 We are 30 seconds from air. All commissioners, please make sure your microphones and your cameras are set appropriately. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the county board of commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final vote on any issue before us tonight. Tonight's meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom virtual meeting platform. In this virtual meeting platform, public participants do not have any ability to talk or be seen on video by default. Speakers will be given the ability to speak at the appropriate time in the meeting. If you have pre-registered, your name will be called at the appropriate time for you to make your comments, just like in an in-person public hearing. If you called in before the meeting started and staff was able to get your information, your name will also be called to speak at the appropriate time as normal. You may also call in during the meeting tonight using the phone number listed at the bottom of your screen for those of you watching live from home. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you are interested in starts. After all of the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. And when recognized, state your name and address and make your public comments. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. May I have the roll call vote please? A roll call please. Good evening, Grace Smith with the Planning Department. Commissioner Williams had let me know that she was running late. She might be on the phone called in. Sure, that's fine. I'm here. Hey there. Yeah, I'm here. Well, we'll see you when you join when you arrive in your destination. So I'm gonna mark you present. Okay, so Commissioner Mayn. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Bryan. Present. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Commissioner Alturk. Here. Commissioner Busby. Chair Hyman. Present. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller. I'm here. Okay. Commissioner Kanchin. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Here. Commissioner Baker. Here. Commissioner Lowe. Don't believe Commissioner Lowe has joined us yet. So we'll keep an eye out for him. Commissioner McIver. Here. Thank you. Our first item is a public hearing. And this is a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance. Item number TC-19-000-04. Various amendments related to affordable housing and falls Jordan District A watershed. And this is a continuation of the February 11, 2020. So we'll have the staff reported this time, please. Good evening. I'm Whiteman with the City County Plain Department. This case TC-19-04 is a privately initiated text amendment. It was heard at your February meeting. It was continued two cycles. Due to the cancellations related to COVID-19, the Plain Director has determined that the clock effectively stopped for those cycles while we were unable to meet. So this meeting counts as the second cycle. That would allow one more cycle per the UDO's recycles required to act on a public hearing item would allow one more continuance. So as a reminder of what is proposed in this text amendment, it is primarily intended for the applicant to provide additional incentives for using the affordable housing density bonus. Just as in case you're unaware, the density bonus has been in our ordinances for about 30 years. And to date, we've had one project entitled using the bonus, non-constructed. So there are some provisions that would only apply to projects that use the affordable housing density bonus. It allowed additional reduction in required yards, allow a 30% reduction in tree coverage requirements only if shown on the development plan approved by the governing body. And parking would no longer be required for affordable housing dwelling units in the suburban tier. It was already the case in other, in the urban and compact neighborhood tiers. There are series amendments that would apply to all PDR districts, not just ones using the affordable housing density bonus. This would remove the minimum site area requirement of four acres in the suburban tier and have no minimum site area. This is similar to a change that was made in the urban tier recently. It would reduce the building separation requirements. It would standardize minimum street yard requirements for all PDR densities at eight feet. It would revise the required open space requirements to be more consistent with what's recommended in the comprehensive plan and is more similar to other residential zoning districts. And would allow, that's a typo, I'm sorry, for open space reductions only for projects using the affordable housing density bonus. Just as a reminder, the PDR is a floating zone, which means that it must be requested through a rezoning process and must be approved with the development plan by the governing body. Next slide, Chris. So there's one change that would apply to watershed protection to overlays. It would allow non-residential uses permitted in residential districts in the F Falls Jordan A district, the critical area. The applicant requested this because they have a proposed campground use that would be in the falls critical area. That use would normally be allowed in the rural residential district. However, the standards in the FJA district, which exceed the state minimum requirements for what's required in the watershed protection overlay, only permit residential, non-residential uses that are allowed in the CN commercial neighborhood district. This would also have the benefit of legalizing some of the existing non-residential districts that are normally allowed in residential districts, which can be found in the falls critical area, including places of worship and public and private schools. And lastly, this amendment would change the definition of family from free unrelated people to six. And with that, the staff recommends approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I do have a number, I have 17 people on the listing that I have. And as we discussed before, as far as the amount of time that we would allow as a group, I'm going to recommend that we stick to the three minutes and give everybody an opportunity, whether opponents or proponents to speak and then allow them to, if they have, if they run over slightly, it worked out fine before and I'm gonna recommend that we do that again at this time. Do I, any comments from the commissioners? I saw a thumbs up. Okay, staff has noted three minutes per speaker and we will track time for you. As before, I will come on our video and kind of do like this when it's been three minutes. Very good, works fine. Thank you. The first individual, Russell Pierce is listed as a proponent, Russell Pierce. Good evening. I will certainly take less than three minutes. I serve as executive director of Housing for New Hope. So we have a particular interest in the issues around the number of unrelated folks able to live in affordable housing units. We partnered last year with the city in the conversion of our former transitional shelter, Dove House on Holloway Street into seven units of affordable housing. It's a co-living space. To our understanding, it's the community's first experiment with this in line with what happens in other parts of the country as I said, a significant investment from the city. It was actually designed for seven residents within the home. So one of the pieces I've noted as we're coming into this conversation a bit late is that the adjustment is from three to six, but that particular property as designed and approved through this city is actually at seven. But our interest is in seeing this move forward, not only because we've seen such success with this as a model. The home is filled with folks who are at 50% AMI or less single women. So all making less than 29,400. It gives them the opportunity to live close to their work in neighborhoods where they might be already being priced out. And we would love to see the opportunity to continue this kind of development across the city because we feel like it addresses a key need and helps us in many ways because of our work also with homeless services to find housing rapidly for some of our most vulnerable neighbors. And I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you. Steve Toller. My name is Steve Toller and I'm a proponent. I have been a resident of Durham and Durham County since 1977, chair of the chamber, chair of the airport authority. And my interest in this is working with Jim Anthony who's a private developer, trying to find ways to bring more of the private development community into providing affordable housing and making it more feasible for their involvement. And when I was listening to the staff report, it was interesting that over the years, they've had one project and none constructed. And I think that we need to find ways even more now with the challenges that we have in our economy and with the virus to be able to provide affordable housing and find additional solutions that can help all of our citizens. There are, I know there have been some concerns expressed about some of the changes, but I think that the changes that are being proposed are relatively minor compared to the challenges that our citizens have as it relates to homelessness. So I would just ask the commission to be considerate of our most needy citizens in this regard. And thank you very much. Thank you. Donald Abdu. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, chair Hyman. I appreciate you. You're allowing me to speak this evening. I'm here representing the Durham Environmental Affairs Board. I hold the education and outreach seat on that board. We hold no real stance on the change in the family definition. However, we do oppose the text amendments because of the reduction in tree canopy and the reduction in open space. We certainly understand the need for affordable housing in Durham, but I think that this pandemic has absolutely shown that our most vulnerable residents do need the protections and access to open space. I think that's become more clear now than ever. This also, these changes would set the city back in terms of our stated goals of the percent tree canopy cover and our goal of carbon neutrality by 2040. So the fact that these UDO changes would move us in an opposite direction from these stated goals by the city and county is why the EAB opposes these text amendments. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Katie Rose. I'm Katie Rose Levin. I'm the executive director of trees Durham. We oppose these text amendments for several different reasons. The first is the process by which they arrived. So these text amendments are a privately initiated code change, not designed necessarily to meet community problems, but designed to meet challenges of an individual developer. The, and that these challenges are real. And to address those challenges is to go through the zoning process, like housing for whom, the housing for new hope did really well. When they built a home that accommodated seven people using zoning and were successful and helped provide housing. They did not need these wide scale changes. The other challenge we see is that during the subcommittee meeting when we were asking questions about the implication of doubling the family size, reducing open space, there were a lot of questions of what that actually meant. So it wasn't clear like there were questions of, have you properly vetted this through fire access? Well, we don't know. We think that it would, you know, we would have to meet this. Well, if we double where would people park? How many people would be on a property and how does it interact with the new expanding housing choices? Well, that hasn't been properly vetted. Reducing open space. Does that mean during a pandemic, people who don't have access to open space and don't have cars or essentially trapped inside their house? Well, there should become an open space somewhere. So the process is rushed and it's not transparent and it hasn't been thoroughly vetted. And also we really disagree with the idea of lowering standards for affordable housing. We believe if we have standards that people deserve access to open space and clean air and cool air and lower electricity bills that trees provide, those shouldn't just be for wealthy people. They should be for all people and creating a double standard where there have and have nots is not only fundamentally wrong. It's particularly wrong through the lens of climate change and racial justice. So we think that we should encourage affordable housing and it should be done through a comprehensive planning process and not through individual development, not to help meet the needs of individual developers. Thank you. Thank you. Annie Johnson. Do we have Annie Johnson? Okay, I'm gonna move on and then necessary come back to. Dot Doyle. Thank you, Ms. Haunen. The audio is not very clear. But I'm gonna state my opinion against lower and open space. County and Durham has known we have a good cost of open spaces and we need it for the help and the well-being of other people. We need to make sure we can care. We need to have faith to ensure nature. Is this one thing Durham has always offered? And I think we should stick to that. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Annie Johnson. I apologize. Your audio is coming through and I had called another person, but I apologize and we did hear your comments. Thank you. Now, Dot Doyle. Thank you, Ms. Haunen. I wrote earlier today and I just wanted to address a couple of the items that I commented on. I agree with a number of people who are previously spoken. I am concerned about the reduction in both tree coverage and open space. It's interesting to me that in the staff report, the staff acknowledge that the argument against request is that residents with a living and affordable housing units or market rate units deserve the same amenities and that historically underserved communities have experienced lack of quality of life investments in other neighborhoods and communities have typically enjoyed. It's odd to me that they would, I had an argument on the other side too, of course, but to me that argument wins the day on both of these issues. Not just for people who would live in affordable housing, but for all of us. I think all of Durham benefits as we maintain our tree canopy and maintain open space. It's clear to me that there's global warming and that we need to be careful not to just pave over all of Durham. I'm also concerned about the reduction in parking, particularly in the suburban tier. I think it's naive to think that people who live in the suburban tier will not need transportation with cars and it would be nice to think that there'd be some other way to get out to the suburban tier, but at this time it's not at all obvious that that's going to happen anytime in the next 20 years. So those are the big things of concern to me or the definition of a family. You know, the first speaker, let me just back up to that. It's not clear to me what the right number is, but it does concern me that we have jumped so much from three to six. Although the first speaker I thought made a good argument, but I would recommend that rather than going from three to six, we increased to four. It's incremental change. It gives us a chance to see how that works. If it improves the situation, it doesn't cause a big disruption, then perhaps we can step to a different number. And finally, in terms of the process, I was at both the February meeting and your first subcommittee meeting. I thought there was good conversation at that subcommittee meeting. And given that you have time for another, to continue this for another cycle, I would encourage you to do that so that you can assimilate the comments from tonight and perhaps reach a really good decision. Not to say that your decision wouldn't be good tonight, but I do think it's helpful to have a little more time to think about it and to actually talk about it. So thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Thank you. All right, Kate Murray. Is there a Kate Murray? Madam Chair, I don't see Kate Murray listed on the attendees list. They potentially will be labeled as someone else. If so, I request that person use the raise hand function. Okay, she's listed with a phone number on my list. Let's move to the next one. Deborah Lu. Is there a Deborah Lu? Okay, I'll keep going. She should be joining us now, I had to unmute her. Okay. Yes, thank you for letting me speak. I've never done this before, so I'm nervous, but I just really want to say that in this time of racial injustice, that we really have to rethink all of our policies. And when I look at the health benefits of trees, when I look at my children in open spaces, when I look at the ability for my children to do what they do in Forest Hills Park where we live versus the neighborhood just behind me, I think we really need to rethink how we zone completely. And so therefore, I very vehemently want to tell you that I'm against moving forward on this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Mimi Kessler. Hi, this is Mimi. Thank you for letting me speak. Fully support the comments that have been made by Katie Rose and Dot Doyle. I also believe that the committee that was formed and had one committee meeting should be allowed to go back to that work. It was a very good conversation between the public and the developer, facilitated by you, and I would like to see that continue. I think that if you're gonna allow six unrelated people to live in a house, there needs to be space around it and there needs to be trees. And I was against the cutting out of the parking requirements when we discussed EHC and I completely don't agree that it should continue, particularly in the suburban tier because there's really not public transportation that's adequate in the suburban tier. Thank you so much. Thank you. Diane Hauergun. Diane Hauergun is not listed on our attendees list. If you are calling in Diane, please use the raise hand function on your phone. If not, I do not see you on our attendees. Thank you. She is on the listing that was handed to me. Okay. Bruce Williamson. Hello. My name is Bryce Williamson. Thanks for having me. My first point is that I read through the proposed amendment is very difficult. I don't know if this information is available to find the location of this development which we put it in context, says it seems suburban tier, but there's no information on the actual location. So that transparency would be helpful. Mine, I think dense housing is very important for both affordability and climate change reasons, reducing energy use, but I don't see the benefit of also reducing tree coverage other than to essentially cut costs for the developer, but the city already has a goal to increase tree coverage. So it kind of seems like allowing the developer to save costs to help their investors while the city would be picking up the tab to plant more trees to make up for it. So I'm looking at this developer's website about they have one affordable housing project on their site and really the only information on that description is boasting about the returns on that project. So it seems like this is a large developer focused on profit, which I mean, which we need more housing in Durham, but at the same time, I don't want to see the city basically helping them cut costs that the taxpayers may have to pick up in the future to increase the tree coverage. So, and also I don't think we need, Durham is in high demand and only increasing. I don't think we need to be that flexible with developers, they're going to build no matter what. So basically, I think it's important to work with them to figure out how to make things happen. But my main concern is tree coverage because there's a lot, there's almost direct correlation and many cities including Durham between tree coverage and income and basically four neighborhoods are hotter. So yeah, there's just a lot of benefits to the individuals for reducing local temperature. And achieving the city's goal of increased tree coverage. So those are my comments. I appreciate you letting me speak. Thank you. Thank you. Karen Siscoe, Annie Johnson. I believe we've already heard from Ms. Johnson. Okay, Wendy Bernhardt. Oh yeah, her name is up here twice. Wendy Bernhardt. I wasn't planning on speaking. I just wanted to attend. Thank you. I have two raised hands. Alexa, Kel Stuber, if I butchered your name, please help me out. Hi, yes. My name is Alexa Clay Stuber. So you did a good job. Thank you, Ms. Hyman for letting me take the floor. I'd just like to make a few comments, much in line with the rest of the speakers who already spoke before me. Mostly I'd just like to say that I have deep concerns about the textual amendments on open space and tree canopy. Open spaces and tree canopy requirements, which the city has contribute to physical, mental, economic and environmental health of our communities, especially the most disadvantaged who cannot always seek out and get to and have access to these amenities on their own. And a request from private developers to eliminate them on a one-off basis should be, I think, unacceptable or at least certainly evaluated more by many of the instances and the spaces that many have already mentioned that could exist and that would exist to continue this conversation. I don't think we should allow the few to take advantage of the many simply for marginally higher profits on already high returns, as one of the previous speakers also already mentioned. These amenities have countless positive externalities and there is a very good reason why our cities and societies have developed and maintained these requirements. I think if anything, we should be requiring more open spaces and sidewalks tree cover of those who wish to develop on Durham's valuable land, which is becoming more valuable by the day, as we see certainly not less. I think eliminating these requirements would exacerbate the inequalities and injustices that are already at this very moment being questioned and rejected and denounced by millions of people across the US and around the world. And it would be short-sighted, I think, and wrong for Durham to eliminate these requirements, knowing the full well, the social ramifications that this could have. Another speaker also mentioned, and I'd like to emphasize that, especially not only in the times of COVID, but in the times of these social injustice that we're witnessing, we shouldn't stratify society even more by having different requirements for different types of housing. So I'd just like to chime in and express my concerns and really reservations with these amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Kelly Kerboy. Kelly, your mic seems to be muted. Oh, we got it. There is no way that I can be nearly as eloquent as Alexa was right there, but I must say that I am very concerned about the idea of creating these kinds of inequities among people depending on what they can afford to pay for. It just seems to me that with all the benefits and the clear health and community, community is encouraged when people have a place to be outside, when they are enticed to go outside their homes and spend time together, when people can meet each other and see each other and be comfortable where they live and not simply walk into their home and close the door. So I just, I wanna reiterate that I think that this is the wrong direction for this city to move in, that we need more support for families and people who are trying, you know, who are two-year-old. We need more support, not less, for green spaces, for parks, for community, for all these sorts of things. Can you guys see me? Because I'm gonna be really embarrassed if you can actually see. Okay. In any event, I wanted to throw that out there. Thank you. Thank you. Mark Ambrose. Yes. My name is Mark Ambrose. I live in the Northgate Park neighborhood of Durham. And all I want to add is that I am attending because I support the position of Tree's Durham and the Environmental Affairs Board in opposition to the portion of these proposed amendments that reduce open space and tree retention requirements. That's it. Thank you. Now I have a caller in user one with a hand raised. Yes, hello, Chair Hyman. This is Ellen Plus on the line. Okay, thank you. I wasn't sure if I was your caller or not. Thank you for the conversation. Yes, this is Ellen Plus. I live in the Northgate neighborhood of Durham. And I also share the concerns regarding the reductions in tree canopy and open space. But beyond that, I would like to hear the names of the streams that will be affected in this area. We haven't heard much about the impact to Durham's waterways. Stormwater runoff is a huge problem in Durham. And particularly the area that I live in is affected by Third Fort Creek, which has the most polluted water in all of Durham County, the score of 66 that is falling swiftly. And yeah, the more we reduce the tree canopy, the less we have the effects of trees helping to mitigate stormwater runoff and to help with our standing flood problem here in Durham. So if it's possible to find out the names of the streams that are being affected, we're in a budget cycle right now. And one stream in particular in Durham seems to be getting all of the money. And all of the other streams are currently going without. So I would really like to hear the names of the streams that will be impacted by this. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. I have an Ann Roy. Hi. Hello. I'm a resident of Durham, been here about 20, 25 years. And I would like to just echo what the other, I guess opponents to this have said that access to parks and clean air and water is for everybody. All the benefits have increased tree coverage, including helping Durham meet the tree canopy goals we've already set. Seems like we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we let developers off the hook for planting trees. Also to add, I would think if we allowed this, we'd be missing a chance to make Durham a positive role model for other cities and how we deal with affordable housing and trees and natural areas. And that is, that's what I have. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have any other names that are listed with raised hands. So at this particular time, okay, I did see a hand go up. Now, okay, I think we have heard from Constance Wright has her hand raised again. Yeah, okay, I didn't know I had raised it before, but anyway, yeah, I just want to speak. We spoke at the meeting last week with the Bracktown community. And one of our concerns was about the tree, you know, the tree reduction and the building of affordable housing in our area. Well, as a whole, I just think that when the developers come in, when they take down the trees, they take away the open play space for the residents, that's just creating, that's gonna create like a tender box because you're gonna have people all on top of each other, nowhere to go. Like somebody said, they're gonna come home, go in their house, come back out and leave the neighborhood. What kind of living is that? That's not living. I think people who do not have as much money as all these, I'll just say rich people that are able to afford the big houses and the open space, the recreation centers and everything, that should be across the board for everybody. And it's not, according to this, it's not being shared. Equity is not being shared. We need open spaces. We need less density because I mean, who really wants to live on top of somebody like that? That's just creating a tender box for, okay, your neighbor is right in your face. You know, you don't have a park or anything to go to to release your attention. Your children don't have anywhere to play. You don't have anywhere to park. All it is, is taking away just to say you're giving somebody affordable housing. And I just don't think that that's fair. It's just not fair. I think everybody should have an equal opportunity to live a decent life in a decent place, no matter how much money they make. If they can afford to buy a $50,000 house, let them live comfortable in that $50,000 house just like the person that can afford a $500,000 house. Everybody should be able to live comfortable. And we should not take down all the trees because we have the animals they don't have anywhere to go. You're taking away all of their space. You know, you're taking away the endangered plant species. Like somebody say, you've taken away the trees. Now you're gonna have flooding all over the place. So I mean, just be fair. Just be fair across the board. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wright. And you are correct. You are speaking for the first time. So my apologies. Susan, Hose, Rust. Thank you for giving me a moment. I just wanna say first of all, and most importantly, I can't be more eloquent than everybody that's spoken before me, but I just feel like we need to be sensitive to the time that we're living in right now. And this is a unique time in our history, both for Durham and for the whole United States and people in the streets, really, because they're saying life hasn't been fair and people aren't being treated equally. And I just think it's really important right now if we're looking at the privileges that some communities have with open spaces and with amenities that we not take those away from people with less money. Now more than ever, it's important. That's all I have. Thank you. James Anthony. Just a second, I gotta get this. I'm gonna shut this one down. We lost the participant bit, Ms. Hyman. Okay. Derrard Ambrose. Yes, hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Great, thank you. I mean, I agree with all of the opposition we've heard so far. I just, a couple of speakers back, I think Ms. Wright, it's just such a common sense approach to so many things. I'm in my backyard now. They've been in Durham for about 15 years, near downtown, and you likely hear trees, I'm near a play area. There might be kids in the background. You likely hear birds, I'm sorry, because of the trees. And it's just so much of, I don't wanna make a simple analogy, but it's like saying different safety rules for cars, depending on the car you can afford. I don't know why we would change these rules about how we protect our city, the natural environment, the natural portions of our city and county. Why do we have different rules just based off of, not everyone can afford luxury cars or even all in between, all types of housing. So I appreciate everyone's comments and stand in opposition to this. Thank you. Now I'd like to call on someone who has a phone number listed. It is 937-6484. I can barely hear you. Can you speak up just a little bit more? Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Thank you so much. Hi there, my name is Billie Dee. I'm calling in and I just wanna share the concerns that many people have brought up so eloquently. It seems like this process has not only been somewhat rushed from what I understand from the public hearing this evening, but I think my main question is, have the people who will be impacted by this development actually been offered a seat at the table? People who might live in this affordable housing, what might be quality of housing in those people's minds and point of view? And I just deeply agree with the points that have been brought up over and over that this is a question that intersects with race and racial justice and questions about climate change living in a city where we really do need our tree canopy. That's part of having a healthy, safe home in during a pandemic. I think the point is very important that having open spaces has been really crucial for people's health and safety. And yeah, I just, I really wanna support the comments that have been made to think about how both affordable housing, quality housing for all people and green space and environmental sustainability, how can that all happen together? And I really think it's possible for the city to have the vision and the commitment to all of those ideas at the same time. And I think from this call, it's obvious that there's a lot of support for both at the same time, housing and trees and racial justice all at the same time. So that's what I'm hoping for. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. James, Anthony. Okay, let's try it again. I'm sorry about the nasty feedback the last time around. I might need a little bit more time than three minutes but I'll try to get it out there quickly. It may surprise, I am the developer who submitted this text amendment and have met with many of you in person at the meetings that we've had about this. And it may come as a surprise to some of you but not to those who have met with me that I love trees and open space as much as anybody. And that is why this text amendment is written in such a way that the planning commission and the city council have the final say. No one under this text amendment could reduce tree coverage or reduce open space unless the benefit of the additional housing was approved by the planning commission and the city council. So let me be very clear that there is no automatic right here. And I hear everyone's concern loudly, clearly I'm with you on this. I simply wanted to put it out there that there may be some situations that come up where the benefit of the additional housing that could be created by the reduction of a few trees and a small amount of open space might be worth it for the city to consider a project in an infill location. This certainly would not be the case in sort of green spaces outside of the city and areas that are undeveloped. So that's the really most important point I wanted to make. And therefore many of the things that have been said about the property quality that we wanna build are not relevant because what we are trying to build is frankly going to be the most sustainable, most energy efficient new housing that has been seen in the city. We're gonna be incorporating solar technologies and super insulation and a lot of really, really cool things as well as some stormwater management tools that haven't been used before. We're very much trying to be on the vanguard of best practices in sustainable development. So these are some things that I hope clarify in a really fundamental way the thrust of this project. I haven't heard anything outside of that with a few exceptions I wanna bring up. The parking reduction is based on the fact that the bus system is improving and is dedicated to expansion. Ride sharing is becoming more and more popular rather than owning your own car. And thirdly, Durham is building wisely building bike lanes all around the city to encourage more bicycle traffic. And so these types of things are going to reduce parking requirements and already have. And I wanted to answer Bryce specifically, Bryce Williamson on the question about what is the specific development that these things apply to? There is no specific development. They really apply across the board would apply to all of the zoning code in the city of Durham. Wanted to mention about stormwater impacts that was raised by Ellen. The fact is that any project has to whether it's mine or anyone else's has to comply with the new stormwater rules. And they're tough and they do manage stormwater. I think there are many creeks in this town which are not well managed because of old development that happened before stormwater management was really affected in those basins. And then I'd just like to say to Susan post rust that the idea of unfairness and I hope I address that for you in talking about how that the only way there's gonna be any project under this text amendment is with first planning department review, secondly planning commission review and approval and thirdly city council review and approval. So there's really not a fairness question here because everyone's gonna get a good shot at approving this project public included. And that's why we're here on this call right now because you all were noticed about it. Thank you, Mr. Anthony. We're going to, there may be some additional questions for you, but at this time we're basically limiting the time but not your comments. So I'm sure the other commissioners will have some questions for you. Thank you. Katie Rose Levin, I see a hand for you. I spoke once, can I speak again or? No, if I just see a hand up. So I'm now monitoring a screen that I have. So if there are additional questions for you then we'll let you know but we will move to the next person who hasn't had an opportunity. And then I have Jared Ambrose and maybe you. Yeah, I spoke earlier. Okay, so. I spoke earlier, but it just was, I think the previous speaker was saying that a lot of my comments and other comments weren't relevant or didn't apply. I'm not quite sure what the entire answer is. Thank you. We're going to have an opportunity. I raised my hand, it's like. We're going to have an opportunity to have our commissioners ask questions and some things will be clarified at that time. Thank you. Are the other individuals who would like to speak to this issue at this time? If so, I'll be looking to see if there are any hands raised. The hand raised or phone numbers. And I'll check with our technical support to make sure. We have one new hand raised Deborah Hawkins. Thank you. Deborah Hawkins at this time. Yes, thank you. And thanks to all the commissioners for offering me some time. I was president in February when this measure was in front of commission at that time and voiced my opposition to the measure at that time and articulated the reasons that I felt that way. I would just like to echo support with the rest of my fellow residents and colleagues who have eloquently described the reasons for opposing the measure and I still stand in that same space, along with my absent father. May he rest in peace a strong environmental activist. Thank you very much. Thank you. So once again, are there any other individuals who would like to speak to this issue who have not spoken? If so, going once. If so, I'm going to at this time give our commissioners an opportunity to grace. Let me recognize Grace. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that Commissioner Lowe has joined the meeting at some point and I didn't mark him present. Thank you. We appreciate that. OK. So we'll recognize our commissioners who are here. Was that Commissioner Lowe? Welcome. Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize our commissioners who would like to speak at this time and I will start with the first hand that I see. No surprise, Mr. Tom Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Tom Miller here. I just wanted to go through this. I'm a little concerned because there seems to be some misunderstanding even on the part of the applicant about how this applies and whether it's by right or not. Actually, most of this is by right. There are only a couple of places where reductions can be had only by including taking advantage of PDR zoning and asking for reductions in a development plan request. The rest of it is by right and a lot of it doesn't have anything to do with housing affordability. And I wanted to make sure everybody knew that. I have a couple of things I want to go through to make sure I understand what I'm reading here correctly. And so when I look at and I'm looking at Attachment B on our handout, which is the actual text amendment, the first one is changes to the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. It basically says that if you use the Affordable Housing Density Bonus, which could be in connection with a rezoning, but it could also be after zoning at site plan. In other words, there's no discretionary decision making at site plan. And so you could, if you already had the zoning you needed, and you were going to take advantage of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus, you could make fairly substantial reductions in the yard requirements, which actually results in greater density and but also a loss of open space without any discretionary review of that. You can't if a site plan is submitted and it conforms to the minimum requirements of the code, it has to be approved. And then the next section is, and that's for all projects. It's not just PDR. The next one is for planned districts. That is the PDR. And in this one, we essentially cut building separation for buildings higher than 35 feet and a half. And so you could have buildings that were 90 feet tall as close as 40 feet to each other. And that's by right. This is just changing the baseline. And again, you can have more buildings, and they can be closer together. And there would be less open space in the broadest sense of the term. Same thing with street yards. So Durham has a long tradition of street trees, but the minimum street yard here would just go drop to eight feet, period. Now, we have a street yard standards currently where the greater the density, the bigger the street yard requirement is. I'm not sure I agree with that way of formulating it. And I would really be interested in finding out a better way of changing it. But I'm a little concerned about just having a baseline street yard requirement for all PDRs of eight feet because there's no room for street trees. And I do think that's something we need to think about, especially since under our current code, we cannot plant street trees between sidewalks and the curb line. And I believe Mr. Baker has taught me that. And I'm grateful for the information. Open space, we currently have a table that requires more open space, the greater the density we go to. Now, most of the projects we look at, the PDR projects we look at, come in at in the second two boxes, three units an acre to 10 units an acre. Sometimes we see them larger than that, and sometimes we see them smaller. But those are the most frequent ones. Under the current rules, open space has to be 16% or 17%. We change, and again, I'm not sure it's a system that I entirely, a way of deciding what the open space is by tying it to density. I'm not sure I agree with that. But I can say that I don't like what's proposed either, particularly well, which just goes by the tier. So with the urban tier, it's 6%. And then the suburban tier, it's 18%. So an urban tier project, the open space requirement would fall off fairly dramatically, as much as 2 thirds for all urban tier projects. But for suburban tier projects, it would go up for the most common types of projects. Again, it seems to me there's a more thoughtful way of doing this that would tie it to the way we use development plan commitments and design commitments in PDRs. This seems to be a little ham-handed to me. And it's also the new baseline for all PDRs. It doesn't have anything to do with affordable housing. Then, though, it goes on to say that in the suburban tier, a required open space could be reduced by 30% when the affordable housing density bonus is utilized. That means that that 18% could be dropped down to something like, my math isn't very good, but something like 12 and 1 half percent. And that worries me a little bit, quite frankly. Again, now, this would be subject to discretionary review for projects which are going through rezoning. It would not be subject to discretionary review for a developer who decides to take advantage of the affordable housing density bonus. Well, no, it would. It would have to be tied to rezoning, because it has to be on the development plan. I appreciate that. This is complicated stuff. And it's impossible to describe it with broad generalizations. And I think we need to be mindful of that. But that's a big drop. I have a question for staff at this point about what counts as open space? In the typical plan development residential project, what counts as open space? When we say open space and we require 18%, if I went to that project, where would I see that open space? So this is Scott Wayman. I can't recite the exact details of what the requirements are. No, I'm not looking for that. I'm just looking for examples. We do have a ratio required of active and passive open space. And is that ratio part of the eight? Would that be part of the 18% or is? Yeah, so within the 18%, there's a percentage that has to be active open space and a percentage that can be passive open space. The active open space are the things that would have recreational amenities, trails, ball fields. The applicants have to demonstrate that it's truly an active open space. The passive open space can be things like your required tree save area, your screen buffers. And sometimes it just ends up being plain old grass. Plain old grass like where? So if you have common spaces? Common spaces. I need to remind you to, since you're off camera each time that you speak, you will need to say your name. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the reminder. Excuse me. Yes, it can be common spaces. There is a dimension requirement. And then for active open space, there's a location requirement so then. OK, thank you. But for passive open space, if my project had a sign up at the entrance to the public street, that would count. Probably. I think it depends on the size of where the sign is. If it's part of a larger common area, yes. It's just a little triangle with a sign in it then that would not qualify as. Yeah, so it's not going to be an accumulation of bits and pieces. Yeah, there is a minimum size area. Some of it's still relatively small, but it can't just be a traffic circle with a sign in it. All right, thank you. That's really helpful to understand what we're talking about. So I mean, and then the tree coverage standards. Again, we're talking about dropping tree coverage standards with affordable housing density bonuses utilized, but only in rezoning where there's a development plan. So that would be discretionary. So I mean, these are all if you were to add these things up because a lot of these things, it's not this or that, it would be this and this and this. You could wind up with some projects that wound up with very little open space and very little in the way of trees. I think we can do a better job. I am not just against this. I am for finding more finely crafted ways of coming up with standards for open space requirements that are less blunt, like tiers or densities. It seems to me open space ought to relate to something other than just those two things. I am concerned about things like street yards. But again, there are places where no street yards, I think would be acceptable, but there are other places because that's where the trees go, where they can become very important. I would like to see us work more on this. We got off to a good start a long time ago with having the stakeholders come to a room with our committee and really talk this thing through and also talk the three-person rule thing through. We spent most of our time that time talking about the three-person rule and some interesting proposals that some of the stakeholders brought to us. I would like to be able to finish that now that we have a virtual means of continuing the committee's work, something that we've only obtained fairly recently. We have 30 days because the 90-day rule does obtain with a text amendment. But staff cleared that up for us today that we still have essentially one more cycle, assuming I haven't counted the 90 days, but we're getting close to that. And I would like to pull the committee back together, realizing that we may have to look at the composition of the committee as a result of us passing an important dateline. We will be losing certain commission members. So we wanna make sure that we have a full complement of interested people. My final comment tonight concerns the three-person rule. We have this three-person rule, four-person rule. This is old as zoning itself in the United States. The originals zoning proposed by the Department of Interior back in the 20s proposed four-person rule. For some reason Durham dropped, that's never been perfectly clear to me, Durham dropped to a three-person rule. And I am interested in seeing that changed. I'm a little concerned about jumping to a six-person rule without making sure that we have the knowing agreement of the neighborhoods that participate in the group called Durham Neighborhoods United. These are the neighborhoods that are closest to Duke and suffer with student party houses. And I've attended a few meetings of that organization as a representative of my own neighborhood from time to time. And although my neighborhood is one of those neighborhoods, we don't have a problem, but there are neighborhoods that have a terrific problem there. They are obvious stakeholders in this discussion and I would like to have the committee make sure that they have been invited to the table as we consider it before we bring final recommendations back to the commission. So those are my comments and those are my druthers. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you members of the commission. Thank you. Commissioner Al Turk. Thank you, Chair. And thanks to everyone for speaking tonight. We also have received, I think a couple of hundred emails in the last eight hours. I'm sure none of us have had time to digest all that, but I appreciate all the feedback. And I think it has been, I agree with much of what Commissioner Miller has said and I appreciate him trying to, and pointing out some of the nuances and some of the of the of the text amendment because it is not, you know, some of these things apply more broadly. Some apply only in the case when, only in a case when a developer wants to use an affordable housing density bonus. And in other cases, like he said, or in most cases, and most of the changes are by right changes. But as he said, and as Mr. Anthony was, I think trying to say, kind of in response to the concerns about open space and tree coverage is that the main or the main different or the main change or two of the main changes, I should say, only apply or can only be approved if it goes through the planning commission and then if it is approved by the city council, right? And so the 30% reduction in tree coverage or the 30% reduction in open space has to be on a development plan, which means it has to go through the legislative bodies. So that's, I mean, I think that is an important safeguard that the planning department did acknowledge. They said they weren't really comfortable with a 30% blanket reduction in either of these things if the density bonus was used. And so the compromise was to say that it must be on the development plan. So it must go through the city council, which means it has to have a public hearing. So there is, I just kind of wanted to point that out as there is a little safeguarding here that is important for us as a commission to consider and to think about whether that's enough for us or not. And I'm still grappling with that because I think the other thing that commissioner Miller pointed out rightly is that the open space reduction is applies more broadly. And it's not just the 30% if you use the density bonus, it's, it goes from anywhere between 15 and 20% in the urban tier to 6%. And then in the suburban tier, it goes anywhere from 15 and 20% to a straight 18% reduction. And I don't know if that, I agree with commissioner Miller, I'm not sure that that makes sense as just a, it seems like a, we're just kind of throwing out two numbers here. And so it doesn't, I feel like there must be a better way to do that. So let me, I guess I have a question for staff or two questions for staff about to me what one of the biggest sticking points which is or one of the things I'm still considering, which is is it enough that there is this provision here that the 30% reduction if you're using a density bonus has to go through city council or has to go through the governing bodies. So I have a question for staff. I mean, the way that this is written, again, this is both in section, it's 8.3 I guess is one example here of the 20% or the 30% reduction in tree coverage is that the applicant has to demonstrate to the governing body the need for the reduction. Now that to me seems to be some very vague language. So it seems to me like a developer can say, well, I'm using the affordable housing density bonus and so I need more space. Is that all a developer would have to say? I mean, is that enough of a justification to or demonstrating to the governing body or is that that point does it become just a discretionary decision? I'm sorry, yeah, you're correct. It is a, it's not a very definitive standard by design but we wanted to make sure that there were some language in here that not only is that for the governing body that's also for the staff so that when we provide our analysis we can give to the commission and the governing body whether or not we believe that we've, as staff, if we've, the developer has demonstrated the need for the reduced tree coverage. Ultimately it is, it's a discretionary decision of the governing body and they get to make the decision but for many other standards there's no affirmative requirement for the applicant to explain while they're asking for that reduction. So that's why we included that in there. So let me follow up because I think this is an important piece here is that because this is this safeguard that is in here it seems to me like how you analyze whether this, how you would make your recommendation to the governing body would matter and then to the commission. And so how would you do that? How would you, developer would say, well I'm going to add 10 affordable housing units and therefore I need this much more land? Would that be the kind of analysis you would do or how would you decide if that was justified? So we haven't actually gone through that exercise yet so I'm deleting here but certainly having the applicant give us the reasoning whether it's part of the route for both the open space and the tree coverage reductions as the cost of land is one of, appears to be one of the big impediments to providing affordable housing units. And so one they can provide any documentation that's necessary to us as staff or you as the commission or to the governing body to show that it's actually the cost of land that is what is the difference between a conventional project and affordable housing density bonus project. It also gives the chance for the, even if it doesn't meet the strict requirements of our normal tree coverage, if they could provide additional tree cover, additional trees on the lots or find a creative alternative to provide tree coverage which right now the UDO gives absolutely no flexibility on that. Right. So then is there not a reason for us where why I'm speculating or I'm just brainstorming here why there needs to be, I guess, a one size fits all solution to this. I mean, I understand it makes things easier but if one of the concerns is that we are reducing open space and tree coverage in a development, it seems to me like we should maybe take into account how much open space and tree coverage there is nearby, for example. So we often do this where we're considering the traffic impact of a development of a new development. So we say there's this much current traffic. Could we not do something like that where, if a development is within a quarter mile of considerable open space or open trails, the developer can reduce the coverage by this much. This is an idea, but I'm just trying to think through what are some other ways to do this? Yeah, well, we can certainly work with either the commission or some of the interested parties, particularly like trees Durham to find out is there a time when it's okay and what does that mean? Right now there's no mechanism to reduce the required tree coverage. So if that one extra percent of tree coverage is the difference between affordable housing does give on its project and the eventual project, there's really no mechanism to it. So that's why we supported, I think I appreciate you bringing up Mr. Alter. The original proposal was to allow by right tree coverage and open space reductions for all affordable housing density bonus projects. We were definitely not comfortable with that. And so we believe that requiring it to be done through the zoning map change process where it must be approved through at least two public hearings and there's a discretion involved, provides at least a little bit of flexibility so that maybe we can get some affordable housing density bonus projects actually constructed. And just one point you made, the open space requirements, that's what's recommended in the comprehensive plan based on the tier. And the reason why the 6% is so low in the urban tier, that's actually consistent with most of the residential zoning districts, the RU districts, which are found in the urban tier. And that's because most of the urban tier is within a half-mile walking distance of a park where most of the suburban tier is not. So that's why typically our policies at least say that less urban spaces, private open space is okay in the urban tier. Okay, thank you. Can I have just one more comment? Thanks for answering those questions. I think that helps a little bit. But I mean, I think aside from the technicalities of this, I think a couple of people have noted, including I think Ms. Levin about the process that kind of concerns me here. And I know that it's legal for a private developer to come to us with some changes to the UDO, but it seems like this is something that would have a broader impact on the community and this is not in my mind the most ideal way to bring about that, or this is not broad-based community engagement. I mean, we have a public hearing, but it's not a lot of time for people to digest what's in the tax amendment. So again, I guess I'll echo what Commissioner Miller said, which is that if we had more time to hammer something out that was better, that actually had people at the table, community members providing more feedback, I think that would really strengthen in my mind this proposal. And so I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Ailter. Commissioner Morgan. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I was part of the subcommittee where we had the one meeting already and it was a very good conversation, although we didn't cover everything in the proposed amendment. We had scheduled another time and I kind of echo what Commissioner Miller was saying is to have a little more time to discuss this and as well as involve the community to express their concerns. I think as we kind of saw that there's a lot of things in this tax amendment and I think there's an opportunity to unpack that a little bit better. Sound like the applicant was willing to break it apart, so to speak, into more chunks that could be acceptable and could be things that we could actually move forward on. So my simple comment is, is that we probably should take advantage of the one more cycle. I'd be willing to participate certainly further in the next cycle to involve the community and to provide better feedback for our next chance we can get to vote on this. Thank you, Commissioner Busby. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple comments and then a couple questions and I've said some of this before too. It's been referenced before, I think one of the challenges of having a privately initiated proposal come to the Planning Commission is that we're looking at it as a package. And so I believe the package that's in front of us has a few things that I like and a bunch of things that I have concerns with. And so if called on tonight, I would vote no. I'll also notice, Commissioner Alturk noted, we have received over 300 comments from citizens today against this proposal as currently drafted. I've been on the commission for six years. That has never happened before. That is overwhelming opposition from the community saying this misses the mark, particularly around the tree coverage and the open space requirements. There are some good things in here. So that's the part that I wanna make sure that we address as we move forward with changes to the UDO. I know I heard a few folks that had concerns about them. I personally think we should take some time and look really carefully at eliminating parking requirements at affordable housing developments. That does drive up the cost. Our community needs to address affordable housing. I wanna be a part of helping make that a solution. I think that's one of the things we could look at. I've heard housing for new hope. I understand their concerns. I think we do as a community need to look at amending the definition of family that is currently at three people. But I do think it has to be a process because there are challenges to moving that number. I personally think we should change that number. We should increase it. That will also help, I believe, with the affordable housing issues in our community. So there are things that I want us to move forward on, but we are looking at a package at the moment. And this package falls short in my estimation. And so I'll stand with the 300 citizens I heard from today. But I will also continue to advocate for some of the items in here that I think we could move forward with. So to that, I did have the questions that I had. The first question is, I assume for someone on the staff, we spent time last month talking about changes to the UDO. And the staff had noted that there was already a process in the works for some staff ideas to bring forward to move through the process, come through us, come through the governing bodies. I'd like to just get a reminder from the staff. What's the timeline for that process? When should we expect that that package might move forward? So, yeah, I think I was not virtually or actually present at the last planning commission meeting. But it's my understanding that it was at least a request from Commissioner Baker to inform a committee to look at some potential UDO changes. And it was part of our kind of overall comprehensive plan strategy is defined, what we call near-term implementation measures. So we don't have to wait until 2022 to start acting on the good ideas. Trying to find some of the things that have general consensus already and move those forward. I think we can work in concert with that committee to kind of identify things that we, you as the commission and we as staff think are good ideas to move forward. We don't have a timeframe at the moment. I think we're still working with you all to set up those committee meetings. As you can imagine, we've spent the last few months trying to adapt to this new situation to how we do our work. So, as you all are doing right now. So I don't have a, that's dancing around the fact that I don't have a definitive answer for you, but it is something that we plan on doing in the near future. Right, well, thank you. Just for a year. Okay, and I was gonna say, can you give us just a range? I'm not trying to pin you down. More I'm struggling with the notion that we might continue this for another month. When I'm not convinced there's enough time to really have the process we need. And so are we talking about three months, six months, nine months? What's your guess? If you're giving me a three month range of time. I'm going to safely split the difference and say six months is probably a pretty reasonable. It'll take some time to identify those and make sure we're not just making assumptions about what there's community support for and actually find that community support and engaging with the community is a lot harder right now than it is normally. So I would say, I'd safely say six months would be a good target. Thank you. And I'm not gonna hold you to it. I agree. This is really the process is important and it was hard enough and it's harder now. I'm encouraged to hear the citizens from Braggtown have joined us again. They were on the phone last month. And thank you for your feedback and your comments. You know, Madam Chair, thank you, Mr. Whiteman. That's helpful. The question, Madam Chair, for you is, could you just help remind me who the members are of the committee that we set up specifically to look at this item? I will. I do have two other commissioners who would like to speak at this time, but the committee is comprised of Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Low, Commissioner Morgan, Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Kitchum. And then I was on that committee. That's the committee. Thank you. Well, my final comment and then I'll yield my time is I would love, thank you all for serving. And it's a shame that COVID-19 threw off the ability to meet. I agree with Commissioner Miller that we could now meet. That is possible. I am not convinced that these issues in a month's time we're gonna be able to work through these in a way that does ensure a thoughtful process that allows engaged community input. And so I will be listening to the rest of you to see if you can convince me otherwise. But where I stand is I'm inclined to put this forward for a vote this evening. I don't think we will have much more in a month and I'm gonna vote no. I believe that that will be close to unanimous of not unanimous vote this evening. And I will say to the 300 citizens who weighed in, I trust our governing bodies, they're grappling with these challenges too. But I believe that if you weigh in with them like you did with us today, they will also vote no. And we'll look for a process that moves the important pieces forward without undercutting the things that make Durham a livable community and we'll make it equitable for everyone like preserving tree canopy, preserving open space. Billie D said it best, I think. She said, housing, trees and racial justice. And that's what Durham does. I believe we can thread the needle, have a process where we all offer input and we can come up with a way that we can protect our communities and find ways to be able to get more affordable housing built as we move forward. But thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Williams. Yes, thank you very much, Chair Hyman. My first one to go ahead and thank everybody that reached out to us today to say that it was overwhelming was a very slight way to put it, but it was definitely important. I wanna thank everybody that was actually present today either on the call or just listening in. I did want to echo a lot of what Chair Busby said. It is a lot that we're trying to comb through and Commissioner Alturk said it best. There's a lot of exceptions to how we could possibly go forward and if applications come in, what they're gonna look like and they can say, okay, well, we're gonna use this or we're gonna use that. And that will allow you to be able to do different things. There were numerous people on here that made a parallel towards home equity, life value as well as what it means to just have open space. And for me, I mean, I don't think that a $50,000 home or a $350,000 home makes a lot of difference to me. I enjoy having my yard to myself, but as being a subcommittee, well, a committee member for this particular issue, I have a neighbor that has a driveway in which we basically share. There's six to seven cars that are in that driveway at any given time or in that yard at any given time. And a lot of times they have to use my driveway in order to leave their home, to create scenarios where forced neighborly activity is possible or it's a necessity in order to just be comfortable or to live in a property and it's very different because I own and they rent. So I'm quite concerned in terms of what this means for other people. I cut and maintain my lawn. I maintain my hedges, my neighbor does not. And there's not enough space between the houses to really be able to separate the two. So I think that the issue in which we're trying to go forward with and the possibility of what I live with daily being forced on other people with the grasp of trying to say that it's for affordable housing or affordable housing is a possibility. If I'm understanding and absorbing everything that I've heard this evening, I don't think that that's right. No more than I think a person who spends $555,000 on a home should be able to throw anything out of their window and hit their neighbor's yard or house. But I digress. I do want to say that if I have to vote for this now, if I have to vote for this in 60 days, regardless of any, it may be coming, my responses to this is going to be no because I think it's too many anomalies, it's too many things that are up in the air right now that could change the way that things should be. I think that people should have the right to go outside in the fall and enjoy the trees if we've had a summer or a winter or a spring or whatever. I think that people should have yards. They should be able to walk on the sidewalk if they want to walk their dogs or whatever the case may be. But I don't think by attaching this need to destroy the environment or to tear down trees or to clear cut or to change driveways and sidewalks and how many people we say are actually family and live in a house is a reason to address the issue for affordable housing. I think the two things are very unrelated and they need to be addressed separately. That's all. Thank you, Commissioner Williams. And at this time, I'm going to recognize myself since the other two individuals who have their hands raised have already spoken. I'm one of those individuals who served on that subcommittee and I also would just like to applaud the number of people who participated in that process. We had an extensive discussion initially which lasted for probably two to three hours concerning the definition of family. And as I was able to absorb or unrelated individuals and as I looked at the idea of approving six individuals who could live in a residence unrelated, I thought about this that as we expand housing choices, one of the things that we have is for example, a duplex. There is so my question was, okay, can you have six people on one side and then six people on the other? And then we've also expanded housing choices so that it would include an accessory dwelling unit. So conceivably, you can have a duplex with a accessory dwelling unit on that same property as I look at what it is that we're trying to do. That's a, and when you look at the number of people who could be on one footprint, that's an unintended consequence and does nothing to improve housing. In other words, it could create a situation that nobody wants, but then if we create, we approve an ordinance making that something that was legal, then we would have done just that. I would not want to be a part of anything going forward that had that kind of impact. So I'm one of those individuals who would absolutely vote no. We also have an opportunity to have additional meetings between now and the one continuous, which would be July. The question is, can we have, can schedule the meetings? Can we have meetings significant enough to bring about anything different from what we were discussing tonight? And that's just the question for me. Timing is an issue for me. So my vote would be no tonight. And I doubt seriously if it would change in 30 days, even if we were able to squeeze in two additional meetings between now and the end of the month and be ready for July. My comments, and now I'm going to recognize Commissioner George Bryan has not spoken. So I'll recognize Commissioner Bryan, then the other two individuals who've already had an opportunity to speak. I'm gonna get to you guys. Commissioner Bryan. You're muted, Commissioner Bryan. Thank you. Almost. Commissioner, Ms. Madam Chairman, Tom Miller here reminds me when I was a kid when you could, on the TV you could get the picture or the sound, but not both. Yes. Well, Commissioner Bryan has his mic unmuted. So you may proceed, Commissioner Bryan. I will not repeat everything that's been said before. I think in this particular text amendment, there's a lot that we are concerned about. A lot that we have questions about. And a lot that frankly needs some more work. So if I am called upon to vote on it tonight, I can assure you that I am also a no vote. The one observation that I would like to make is that when I read through these reductions or these perhaps the abilities to reduce, what it sounds like to me is that we're talking about a situation when somebody says, well, we're going to use the affordable housing bonus. But in order to do that, we're going to spread out over whatever ground we have and build more buildings side by side. And it seems to me that what's being, one of the things being overlooked is the possibility of using the affordable housing bonus, but building up. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I wanted to go back. Mr. Al Turk, I think was making a really interesting point in connection with the 30% tree coverage reduction where it says the applicant shall demonstrate to the governing body the need for the reduction. Of course, this is a legislative process. The council always has to be persuaded to vote to change the zoning ordinance, whether it's a PDR or any other kind of zone change. So the language there is really just window dressing. If it wasn't there, you'd still have to persuade the council to vote in favor of the PDR rezoning. It seems to me that language actually belongs in the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan should have policy guidance to tell us what the criteria are. And there it can be the zoning code, the UDO has to have hard edges. It has to be predictable. You have to know what you can do and what you can't do and what the dividing line between them is. The comprehensive plan can be squishy. It can be, it's okay for it to be open to interpretation. That language should be there, not here. I understand the reason for putting it here because this is a text amendment for the UDO and it was meant to soften the blow that I believe the drafters anticipated. I've read that there could be a 30% reduction of the tree coverage when the bonus was employed. It is a shame that we met once and then we let a lot of time go by. And then now we've met again and we cut that time off. In other words, we're not picking up from when we shut down, we're picking up from today when we're meeting. So we lost the ability to have lots of meetings of the committee, even so. This applicant and other supporters and the staff have worked on this. There, as Mr. Busby said, there are things that in my opinion, we could with work and further understanding involving stakeholders, I think, pull together and send forward to, it's a possibility I want to explore to send it forward to the city council. I would like the ability to break it up because there's some things that I don't see us coming to agreement on, but given the amount of energy that has been put in it and while it's true, we can get a really strong majority of vote against it tonight. That's not my goal at a planning commission meeting. My goal is to make sure that we really thoughtfully consider all the things that are laid in front of us and give the best advice we can give, having involved as much of the community as we can involve to the people who finally have to make a decision. This is complicated stuff. It's gonna wind up in front of the city council. They're gonna read the staff report. They're not probably going to understand it. Any better than we would have understood it after the first hearing, but we can have the committee. I've never seen the city council put together a committee. We can do that. So if they're at the appropriate time, Madam Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that we take the extra 30 days and see if the committee will work. You can vote it up or down and I understand. It's 30 days is not much time for something this complex, but I'd like to give it a go. The other thing I wanted to ask is a matter of procedure to the staff. We're under this 90 day window. Why this obtains with the text amendment application? I do not understand. That's something that I'd like to see out of the UDO, but where we've got it now, is there any way, like with the consent of the applicant, that we could blow past the 30 days, assuming the applicant would give us that consent? In other words, is there a way for the applicant to withdraw this without having to suffer the penalty of resubmitting or something like that? Is there a way we can add some time to our clock? I'll have to look into that before I give you an answer. It seems like something we can do, but I can't think of that ever happening before on a privately initiated amendment. It would definitely require the applicant's consent. Yeah, if it is continued, we can certainly look and see if there are legal ways we can do that. And of course, so I'm talking about the applicants, as though he's not in the room of Madam Chairman again. I'm sorry, it's Tom Miller as a commission member. Jim, Anthony, do you want to vote tonight? Or are you interested in working in the committee context for the next 30 days? And if there is a way to go beyond the 90 day limit in a way that is reasonable and consistent with the requirements of the ordinance and why I don't want to result into any kind of trickery, would you be interested in doing that? Jim Anthony has his hands raised, so he would like to speak. Unmuted, what a cool program this is. So my answer, Tom, would be, of course, I support that. I think we're on a path here towards getting a better work product. And so my answer is a wholehearted endorsement of figuring out what do we do with each of these things? It sounds, one of my big comments here would be, we kind of threw the kitchen sink in here and that was clearly not the right approach. And so let's find the right approach and go after it. Thank you. Commissioner Miller, does that answer your question? I want to make sure that my question had two parts which I may not have made clear. Jim, if Scott were to come back to us and said there is a way that is consistent with the UDO to buy more time past the 90 days, would you be interested in that so that we don't have the pressure of having to herd cats in a 30-day window? Yes, I thought I was answering that. I'm sorry. So affirmative. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Is that, do you have any additional comments? No, that's all, I really appreciate it. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk? Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Miller basically just asked or asked what I wanted to, which is first to the staff, what we could do to extend this past the 90 days because I agree with other commissioners that, I don't know if the 30 days is going to be enough. And so, and I was going to ask the applicant, Mr. Anthony, about an extension. It sounds like he wants one. So now at this point, I don't know. I mean, I guess what I was going to ask staff is if, you know, if an applicant was to withdraw, what does that mean in practice? I mean, you know, we get withdrawn applications every once in a while. Is that, and so what would that, how could that give us, is there a way, I guess, yes, to get the extension, you know, if the applicant was to withdraw? If they would draw, they would, I think commissioner Miller was getting at this point, if they would draw their application withdrawn and they would have to start again from scratch, which would mean a new fee and process. So I think I will, I can talk with the planning director and if necessary the city and county attorneys after this meeting. I think if that's what the commission would like to pursue, I would recommend that you just continue at one cycle and then we will advise you before the next meeting about what, if any action you need to take to basically extend the life in front of the planning commission. So can I ask you what, you know, I want to push on that a little bit. So aside from a new fee, the fee, what else would that entail us starting from scratch? It would need to go, it would have to go back before the joint city planning committee. Okay. And then it would go through, they would have to be re-advertised and start again. They're probably, KCCP's the only meets every other month. So that would probably push it out to well into the fall. Right. But we could in theory be working on it or a committee could be working on it while that's happening or is that? In theory, sure. Okay. Thank you. So yeah, I think that commissioner Miller's point about, voting for a 30 day continuance, and now with planning staff's recommendation of doing that or at least doing that so that they can come back to us and let us know whether we can extend past the 90 days. I think that makes sense. And I'll support that vote without that motion. Thank you, commissioner Al-Turk, commissioner Busby. Thank you, madam chair. I'm open to this. Mr. Anthony, I really appreciate your willingness to be open to that. The one concern that I have is pushing this off with no clarity. So 300 members of the public contacted us about this and we have more people attending tonight as participants than we've had at any other of our virtual meetings. And the answer back to them is we pushed this off for 30 days and we don't know if we're gonna actually handle this at next month's meeting or not. I'm not a big fan of that level of uncertainty. And what I could tell people certainly is if we meet next month and the answer is no, we can't push it off, we have to vote on it. I will vote it down, but I don't actually think that's such a great answer. So I don't know if the staff is able to get clarity this evening. I'm guessing the answer is probably no, if they need to go back to the city and the county attorney, there is another path. It's not a great one, but when this is put forward over us, there is the timing issue hanging over us. We then are forced to make a decision as a planning commission. And I agree with Commissioner Miller. We are the ones that have shown that we will set up committees and do engagement with the public and really dig in and do hard work. And we will do that. But the other path would be that this privately initiated proposal is withdrawn. And we did vote last month to set up an additional committee specifically to work on changes to the UDO. And Commissioner Baker is chairing that committee. We have members on that committee as well. So that's the other option. And that might be a path for Mr. Anthony to consider as well. What that does, it's a trust fall. I recognize that, that pulls away this proposal, but I will commit that myself, and I think the planning commission is ready and willing to work with everybody in good faith in a timely manner, as long as it's thoughtful and equitable and everyone has the ability to be involved to work on these issues. So that might remove the timing issue, the legal questions, and frankly, the uncertainty that we would then push back onto the public who is clearly interested in this issue. So I just put that forward for consideration. That's nothing that I have control over, but I would invite Mr. Anthony to offer his thoughts on that option as well. Okay, Commissioner Morgan. Well, and before we hand off, I did want to give Mr. Anthony, that was my question for Mr. Anthony. If you would like to make a comment on that since the public comment period is closed. I'm interested in hearing his thoughts on that. Here you go, unmuted, thank you. So I was thinking something similar to that, that clearly there's so much confusion about this issue that has triggered such public response, negative public response, that if there's a way to isolate that issue and pull it out of the whole thing, and we address the other stuff on schedule, I really am not interested in having to pull this out and start all over again. And we'd be looking at another year and the additional costs. So there's clearly one thing here that is a thorn in everyone's side. And if there's a way to address that independently and suspend it, pull it out, then that's what I'm feeling. Thank you. And I would just say for my final question, and I appreciate that, Mr. Anthony, it is your right, right? You have initiated this, you put the time in, you paid to move this process forward, so that's totally your right. Staff, can you offer your any appropriate feedback to what Mr. Anthony just put forward? We can certainly, we did discuss this, one of the few things I remember from February, we did discuss the possibility of dividing it into multiple text amendments. And so that one can move forward and one could spend some more time, that you all could spend some more time talking about it. Based on what I'm hearing, I don't know if there's full consensus among the commission about what exactly you could support going forward, but we can definitely work with the applicant determine what provisions could remain in this text amendment and that we can just create a separate case basically for the other provisions. And Mr. Whiteman, I'm gonna try to just make sure I understood what you said and tell me if I have this right or not. It, I mean, there are two paths, if I understand it correctly. One path is that our committee meets and we bring back a much more narrowly tailored proposal. And we can just vote on it ourselves regardless. The other could be the proponent Mr. Anthony says, I am bringing back a revised proposal to the July Planning Commission meeting that would just focus on this one tangible piece. And from my perspective, it would need to eliminate the language on the tree coverage and the open space that have caused so many problems. They may also need to back out the definition of family because I think that requires a much bigger community conversation, but there may be very discreet pieces that we could all agree on and move forward. I mean, are those the options that we have besides just voting tonight? Yes, yes, those are options that you have. It would require the either one would require the applicants consent. Great, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Morgan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess one of the things that comes to my mind is what we could do is by taking another 30 days to revisit this, we could take a crack at making the recommendation of what things we do agree upon, what things need to be pushed out. And I would seem to favor taking that time to break that apart or to identify the components that do make sense that we could do and we're working with the applicant revise that text amendment to actually make something that he can get at least portion of that. And then if there are things that need to be pulled out and it's kind of echoing, I think that's kind of where we're landing is where then any of the items that may take a longer amount of time could be removed and also could be incorporated into some of the other changes we might want to make. I'm kind of thinking out of the box here. I know we kind of take it as a package. We voted up or down, but kind of thinking out of the boxes, let's try to find an area where we can agree and what can move forward with and things that we identify that need a little more work or a little more time to get further feedback from the community. Thank you, Commissioner Morgan. I'm going to recognize Sarah Young, our Assistant Planning Director at this time who's going to help us out. Good evening, commissioners. I've been in communication with the Planning Director this evening and he would be willing to extend an additional 30 days, so a two cycle total 60 day allowable continuance if Mr. Anthony the applicant is agreeable to that as a means to help facilitate this. So I wanted to put that out there as kind of another variation on the theme of options before you, again, assuming Mr. Anthony would be willing to consent to that. Thank you, let's see. Okay, I do not see Mr. Anthony's hand at this time. Sorry, I'm here. Okay, did you hear that option? Yeah, I did hear that. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay, perfect. Yes, I would be willing to accept that 60 day extension in lieu of the 30. I do want to make sure that we move along the things that we can agree on and that we hold an abeyance. The things that we know are just gonna be too tricky to deal with in that period of time. So I would just humbly ask the commissioners to look through this and say, okay, check, I got this, check, I got that. Here's a question mark on this one. And if we could identify what some of those things are that have questions and what are no-knows, that would be helpful to I think our conversations will take place publicly and privately about it. Thank you. Commissioner, let's see, Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have my hand up to make a motion when the time comes. Okay, thank you. I do have a couple of others who would like to speak. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Anthony, I have another question for you. You mentioned earlier that you don't want to delay this for too long. And so there are some things that are more urgent. Can you tell us what's in the tax amendment that you think that you would like to move forward pretty quickly on? And also I think related to that, are those the things that you think most of, or there would be a lot of agreement on? Because you just mentioned that, that let's come to an agreement on some things. So what is it that you think are the less controversial aspects of this and, you know, just so I have an idea of what a 60-day continuance will allow us to do? Thank you. Sure. Well, it's easier for me to say it's very clear what the most controversial ones are. And so those, I think it's wise to take those into a larger community conversation, you know, if they happen at all. I mean, the truth is it may not, you know, we may never get to a place where we think it's a good idea to potentially consider reductions and pre-coverage and open space to encourage more density for affordable projects only. The other stuff that is really, oh, and then the other one that's controversial is the four, excuse me, the six unrelated parties versus three. And, you know, an incremental approach is, I think, kicking the ball down the field. But, you know, from my perspective, you know, if that's what it takes to move to four or five instead of six, you know, I'm open to that. I've just have heard, you know, from multiple parties that getting it to six was a better thing for the community. And using Housing for New Hope is a perfect example of what can be done legally with that change. Then let's talk about some of the specifics with respect to setbacks and utilizing parking reductions and that sort of thing. Those, I think, should be less controversial and should be taken on more quickly. And so I guess what I would say is, let's pull out those two guys that seem to have stirred up the most concern and then address the rest of them more quickly. That would be my desire. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Baker. I don't have a whole lot to add. I think that everyone's been saying a lot of really great things tonight. I actually agree with Mr. Anthony on this. I think that the items to pull out are the ones that he mentioned about tree coverage and about the definition of family. And I believe that the other ones, we will probably be able to move forward. They seem to be very reasonable. I also support, if possible, revisiting this in 60 days with those two major items pulled out. Regarding definition of family, we heard someone at the beginning of this conversation talk about a specific housing type that included, I believe, seven unrelated individuals in a single unit. I think that we are watching a very narrow conversation play out, precisely because of some of the flaws, some of the higher level flaws that we have in sort of our way of making decisions in Durham, which I won't delve into too much here. But I think that the conversation, if appropriately carried out, would also expand to address some of the concerns that we heard earlier on in the conversation. For example, I think that there are other ways of implementing that type of housing. So I think that we could create a definition for a cooperative housing or for rooming housing or even for dormitory housing that would allow for that type of housing without actually changing the definition of family throughout the entire community. I think changing the definition of family is perhaps the more potentially lucrative approach and could apply because it can apply city-wide. And I wouldn't necessarily assume that those settings would be passed down to the actual renter. I think that there might be greater benefit to the landlord. However, I do think that there are a lot of opportunities to expand the amount of cooperative housing, rooming housing and dormitory housing that we have in Durham without having to change the definition of family. So those are just my two cents there. There's obviously a lot more that we could talk about, but in general, I support the sentiment right now that I'm hearing, which is to revisit this in 60 days. Commission or Lowe? Commission or Lowe, your hand is raised, but your mic is muted. Thank you, the commissioner, Jeff. I thought I heard earlier that we had at least three sticking points, tree coverage, space and definition of family. And now I'm saying like I'm only hearing two sticking points, tree coverage and definition of family instead of three. Am I correct or not that I missed something? Your mic is a little bit muted. I did not hear the, you know, all of your question. Chair Hyman, this is maybe, can I respond to that? Yes, please. Yeah, so I just mentioned too, I was kind of bunching up tree coverage and open space together. So does that answer your question? Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Baker, but I was really addressing that to Mr. Anthony, because I thought I heard him mention two sticking points, tree coverage and definition of family, and I didn't hear anything from him about open space. But that's fine. If I'm still able to be heard, I was including that, I apologize. I do see that as part of the same thing that needs to be pulled out with the tree issue. Thank you, Mr. Anthony. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Tom Miller here. If it's appropriate at this time, my intention is to make a motion. And if we, now that the planning commission, the excuse me, the planning directors very graciously made it so that we can have a 60-day period, Mr. Anthony has agreed to that. I think what we include and what we don't include is really kind of something that should be worked out at the committee level. That's why we're great at the committee. And it can be more thoughtful and it's maybe a little bit easier in than the setting that we have here. Before I make my motion, may I address a question to staff? So Sarah, Scott, Grace. I mean, if we have a committee with fewer than a majority of the members of the commission under the open meetings law, technically we don't have to do notices or anything. Make it clear, I'm not in favor of that. Commissioner Miller, I see Sarah popping in, but she'll tell me if I'm wrong. She always does. Me too. Yeah, our attorneys have had a lot. Our attorneys have taken that conservative approach to determine that even if it's not a majority of the commission, if you're doing business on behalf of the commission as a subcommittee, then we still need to advertise it and still make it a public meeting. All right, well, that's good. That was the answer I was hoping to get. Because if we do that, then it's okay for us, because one of the things I want to sort out because I know that this is that strange time of year when commission members terms in, I want to make sure that if I make a motion going forward that we have a clear understanding about who will be participating on the committee. And I know that, and I just don't know the answer, but I do know that we have a couple of people who, Mr. Brian has already announced that he does not intend to go for another term. And I know that a couple of other people are probably going to have their terms expire and I don't know their intentions with regard to reapplying. So at this time, Madam Chair, what I would like to do is to move that the public hearing in this text amendment case be continued to the commission's regularly scheduled meeting in August and that in the meantime, the committee that was created to consider it continue its work. And then with regard to the composition of the committee, you're the chair and I believe under our rules of procedure, you are able to appoint people, but I did want to make sure that we have continuity and that also that if there is some commission member who felt that circumstances made it difficult for them to participate in February, if those circumstances now have changed to make it where they would like to participate, that they are given an opportunity to do that as we move forward. Thank you. That's my motion. But before we deal with the motion, I'm going to recognize Grace Smith with the planning department. We had some comments and some additional information about our discussions about terms. Thank you, Madam Chair. Grace Smith with the planning department. I had some discussions with the County Clerk's office today regarding the terms that are ending for Commissioner Bryan and Chair Hyman. And I've subsequently talked to Commissioner Bryan and Chair Hyman. And at this time, they are allowed to continue in their capacity until their replacement is appointed. And that does not appear to be happening in the next 30 to 60 days. It might happen in 60 days, but I don't think it's gonna happen in the next 30 days. So at this time, Chair Hyman has graciously agreed to continue to serve on the Planning Commission until her replacement is appointed. And Chair Bryan has graciously said that he shall no longer be a member of this committee as of June 30th. He said that he went on the record a long time ago and told us that that was his plan. And rightfully, we understand that. So we would definitely miss him, but he made it clear that he will be leaving us at the end of the month. However, Chair Hyman did decide to stay on. So I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that. Thank you. Neil, we have a motion on the table, motion by Commissioner Miller. And I did not get the second. I did motion to Bryan. Yes, it was motion by Commissioner Miller and second by Commissioner Bryan that we continue this item for an additional two cycles to the August meeting. That's correct, Chair Hyman. That's August 11th. Thank you. To the August 11th meeting, all in favor of this motion, let it be known by a roll call vote please. Okay. Commissioner Alturk? Yes. Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner Bryan? Yes. Commissioner Busby? Yes. Commissioner Durkin? Yes. Commissioner Hyman? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Commissioner Kenshin? Commissioner Lowe? Yes. Commissioner MacIvers? Yes. Commissioner Miller? Yes. Commissioner Morgan? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. And Commissioner Williams? Yes. Is unanimous 14-0. Thank you. Now, one of the things that I would like to make sure that we clear up will be the members of this committee and the time that this commission is able to, this subcommittee is able to meet because we did put forth an effort to try to schedule additional subcommittee meetings and was not able to primarily because of the platform and now the attendees. So what I would like to do since I chaired that committee, I'm going to ask that Commissioner Miller be the co-chair of that committee and let me tell you why. Because I'm staying until my replacement comes, it could be, you know, it could be August. It could, you know, it could be August. So I want to make sure that, you know, for continuity purposes, we do have an intact committee. So it- Commissioner Miller here, Madam Chair. I'm happy to serve as your co-chair. Thank you so much. You also were the keeper of all of our original notes and all of that valuable information that we were able to obtain from so many, from so many interested members of the community and I want to recognize them for that input and let them know that we will be continuing and we'll be reaching out to them for further participation. Now to just verify those committee members. So Commissioner Williams served on that committee and am I hearing a pledge to continue? Yes, ma'am. I am 100% pledge to continue and we'll continue to do good work. Thank you. I hope it's good work. You had, you know, you had such valuable input the last time because particularly in our discussions about the tree canopy, if you will recall, some interesting issues were presented about, you know, some things that were actual live situations concerning trees. So trees can be both good, bad and indifferent. And so Commissioner Lowe, are you able to continue the subcommittee? Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair. Thank you so much and that Commissioner Morgan had already agreed to when I reached out, Commissioner Morgan was the one individual who suggested that let's try to do this virtually even before the platform was ready. And so my next person, Mr. Commissioner Kitchin. Absolutely. So it looks like then we have, is there anybody else who would like to join this committee? Hearing no volunteers then, the original committee will start scheduling. And also it's important too that we look at timing because Commissioner Williams, let me know that for those of us who are retired and are able to schedule meetings during the daytime that she is essential and that we need to look at having these meetings later in the evening. And I'm perfectly willing to do that. So we'll start looking at how we can get those meetings scheduled. Any other comments about the meeting, how we move forward with this? And if not, is there any new business? I see. Well, Commissioner Durkin has raised her hand. Yeah, I just had a question about the process. I was absent in February, so I wasn't around for the setup of the committee, but as we did with the Expanding Housing Choices Committee, the committee then sent their recommendation to the rest of the commission to provide input. Is that the same procedure here? Absolutely. That was our goal. We were hoping to have some recommendations. We have additional instructions now about what things are required. So we will look forward to putting something together that we can then send to the entire body as a recommendation. The chair recognizes staff. Grace Smith has appeared. I'm gonna defer to Assistant Director Young. She appeared before me. Okay. I wanted to make sure I gave you guys equal time. So yes, Commissioner Seria, our Assistant Planning Director, see I want you to be a commissioner too. Thank you, Chair. I spend a lot of time with you all. I feel like an honorary commissioner sometimes. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify, and this is mostly for the viewing public, those participating on the call today and anyone that may be watching this on the live stream, that these committee meetings will be advertised as staff said earlier. We will be using the same Zoom webinar type platform. There will be likely the ability for folks to sign up ahead of time and join as well. So I just wanna be fully transparent that they're gonna run very similar to these meetings. Because of that, it's essential that you all coordinate with staff that the time also work for staff with our calendar with the Zoom meetings because we cannot have meetings. So not trying to inflict our schedule on you all, but just trying to coordinate to make sure that we have the technology available and that we're complying with what our attorneys have asked us to do. Thank you so much for that reminder. And also that's important because, and it's important that we try to get the meeting scheduled right away. So that because of that reason, because of the platform and then because of the number of individuals who participated when we had the live sessions, I can imagine that we will still have a lot of interest in the upcoming meetings even on the Zoom platform. So we need to work that out. Thank you so much. Are there any additional? Now, yes, the chair recognizes Grace Smith. Thank you, Chair Hyman. I just had a couple of things very quickly for the commissioners concerning our upcoming meeting schedule. July appears to be very busy. So I guess my question is, we're gonna probably have about 10 cases, anywhere from eight to 10 cases that would be ready to come to you for review and action. So the thought is with these virtual meetings, the staff has the opinion that we really should keep the public hearing items, the agenda manageable. We've done up to three cases. I guess we could go up to four cases. My thought is is that I can propose another date in July so that we meet twice, but not back to back, maybe spread them out so that you have a couple weeks break or a week break in between them. So if it's okay with you, I will look at the calendar and suggest some times and dates after I coordinate with our technology liaison to make sure that we can use the council chamber's equipment to run the meeting. I just wanted to, I wanted to get some feedback in that regard. I don't need a vote. I just need kind of some feedback to make sure that would be okay and that we could probably get a quorum for an extra meeting. A thumbs up would be great from everybody. I'm Miller here. My thumb is up and I'm happy to do it back to back. That's actually my preference. Yeah. Okay. I mean, if we have to do them in the same week, I might try to at least give you one night off. So they're not like night back to back, night after night, but it's really going to depend on the availability of the equipment, the city council chambers. So I'll work on that. And then one other, one last thing. So earlier I mentioned that I had spoken with Chair Hyman and Commissioner Bryan about their terms. And I know Chair Hyman has a few words and I know the rest of you might want to share some comments with Mr. Bryan about his service on the planning commission and at least invite him back for a future meeting. So I'm going to let Chair Hyman take over. But the staff would like to at least share our thank yous and just let you know, Mr. Bryan, you've been amazing. Just a completely dedicated commissioner. You probably read our agenda items more thoroughly than anyone. I'm pretty sure. You bet. I mean, you're great. You let us know if we miss a comma, if we miss a detail and it's amazing. And we appreciate that. You might think that we don't like that, but we do. We kind of think of you as our third or fourth at proof person in the process. So we really appreciate everything you've done. And just for you, I made this sign because you seem to like signs. I might have to turn my camera off. Hang on. Oh, no, it says thank you for always finding our typos. Thank you very much. I've been a pleasure to work with staff and with all of you on the commission. I had previously announced that I would be leaving at the end of June and I need to stick to that so that I can continue work on some of the other things that I have taken on. So thanks to all of you. Thank you commissioner, commissioner Bryan. And of course we want to, we'll be inviting you back to the next meeting for more appreciation and more comments about how wonderful it has been to have you on this commission. How important it is for you to serve or you to have served with us and that all of us are just indebted to you for all of your knowledge and abilities that you've shared with us over this period of time. We just thank you so very much. And I know this will be considered one of those experiences and all of these wonderful people that you have here that you will take with you wherever you go. Thank you so much, commissioner Bryan. We want to give him a round of applause. I agree with Akram's sign. I want him to hold his sign up again. Let's see his. I couldn't see mine. Thank you. Yes, Sarah, I see you have popped into the pictures. Do you have any additional comments? Well, Sarah popped out and now Grace, are you back? Just trying to keep it spicy here. I just want to say commissioner Bryan that you have been kept us on our toes for many, many years. If you are looking for a little part time work, I could use another proof editor in the planning department. Just let me know we could work something out. But really your thoughtfulness, your attention to detail, you have taken this job very seriously. Staff appreciates it and we know the community does too. So thank you for your service. You're welcome. Thank you for your comment. And then one final comment for me as I as indicated my term actually ends at the end of June and but I am this has been one of those experiences that I will value for as one of the highlights during my retirement from public service. And it has been absolutely a pleasure for me to be able to give back to the citizens of this community. And it is with just absolute enthusiasm that I continue for another two months perhaps until my replacement comes in. But if my replacement shows up and you don't see me, it means that I've already said my hello's and goodbyes and then we'll move on forward. So thank you all so much. Joe Hyman, I wonder if some of the hands raised are to say something to commissioner Bryan, but I would like to let me see. Yes, let me let me just check. Thank you. Yes, I see lots of hands. Okay, I'll start with commissioner Miller. Thank you, madam chair. I'm not sure that everybody on the commission is completely aware of this, but this hasn't been a commission member, Brian's first trip to the party. George, how many three year terms have you served the planning commission? What was it, 17? It's heads up to at the end of June, 17 years. That is just an incredible record of volunteer service. I mean, when I'm done, it will be seven years. And then that means to catch him, I have 10 years to go. I will be very, very old. And that means that somebody would have to reappoint me, which seems very unlikely. So George, thank you for that incredible record of public service. And the losses is real. I mean, with you on the commission, I go, I look at the applications and I go after the things that I feel are my comfort area, knowing that you've got all the rest of it covered. I'm going to have to figure out traffic impact analysis. It's a little frightening. So when you leave today, that the weight that you've been carrying, the rest of us have to pick up. And quite frankly, I don't know if I'm strong enough, but thank you for your service. Thank you. Commissioner Elterk. Thank you, Chair. I usually don't say much when commissioners leave, but I feel like I really have to say a few things about George. I feel like, yeah, in addition to the attention to detail, which everyone's mentioned, I think he's probably, in my mind, the most, or just such a thoughtful commissioner. And I think he has influenced me the most. You know, I think when I started, I would really look to what he was saying and what he was thinking about and what things he was pointing out, like commissioner Miller just said, there were lots of things that I had no idea that I should be thinking about. And it was always George kind of pointing those out. And so anytime that commissioner Brian did, it was not clear to me how he was voting on a case. I was a little aggravated because I really kind of wanted to know how he was going to vote before I voted. But to me, that just tells me or says a lot about what I think about your comments and your judgment. So I really appreciate your time and your leadership. Thank you. Commissioner Williams. Yes, commissioner Brian. When I first started out on the commission, I was on the other side. So I got to look at you and I got to listen to how you spoke. And I got to listen to how you actually would tilt the scale if you would. And since we oftentimes would start from our right, well, at the time, yes, from my right. And I would be last, it was interesting to see exactly how many people would kind of lean in and wait for you to speak or how you would vote. And then that kind of like tilted the scale. But then when I got moved to the opposite side, it was almost like there was a change in power, if you will. So you made me a lot more comfortable with speaking my mind and understanding the things that were presented to me and actually hearing the community and having an informed decision, but understanding the impact of the words that I have and what they meant. So for that, I can say with my short tenure, I will forever be grateful. Thank you so much. Thank you. Commissioner Baker. Yeah, second, just about everything that's been said, but I want to add to that, that you have been so consistent in your dedication to issues that really impact people. You're always speaking for people who don't have powerful voices and for those who need things like affordable housing or need to get around without a car, you're always speaking to environmental issues and other types of issues that will impact people for a very long time. And so I think that you can leave the commission knowing that you've had a true positive impact on Durham and that it wouldn't be the same if you hadn't served on the commission. So I've learned so much from you and I'm so happy that I was able to join while you were here and look forward to continuing to communicate with you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Busby. Thank you. Yeah, George, you set the bar and as Tom said, we got some work to do. This is a real loss for this community, but it's a celebration. So I do want to thank you as well. You know, a funny moment was I was already on the commission when George came back on. And I think it was the first meeting I didn't realize that he had, I didn't know his past. And by the end of the first meeting, I thought this guy knows his stuff. And so I quickly learned about his experiences. George, I don't even think we know the whole story. So do I have it right? Were you a part of the merger of the planning commission when the city and county came together? Is that accurate? That is correct. My first tour of duty, if you will, on the planning commission was as a member of the merged planning commission. The county commissioners appointed me to a one-year term because they still weren't sure. You know, they didn't know too much about me. But if you served a one-year term and you didn't upset anybody too much, you were eligible then to serve two three-year terms. And I was the only one in the original group that actually served seven years, first two years. That's amazing. So not only is it, you're not, it's not your first rodeo. You merged row and DO. You created rodeo. So you made that happen. You also were a chair for a number of years, correct? I served as chair twice. So your service is remarkable. The positive impacts you've had on our community is enormous. You're an unsung hero and you've made all of us better commissioners. So thank you. You're really gonna miss you. And I hope you'll stay in touch because we're gonna need your careful eye as we move forward. But thank you, George. Really, really appreciate it. We know where you live. That's wild. Commissioner Johnson. I just wanted to echo everything that everyone has said, Commissioner Ryan. And I don't know if we'll be able to replace the value add that you brought to the dais every month that we meet. And in addition to me being your seatmate and actually I can attest to the meticulous hand notes, in your thick notebook that you bring, we're also losing a historian in regards to the history of Durham. And so that was one of the things that I immediately recognized and looked to you for when I joined the commission was to, we're not just making decisions about the day, but they're also tacked to a history of Durham that some of us may not have been aware of. And you were one of the ones who provided the context that connected where we are today or where we're coming from and where we can go. So I just thank you for your service. And I wish you all the best as you go forth with your newer ongoing endeavors and you will be remembered at least by me. Thank you. By all of us. Thank you. If there are no other comments, it's like motion to adjourn. So moved. There you go. Bye. See you next month. Come back for your resolution, George. That's right. That's right. Maybe we can give you special privileges so you'll be on the air. You may not want that. Yes, we should. Bye, everybody. Bye-bye. Bye.