's who wants to first our motion we approve um jeter who's the second kip second second all right okay mr major yes mr kip yes mr meadows yes mr jeter yeah mr wymore yes mr rogers yes mr retchless yes motion carries seven to zero well good deal all right our next thing is adjournment so our next meeting is july 27th of this year at 8 30 am and i guess i will see all of you then uh and until then have a good week good month see y'all have a good day