 Good morning, everybody. Quick question, were the minutes and stuff sent to our homes? Because I receive nothing. So I have an agenda right now, but I don't have a lot of detail. Is there a way to receive the full package by email or link immediately, please? It's on the agenda. I can send it over to you. Send it over to me. I somehow missed it, how the email is with grouping things. Thank you. We are live, by the way. All right, give me one moment. There you go, Ian. Thank you. All right, the meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the July 28th meeting of the city county Durham Board of Adjustment. My name is Jacob Rogers, and I am the chair of the board. I would like to start by acknowledging that we are conducting this meeting using a remote electronic platform as permitted by session law 2020-3. This is the fourth remote meeting of the Durham Board of Adjustment and the first remote, excuse me, and the third remote BOA meeting with a quasi-judicial period. I would ask for your patience today as we proceed. There may be slight delays as we transition between speakers. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina general statutes and the city's unified development ordinance. The board typically conducts evidentiary hearings on requests for variances, special use permits, among other requests. Today's meeting will proceed much like an in-person meeting of the Board of Adjustment. On the screen, you'll see the members of the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, planning staff and representatives from the city and county's attorney's offices are attending in the remote meeting as well. Applicants were required to register in advance and are also attending the remote meeting. When a case is called for, its hearing applicants and witnesses will be promoted within the remote platform so their video can be seen. The chair will swear in applicants and witnesses at the beginning of each case. Staff will present each case and applicants will then provide their evidence. Control of the presentation and screen sharing will remain with planning staff. Today's meeting is being broadcast live on the city's YouTube site. And a link to this broadcast is on the website for the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin the evidentiary hearings on today's agenda, I would like to provide some important information about the steps taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this remote platform. Each applicant on today's agenda was notified that this meeting would be conducted using a remote electronic platform. During registration, every applicant on today's agenda consented to the Board of Conducting the Evidentiary Hearing using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in this hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform, the case will be continued. Notice of today's meeting was provided by publishing notice in the newspaper mailed to the property owners within 600 feet of the subject properties, posting a sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mailed notices for today's meeting contained information how the public can access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. These notices also contained information about the registration requirement for the meeting along with information about how to register. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit, or other material that they wish to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted on the Board of Adjustment website as part of the agenda. No new documents will be submitted during today's meeting. No case is proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the case or an objection to the matter being heard in this remote meeting platform. All decisions of this Board are subject to appeal to the Durham Superior Court. Anyone in the audience other than the applicant who wishes to receive a copy of the formal order issued by this Board on a particular case must submit a written request for a copy of this order. Before we do roll call, I'd like to make sure that all of our Board members are in video. I'd also say, I think I mentioned this at every meeting, is refrain from using the chat box if you can. And we can either, you can either raise your hand this way or definitely use the raise your hand feature on Zoom here. Madam Clerk, will you call the roll? I'm Eliza Monroe's staff here. I think there is a Board member who might be having an issue with the link. Krista, is that something that we can postpone the calling of the roll or can she join in the later time? We can go ahead with the roll call and if she joins, we just need to note that in the record. Okay, thank you. Hey, Jacob Rogers. Here. Mr. Meadows. Mr. Lacey. Here. Mr. Kip. Here. Mr. Retchless. Here. Ms. Weymour. Here. Ms. Jeter. Ms. Major. Here. And Mr. Tarrant. Here. I believe that Mr. Meadows had requested an excused absence. That's something that the Board would need to vote on and approve. Yeah, so to give you some, for those who may not know, Chad is away right now. He thought he'd be able to, beyond this meeting, just the connectivity issues that where he's at wouldn't probably allow continuous video and kind of audio. So he's asked for an excused absence. I think we'll need a motion and a second and a vote. Am I right? That's great. Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? Yeah, make a motion to excuse Meadows. Ian's got it. Lacey, second. Susan, will you call? Sure, Mr. Lacey. Yeah, aye. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Retchless. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. And Mike is here too, so. I just wanted to make a note that Michael Jeter is on in the meeting now. Thank you for joining us. All right, now we need to approval from the minutes from our June 30th meetings. Anybody want to make a motion? Lacey, I have a question about the minutes. Ms. Burnham is listed as being a member. Had she resigned before the meeting or what can you tell me? She just wasn't present for that meeting. She was not present, but she's still a member at that point. Okay, thank you. Then I'd vote to approve them. I moved to approve them. Is there a second? Kip, second. Kip. Thanks, Kip. Ian. Susan. Roll call. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Here. Mr. Rogers. I'm sorry. Mr. Retzlis. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Mr. Jeter. Jeter. Jeter, yes. Ms. Major. Yes. All right. Passes 7-0. All right. Susan, would you like to call the first case? Case B-2-0-0-0-0-0-3. This is continued from June the 30th, a request for a variance from the required street and side yard setback in order to construct and an addition on a single family dwelling. The subject site is located at 105 Farrantash Place, is zoned residential rule and in the Eno River protected area of watershed protection overlay, and in the suburban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within secured feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And to confirm the case seating, it is Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kipp, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Weymour, and Ms. Jeter, and Ms. Major. All right. And here's a question for Krista or Brian. I'm guessing I do need to swear in everybody again for this since this is continued. Yes. Okay. Is the applicant on the, I can't tell. Yes. Kelly is here. Kelly, you'll have to turn on your screen and unmute yourself for the swearing in. There we go. Good to see you again, Mr. Treas. Would you raise your right hand in these swear or affirm that the testimony you're given today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Eliza, would you take it, you would like to take it or who's? Yeah, I would just take it for a quick refresher in case it's needed since the last time we heard about this was June 30th. Good morning, everyone. Eliza Nero with the planning department, planning staff does request that the staff report and all materials submitted at the hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections noted. So noted, thank you. Thank you. Just as a refresher, case B2000003 is a request for a variance from the required streak inside yard setbacks in order to construct an existing, an addition onto an existing single-family dwelling. This case was originally heard on June 30th and that what the continuance was in order to allow the applicant time to gather more information. The applicant and property owners are Kelly and Camille Drews and the subject site, as Susan mentioned, is located at 105 Baron Tosh Place. To give you just another refresher, so I won't go too into detail, it's like this case area is highlighted in red and the size of the suburban tier, as Susan mentioned and so on are and within the Eno River protected area, Watershed Protection Overlay District. And there is currently a single-family dwelling on the site. The UDO section 6.2.1A.1 would require a 50-foot street yard and a minimum 12-foot side yard setback for single-family dwelling in the RR zoning district. This is a corner lot. So it would have two of those street yards and the applicant is requesting a variance from well as a reservoir variance from the side yard setback in order for the garage addition. The information after this will be the new information that the applicant is providing. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes the four findings that the applicant must make in order for an award to grant a variance. These findings requiring approval are identified in the staff report, as well as the applicant's responses to these findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet and staff will be available for any questions throughout the hearing process. Thank you, Eliza. Mr. Drews. Can we just go through it then? Well, we can. First, just before we continue, I just want to make sure do you consent to this remote meeting? Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. And any, would you like all of your written and oral testimony today to be part of the record? Yes. Thank you so much. Take it from here. Okay. So the last time we met. Have you sworn them in, Jacob? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. Am I good to go? You're good. Okay. The last time we met last month, the board had some concerns. And so we went to a continuance where I took some time to try to address most of the concerns the board had. And so in essence, our property was built in 1977 before the code was adopted. And so the structure itself is not in compliance with the street variance, which is the reason I'm requesting, or the street setback, which is the reason I'm requesting the variance there just to bring the whole structure into compliance. And in essence, I've provided more documentation to show why unnecessary hardship would arise from putting the proposed structure in different areas. Eliza, we can jump to item three. So after listening to the board's concerns, I modified the design to move the entire structure away from the property line by an additional two feet. So now it's over three feet from the property line at the closest point and over six feet from the property line at this point, because the house is not particularly, not exactly parallel with the property line. Eliza, can you go to four? Thanks. We also modified the design so that it would be much more subordinate to the house as well. And then item five, Eliza, if you don't mind. So there were some questions about sort of how far it would be from the neighbor's house we went and with the new design, it would be over 40 feet from the neighbor's house and the neighbor's house is already 30 feet from the property line. But item six is where most of the board's sort of concerns are put in. So in essence, I wanted to show that of all the options that could have been in regards to where it would be on the property line, there were particular hardships that arise from each option. And so I can go through these one by one. But if you can go to seven, Eliza. One thing I did want to point out is that having, there was a suggestion of decreasing the overall length of the proposed garage, but because of the way the property line is in relation to the proposed building, decreasing the length of the garage provides a minimal benefit from the variance step back. So we ultimately decided to keep the dimensions the same, but move them closer to the house to have a greater setback from the property line. So Eliza, if you can go to eight, yeah. So here I wanted to show sort of what's existing now and why we're proposing to put it in this particular spot. We have a large concrete driveway currently in that position. And so the blue lines are the property line and the red lines are what we're proposing to put in. So this is the view sort of straight on from the property front. And you can see that it's gonna be contained within the existing driveway, which is an impervious surface. Eliza, could you go to nine? And this is the same sort of idea, but it was taken from essentially the roof line to show an overhead view that it would be on top of the existing driveway. And then we would just sort of add a little bit of concrete to make it closer to the house. And then the next one, Eliza. And then finally, it would extend a little bit beyond where the current driveway is, but again, it would still be mostly on the current impervious surface. And you can see in the back corner of that picture, there's a well, which will come into play as to why we can't put it farther back, for instance. Eliza, could you go to 11? So one of the issue questions was why not put it on the other side of the property? Well, for one thing, the property's already too close to the street by the ordinance rules. So that would require a variance from the street setback anyway, which we didn't want to be requiring that sort of variance. We figured put it on where the driveway currently is and that would make the most sense. In addition, there's some issues with the topography where we would have to regrade the land and it's a three foot drop between where the house currently sits and where the edge of the proposed garage would be, which would require some major regrading. And then there are some power lines that are in place with the, there are some red arrows there showing them. And they would probably prevent a hazard for work. So we wanted to avoid that if at all possible. The next question was why not put it sort of behind the house? And the two major issues there are that we have a gas line that comes in there in a cave by red arrows and the crawl space of the house is located there, both of which would be a hardship in order to either move the gas line or move access to the crawl space under the house. And then the last 13, I said, thank you. And the last one was sort of if you put it farther back that wouldn't necessarily alleviate the need for a setback variance, but also there's a well there and the well requires 25 foot setback. So we can't really move it any farther back because of the well. So we were hoping that the combination of changing the design a bit so that it would be actually farther off of the property line, as well as showing why the garage couldn't be in any other locations would help satisfy the board's concerns. Thank you, Mr. Drews. Is there, are there any questions for the applicant? Kip, I have a question. Mr. Kip. Mr. Drews, did you talk to the property owner next door? I know there's a lot of, you said there's 30 feet from her house to the property line, but did you get a chance to speak with her? Of course, we can't really take her testimony through you, but I just wanted to ask. Yes. Yeah, so I did. And they were completely on board with the idea. I know we can't take that testimony. I did talk to Eliza quite a bit about this ahead of time. They are quite elderly and I was very worried about having them kind of involved in or phoning in or zooming in because they don't know how to do it. And I didn't want to go to their property during the pandemic and potentially put them at risk because they're very high risk. And so talking to Eliza and confirming that their testimony shouldn't play a role in the variance findings, we ultimately decided to just let that one go. But I did, I know you can't listen, but I did talk to them about it and they were okay. Any other questions for Mr. Drews? Regulus here. Mr. Drews, do you have anybody today to speak about the location of that well or septic tank that you're telling us about? I don't, but if you go to, one more, it could be one moment here. Yeah, if you go to the, I guess it's seven, or I'm eight, I'm eight, Eliza. I did take measurements to show the distances. So the septic tank is in green and the well is in the back there, little dot. So I don't have anybody here to testify on that, but I did provide, I did swear that it was all, that's my knowledge correct. So those are the distances there. Well, I see the picture, I think, is that the septic tank in the backyard? Are you looking at the sort of the CAD design at the top? Yes. Yeah, so the well is in the back in the 20 feet. The septic tank is, you know- I see the picture of the, yeah, I see the picture of the head, but so you don't have any other pictures of the actual- I do have a picture of the well on item 10. So there's the well in the back corner at the bottom. Yeah, right there. And it's 20 feet from the proposed red line. You have a picture of this septic tank in- I don't think I have a picture of the tank itself, the entrance to the tank. Okay. But you have no testimony now to tell us that that is where the septic tank is. Yeah, I don't have anybody else to testify on that, but- Okay, thank you. Sure. Mrs. Weymour had her hand raised and then Delacy has her hand raised. All right, Ms. Weymour. Actually, my question was answered, but I do want to commend you, Mr. Drew, on these presentation. I think this is very well done. Thank you. Mr. Delacy. Who prepared these for you? I did. Well done, sir. You have some skill in the art then. Thank you. All right, any other questions for Mr. Drews? I have a few questions. Ms. Major. So Mr. Drews, to be clear, if you complied with the UDO, you'd have to put the garage where the well is. Is that right? No, well, it depends on what you mean by comply. So if we're talking about not attaching it and just doing a standard garage yet, it would have to be over where the well is, which is, I can't move the well, so that's an issue. And then the street yard is a whole nother question, but. By comply, I mean to not need a variance. Right, so yeah, it would have to be where the well is. And you have not changed the property since you moved in with regard to what you're wanting to do with the garage? No, we haven't touched any aspect of the exterior property that would impact this. And is your testimony today that the variance you're requesting is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the UDO? It is, yes. I don't have any other questions. Thank you. Eliza, I'm going to ask staff to add a little bit of context to just this, excuse me, Ms. Major's question. In regards to the structure, I'm just going to scroll a little bit here quickly. I apologize if anyone gets a headache. The existing structure is considered nonconforming because it's not meeting the street yard setback. So if they were even to add on to, they would need a minor special use permit. So just to kind of clarify, no matter how they would want to build upon in regards to attached, they would need to have some type of approval from the board, whether it's a minor special use permit or variance. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Drew's comments. Mr. Drew, I thought your, your, what you provided for this meeting was, was a lot of detail and had a lot of filled in a lot of blanks. Then I think that we all had, or a few of us had at the last meeting. So I appreciate your time. And if we're coming back, I do know that this was probably a headache for you. All right. Then if there's nobody else, I know there aren't anybody, there's no one to speak against this, but. This is a variance. Does anybody want to make a motion or any, is there any deliberations? Anybody want to have some thoughts on. On this case. Share your thoughts. Lacey. I see that the applicant has. Shown us good evidence that significant hardships would. Are presented in. In altering the property or in fact, trying to bring this property into conformance. And he's done. I think due diligence. To. Be as. Unobtrusive as possible and make this as conservatively. Further non-compliance that he could. He's stuck with. Property that. Had been built before the change in the UDO. And. That presents a hardship for him here. Anyone else. I also agree with. Mr. Lacey that the. The home being built in 1977. Could definitely create a hardship here. I just wanted to note that. Not having. Some kind of evidence for the. Sceptic tank is a little problem for me. In that it could carry over other cases. By taking the owner's word for it. But. Overall, I think he. Gave some good evidence and cleaned up. Cleaned up the building very well. Anyone else. I think Mr. Drew's has met the four requirements for a variance. While I think I would have liked to see some expert testimony on some of these. He did get direction. From the board. As to what we wanted to see when he came back. And so I think he has done. A lot more than what he did last time in terms of the presentation. So I would be inclined to vote. Yes. But I would have liked to see some expert testimony, but I do think that he has shown. Testimony regarding each of the four requirements of the variance. Is there anyone else. We could entertain a motion. To Lacey. Mr. Lacey. I hereby make a motion that application. Number B. Two. A bunch of zeros. Three. An application for requests for a variance from the required street and side yards. Setbacks in order to construct an addition on a single family dwelling. On property located at one zero five. Farenta space. A successfully met the applicable. Requirements of the unified development ordinance. And is hereby granted subject to the following. Conditions that the improvements shall be substantially consistent. With the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of this application. We've got a motion. Is there a second? Major second. Oh, Miss major got it. She did. Susan. I'll take it from here. Okay. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Redschluss. Yes. Miss. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Redschluss. Yes. Miss. Yes. Miss. Major. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. A vote of seven to zero. Your variance has been approved. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Rogers. I'll send it. Oh, Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. Motion carries eight to zero. It's seven to zero. Seven to zero. Thank you. All right. Thank you for coming. Mr. All right. Well, we want to call the next case. Case B1900047, a request for minor special use permit to allow a parking reduction greater than 20%. The subject site is located at 3718 North Rocks borough street is owned office institutional and is in the falls of the new Jordan Lake protected area and in the suburban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign. Postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Mr. Lacey. Mr. Kip. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Wynmore. Ms. Thank you. And for the applicants. I think everybody that were who is planning on giving testimony. Please raise your right hand. And do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth. Behold truth and nothing but the truth. You got to be unmuted. I do. I do. Thank you. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes. Yes. I'm not sure which staff member is taking this. Eliza Monroe. Sorry. Dan. Are you intending upon speaking today? If so, you'll need to unmute and show your. So we'll need to, one more. Chair Rogers. Morning. Mr. Mullen Dan Mullen, if you could unmute and show your video for us. That work. Thank you. Mullen. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. And I'm going to ask you this too. Do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, I do. Eliza, I'll let you take it. Okay. Sounds great. Good morning, everyone. Once again, Eliza Monroe representing the planning department, planning staff requests at the staff report and all materials submitted at the public hearing to be made public record. Whether you necessary corrections is noted. So noted. Thank you. Chair Rogers. We'll see you in the next slide. Thank you. Next slide. Case B one nine zero zero zero four seven. There's a request for a minor special use permit to allow a parking reduction greater than 20%. The applicant is withers rather now. And the subject site is located at three seven. One eight north cross for our street. The case area is highlighted red on the screen. The site is owned office and institutional. The site is actually currently under construction. This application is based on a site plan amendment. So as an approved site plan and within four years of approval, you're allowed to request an amendment for site changes and modifications. The unified development ordinance section 10.3.1b.10 requires that reductions of more than 20% of the required motor vehicle parking shall be approved with a minor special use permit. The site plan amendment E1900440, which is shown on the screen, is currently under review and proposes that the applicant maintained the 44 parking spaces that are existing on the site. The original site plan D1700349 approved the uses of two restaurants and a commercial use going onto the site. The current plan is to and is proposed to change that will result in three restaurant uses. So it will be three restaurant uses instead of two and one commercial and two of which are existing in the third, which is the proposed, which will have no seating or dining options. It will be a drive-in pizza restaurant. The uses on site are not under review with this use permit and were previously approved with the development plan and the prior site plan. This use permit is solely for the parking reduction to allow the parking amount to stay at the 44 existing spaces on site. UDO section 3.9.8a and b establishes four findings and 13 review factors that the applicant must meet in order for the board to grant a use permit. These findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings and review factors are identified in the application, both of which are within the packets that you all received. That will be available for any questions as needed during the process. And I will say the applicant did add, we did have an additional document that was added to their packet. It was available online and there's also a copy of it within this presentation that I can share as well. It's a parking site. That's all. Any questions for Eliza before we continue? All right. I'm not sure who from on the applicant side wants to go first. Brandy, go ahead. Hi. My name is Brandy Vega. I am at 137 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601. I have my master's in urban planning from the University of Michigan. I have been practicing since 1999. And I've been a certified planner since 2006. I will. Give you an overview of why we believe that we meet the criteria for approval of a minor special use permit. We have a minor special use permit. We have a minor special use permit. Rhino Stevenson with very me camp and associates. Produce the parking demand. And he will give testimony. And Dan Mullen is the broker for the site and can give testimony as to surrounding property values. We are requesting this parking reduction of greater than 20%. And we will give testimony as to what the criteria for approval of a current five guys. At 2,500 square feet. A Duncan donuts at 1876 square feet. And the new tenant would be. A Marco's pizza, which is a pizza place with no seating. At 1500. Approximately square feet. would add any greater demand to the parking than a commercial unit in that space. Say if somebody else were to move in there, we don't leave based on our experience and that the use would add any substantial parking demand. So this parcel, Eliza, if you could go to the map in our application, it has the walking distance circle. There you go. Thank you. So this parcel is currently across the street from Duke Regional Hospital. It is surrounded the east by non-residential uses. There's a medical office park. There is a retail center with other restaurants along North Roxborough Street as well as further down the road. I believe it's either a Lowes Home Improvement or Home Depot. We are not that far from the urban district. Right now it's in the suburban district. And as you can see on this map, we did a quarter mile buffer around the site, which is the typical distance that people feel comfortable walking. So less than a 15-minute walk. So if you can see, it covers a large part of Duke Regional Hospital as well as some residential on the west side. And a lot of the offices that are located on the same side of the road as this business. So you will note the way you got this information from the website for the transit authority. Now we don't know if this is current, if these are current routes, however, they were current at the time of our middle. So these bus stops in blue squares show where different buses stop. So it is very well situated with pedestrian facilities. There are sidewalks all along this area. So we do believe that people will choose to walk here if they are visiting Duke Regional Hospital or working at Duke or even just driving through to get a Dunkin' Donut on their way north. So this project, we believe, will not be substantially injurious to the value of properties in the general vicinity, and I will let Dan speak to that in a moment. In conformance with all special requirements applicable to the use, the project and its use as proposed will meet the special requirements of the planned restaurant and drive-through uses as outlined in section five of the UDL as far as not adversely affecting the health or public safety of the public. The nature of the proposed use is food services with limited parking located in a non-residential area of the city. We don't believe we'll have an adverse impact on health safety or welfare of the public. So will this adequately address the review factors identified below? We do believe it will. So as far as circulation, the number and location of access points to the property and structures and uses, the proposed parking reduction will have no additional impact on the circulation of the site. The property will have one access point, which will be the existing entrance into the property located along North Roxborough Road, and does have a cross-access connection with the adjacent property. The property is within a quarter-mile distance of eight transit stops and is already tied into that greater sidewalk network, as I mentioned. In an emergency, the infrastructure of the adjacent property can be used to exit onto East Carver Street through a cross-access connection. For parking and loading, the parking will be located along the western and southern portions of the parcel. Loading zone will be accessed on the north side of the parcel via one-way path around the proposed facility. The request for a parking reduction is a product of the future tenant being that of a walk-up pizza restaurant. The facility will have no indoor seating resulting in less extended parking. For service entrance and areas, the proposed parking reduction will have no additional impact on the service entrance and area of the site. Locations are located on the southeastern portion of the proposed property, and we've provided a sheet showing locations for the service area and entrance on the site plan. Lighting, the parking reduction will not have any impact on the outdoor lighting standards in section 7.4 of the UDO. So the surrounding uses are not residential in nature and should not be impacted by the presence of commercial outdoor lighting as they do meet the UDO. The parking reduction will not have any additional impact on site signage. We will comply with Article 11 of the UDO. For utilities, the proposed parking reduction will add no additional impact on the utility plan for the site and open spaces. The proposed parking reduction is not having any additional impact on existing trees, required yards, or other similar features. Environmental protection, we are meeting the UDO for the tree cover, Durham flood plains, stream buffers, wetlands, steep slopes, open space, and natural features, and protection of water quality per the UDO. For screening, buffering, and landscaping, the proposed reduction won't have an impact on screen, buffering, or landscaping of the site. We will be complying with Article 9 of the UDO. For effect on adjacent property, the parcel is currently surrounded by a variety of office commercial and institutional uses. The requested parking reduction will not impact traffic as parking for the subject site shall be restricted to this premises only. Noise, odor, and light from the property should have little to no impact on surrounding uses. Is this compatible with the surrounding sites as you see from the aerial? The proposed parking reduction will work to maintain a pedestrian-friendly scale that is present in most of the adjacent facilities. With proximate access to both the greater sidewalk network and sidewalk and transit stops, the proposed site and parking reduction focus on multimodal visitors, including servicing employees and visitors of adjacent institutions. We believe this is consistent with policy. As part of the suburban development tier, the proposed uses will provide expected services as an appropriate scale to the surrounding area. The current zoning of the site is office and institutional, which calls for compatible support facilities in addition to strict office uses. The City of Durham future land use maps designates this site as an office use, and it will support the surrounding office facilities. We believe that this site offers walkable, pedestrian-oriented food options for the large employers nearby. The proposed parking reduction further dissuades these employees from making additional automobile trips at lunch, reducing vehicular congestion around the intersection of Roxborough and Carver Street. We do believe that this parking reduction request meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the UDO. And I will turn it over to Mr. Ronald Stevenson with Rainey Kemp and Associates to discuss the parking study. Any questions for Ms. Vega before we continue? All right, Ronald. All right, good. Thanks everybody. And again, I apologize, my screen may say Michael Karpinski. So if you see that name on the screen, that's my name is Ronald Stevenson. I'm with Rainey Kemp and Associates, a registered professional engineer in the state of North Carolina, been practicing traffic engineering, transportation, consulting work for 20 years now. And I've been before Durham, city and county on numerous occasions and been before the board several times for parking studies, very similar to this one. I'll kind of walk through this relatively quickly. Hopefully everybody's had a chance to look at the parking study. What we did was we took the uses that are, sorry, I may have been muted for a second, so the parking study, what we did was take the three uses that are planned for the property and we looked at independently of the city code. We looked at what other resources, national resources and data would suggest the parking needed to be. That resource, the resource that we use was the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, which collects data on a lot of sites, a lot of different uses and provides the parking demand for those uses. So we did that for each use on the property. When you take each use on the property, add up the parking demand, yeah, as shown here on table two on the screen. It comes up and says the peak parking demand for all of those uses is 49 spaces. What that doesn't take into account is a reason or a very common reason that we use these parking studies or requests for reductions in parking in these studies is at the time of day. When you factor in that the Dunkin' Donuts or the Coffee Donut Shop, peak time is early in the morning, first thing in the morning, and then the other uses are later in the day, then when you factor that into account, we do have adequate parking for this site. What these numbers do not take into account are a couple of other things that Brandy mentioned, which is the drive-through is going to limit the number of parking spaces there. You can kind of see that in this table here. If you look at the table, table two, the uses with drive-throughs have fewer parking spaces required, and that's because they do folks do utilize drive-through. The one restaurant, the pizza restaurant was mentioned, is going to have no seating, so that's going to be a quick pull-in, get your food, leave, high turnover but low number of parking spaces, lower than what we have in the table here, table two even, and then Brandy also mentioned the access to pedestrian and transit facilities and infrastructure. Being in this area, we'd expect to lose a few parking trips, parking spaces, need for parking spaces just because of those things as well. All in all, when you factor in the parking is required, the time of day for each one of these uses, the availability of pedestrian transit infrastructure, we do have adequate parking for this site, and I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have. Any questions from Mr. Stevenson? I have a question. This is a tight site. It's not a corner site. It's adjacent to what seems to be a large office building, but the access doesn't seem that great. What would happen, Mr. Stevenson, if the drive-through was completely stacked up, 15 cars deep? Would that create problems in the lot? I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm just trying to understand how that would look. Also, there is not going to be likely anyone biking or walking there. The scale is so unfriendly to pedestrians. Honestly, you feel sorry for people crossing Roxboro Road there, Roxboro Street, I guess we call it. That's an aside. Just going back, what would the maximum stack up of the drive-through at Duncan be? Would that create a problem? It just seems like a small site. Well, I think you can, I don't know if Ms. Monroe can go forward a couple pages maybe in that document. I think we have a plan here that might be worth just kind of talking from maybe the net right there. I don't know if we could zoom, but go back. If you can go back one right there. Now, if you see in this drawing here, it does, we do represent the drive-through stacking and I believe there's a total of 10 cars represented in this picture. If I remember it correctly. If you add even more cars to it, you could see you would stack back a little bit further, but you're not really blocking the primary access into the site and into the parking areas. There still would be room to get in, even if it backed up further than this, than what we have represented here. You're right, it is a tight site, but it's been laid out in such a way just to minimize those conflicts with drive-through, drive-through stackings. The bulk of the parking is up front, the drive-through is in the back, so there's, you can see there's really adequate room. Even if you had the 15 car scenario that you mentioned there, you're going to be able to have access to the driveway, to the parking and the site. Eliza Monroe staff, just to further add some context, the stacking requirements within the unified development ordinance in section 10.5.1 requires a minimum of six stacking spaces per window for a drive-through to add further context. Thank you for that, Eliza. Mr. Kip, does that answer your question? Yeah, I've got a follow-up question. What is the access to the property there to the east, the office building? There is that little driveway squiggle. Is that expected to be used or is that parking spaces and actually is an access there? I'm talking about the asphalt drive of the neighbor that the little, there seems to be access to. Next to the dumpster enclosure? Right. As far as, yeah, as far as I know, we're not providing any vehicular access there. So that's not represented in the plan. It may look like that a little bit on the plan. It may be a little confusing, but it's not a vehicular access. Okay. There you go. Yeah, there you go. You see a little better, maybe now. Yep. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Stevenson? Mrs. Weymourn has a hearing raise. I really quick, I just, I need to get a little more clarification on that because I'm not clear. There is no access vehicular access anywhere on this site except for Roxborough Road. Is that correct? Yeah, can you zoom over a little bit more? Maybe we can see that. One thing that may be a little confusing is the plan. You know, we're not looking at true north there. I don't think it may be spun a little bit maybe on the screen, but correct. I mean, there's no access down to that southern drive that was just mentioned. It's access to Roxborough Street. And then, you know, there is the ability or the capability to go through the adjacent properties. You can see sort of to the left side of that page there. There is the ability to go through the cross access there, but the primary access is going to be Roxborough Street. So what is the bank? I guess it's a bank right there. Okay, so you're saying that and then they're proposing it's only a one way access. So if you decide on your halfway in there, you don't want your doughnut, you can't get out any other way, except you have to wait through the line. Is that correct? No, I think there's, I think there's, yeah. There was some, if that's the end of your question, Mrs. Weymourn, Mr. Lacey did have her hand raised and then Mr. Wretchless had his hand raised. Mr. Lacey. This parking scheme was approved with before the change of use to add a restaurant on. Is that correct? That's correct. This parking was approved at was adequate with D1700349 with the original tenants in place. The change to three restaurants is now no longer adequate. Thank you. And Mr. Wretchless. Yeah, Wretchless here. Just a question. It being, being that it's three restaurants, where's the loading dock or area for a truck to pull up and deliver goods? I know that's usually on a weekly basis for restaurants. Yeah, sure. That's on the left side. Through the drive-thru, there's a loading zone. Although, because these tenants do have different peak hours, we do expect that the loading will be coordinated to not be during the through there is for Dunkin Donuts. And this site is currently under construction since it does have an approved site plan. So the loading zone you can see is to the left in a 10 by 25 area off the off the drive-thru. Thank you. All right. Any other questions regarding parking for Mr. Stevenson or his study? I have a question for staff. Okay, Miss Major. If they wanted to change tenants, would they have to come back to the board to get approval for that? Or could they just change tenants without us? So this, Eliza Monroe staff, so this parking reduction allows them to have for, if approved, would allow them to have 44 parking spaces for this site. If they were to change tenants and it was to trigger another a larger amount of parking request over that 44, which is pretty viable, they would have to come back once again. So ideally this is probably the only way that they're going, but if they were to change tenants again in the time in which they have with their original approved site plan, which is four years to approval, then they would have to come back again. What would trigger them to need more than what we approved them for? So like if they put in a different type of restaurant, would they need to come back? So it's any parking reduction over 20%. So you all would be, once again staff speaking, you all, if approved, it would be 44 parking spaces. If then required, so hypothetically say they were to add, trying to think of something that's like an office, they would just switch back to an office and that would result in them needing a total of 60 parking spaces to reduce it back to 44, which is what they have on site. If that reduction is more than 20%, it would trigger it once again. So different uses require different amounts of parking per square footage. Churches is per assembly area. So depending upon the use and the amount of square footage, it could potentially trigger them to have a reduction needed more than 44 or more than 20%. So I guess my question is like, what if the piece of business doesn't work out and they want to put a bagel business in there? Would they have to come back to us or would the bagel business just be able to go in? If the bagel business is of the same, the square footage requirement for restaurants is the same. So right now, if they were to switch from one restaurant to another, it would be a similar process and they would be based upon if approved, they would be okay. The information that's needed for this restaurant request, whether it's a pizza place, whether it's a bagel place, it would be the same. When they switch in between uses and those use requirements require different parking standards. That's when they might trigger a use permit and need for another use permit. Okay. Thank you. No problem. Good clarification questions. Any other questions for staff or Ms. Vega or Mr. Stevenson? All right, Brenda, did you have someone else who wanted to speak on anything? I thought there was a third person. Yes. Mr. Dan Mullen is with us. He is a broker and he's going to speak to how they chose the text for this site and he can also speak to Jason property values. Sure. Thank you, Brandy. My name's Dan Mullen. I'm with Atlantic retail properties. We're located at 6801 Morrison Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. I've had my North Carolina and my South Carolina real estate license since 2012 and focused on commercial real estate specifically retail. So we're a third party broker and represent landlords leasing up their properties and then we also do tenant representation as well throughout North and South Carolina. So we were involved from day one when the group who owns the property decided that they wanted to purchase the property. At that point, we started marketing the property for pre leasing and kind of dove in and did an analysis on what we felt like would be the highest and best use in the area. And after much discussion with other national tenants, whether it be medical office or retail, we decided that, you know, a multi tenant strip here made the most sense. It would be an amenity to the hospital across the streets as well as the surrounding neighborhood. So from that point on, we came up with our site plan and then really kind of dug in and tried to find the best tenant mix. I think Brandy and Rhino touched on it already, but, you know, we identified Dunkin Donuts as well as five guys initially, and we felt like they would be really good, have good synergy with each other just based on the peak hours, Dunkin Donuts heavy in the morning and five guys being their peak hours in the afternoon and evenings. And then the challenge was just to find that middle tenant. And we talked to many different groups. And honestly, we felt like Marcos was the best group for the site. And the reason being is because their business is takeout. So, you know, they'll likely have a couple customers at a time coming in grabbing their pizza that they ordered, whether it's online, digital or by phone, and taking it home or back to the office. So they are very light parking intensive. And that was attractive to us. So we worked out a deal with them. All the tenants just wanted to point out all the tenants felt like that, you know, they've got real estate committees and house corporate ways in and looks at parking ratios as well. And I think all three tenants comfortable with each other and what we showed on the site plan and feel like they're going to be successful there because they've got to invest a lot of money just like the developer. So that was something I wanted to point out that the tenants felt like they could be successful there just based on what we have in place. And then like Brandy said, you know, just looking at the surrounding area, you know, I don't see how it would ever reduce any of the surrounding properties property value. It kind of is in line with, you know, what we're seeing in that corridor. Mr. Excuse me, Mr. Mullen. Yes, sir. On that topic. Yeah. Are you just just to clarify, are you a licensed appraiser? No, sir. No, I'm just a third party real estate broker. I think I think we'll have we won't be able to take your testimony based on values, but we had perfectly fine testimony early just now about tenant selection was appropriate. I appreciate you giving give us some insight to that. Yes, sir. Any questions for Mr. Mullen? Mr. Chair, this is Christa Kukro with the city attorney's office. Hey, Christa. Hey, I just wanted to add a little bit to what you had just said on the testimony on property values. Do you think it's a question of competency? And it sounded like Mr. Mullen wasn't going to explore that further. I think if the board did choose to inquire further about it, I think it would be important to establish Mr. Mullen's Mr. Mullen's qualifications and kind of explore on what bases he's making those assertions. Again, that's if the board chooses to explore further. There's not a lot of case law on the point of whether a broker can testify on property values as to the effect on surrounding property values. Most certainly North Carolina courts have held that they can testify on fair market value and things like that. So I just want to make that point in the record and for the board's consideration. Thank you, Christa. Any questions for Mr. Mullen? All right, Mr. Mullen, did that that was that all of your comments on what I wanted to make sure? I'm sorry? Yes, sir. That's all I've got for you today. All right. Brandy, do you guys have anything else to add? We do not. We just would like to again reinforce that we believe that the appropriate tenants have been selected. The property owner is not wishing to make life difficult for any of the tenants or any of the customer. So they did think this through very well before bringing it forward for a request for parking reduction. They, as you heard, the tenants all agree to the parking mix and the tenants. The, you know, national trends, speaking as a planner, national trends for parking are for municipalities to reduce minimums. And so I think this is in line with, you know, reducing parking for for uses where we are currently over parking as as a city. And I do want to just again reinforce that we feel we meet all the requirements of the minor of the minor special use permit for a parking reduction and that we believe that it meets the spirit purpose and intent of the UDO. And thank you to all of you for accommodating us in this virtual manner. I know it's been a difficult time and we really appreciate you putting our case on the agenda and making this this format available. Thank you, Brandy. Are there any questions for the applicant from the board? All right, then we can close the public hearing now. Staff or Eliza, would you like to give a recommendation? Eliza Monroe at the planning department here. Staff recommends approval of the minor special use permit with the condition that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the information submitted to the board as part of the application and the site plan case number D1900440. Thank you, Eliza. So deliberations, any thoughts that anybody wants to share? Delacy has her hand raised. Miss Delacy. I think they made an excellent case and were very thorough. Especially I like the mix of morning and afternoon users. We've seen this use successfully in the past. And I think this makes plenty of sense. Thank you, Mr. Lacy. Anyone else? Mr. Retchless has his hand raised as well as Miss Weymour. Michael. Yeah, I think this is a great mix for the area. And they've definitely addressed the factors. I was a little skeptical about the loading zone because you never know what truck is coming in there. But after reviewing the width of the drive through there, I think everything would be fine on that end of it. It looks great to me. I'm for it. Thank you. And Miss Weymour? I have a question for staff, actually. Just thoughts, actually. I know this is a nice, nicely done, nicely presented study for the parking. And I wanted to know, is it in harmony with the future planning for Rocksboro Street right there in terms of traffic lights and the way things are moving for that street, which is pretty considerably in the future? Eliza, my nurse staff here, I am just going to be totally candid. I am not sure about the parking and traffic improvements set for Rocksboro Street in that space over time. In regards to the requests that they have today, I do think the tenant space that they have and individuals that they chose are cohesive one another, I would have had more concerns if they were adding another dining restaurant there. If I'm going to be completely honest, but given that the proposed tenant is someone that does not have dining and specifically drive up, I do feel as if it's, I do feel it requests as well and that they provided substantial information and support of it. Thank you. Anyone else? I'll say that having somebody talk about the tenant selection and having that insight was helpful. And one thing that he mentioned, Mr. Mullen, was basically that if the tenants feel comfortable with that parking number, nobody's going to hear about complaints more than they would when it comes to something like that. So I mean, if their offices and then they've been, obviously, they're very, these types of businesses are very experienced in this that they're being comfortable with that kind of helped me out. Well, is there this major house or Henry? Sorry. This major. Oh, I did have a concern. I think the tenant use as is is fine. I thought it was very thoughtful to talk about how Dunkin Donuts would use the majority of the parking in the morning, and the other tenants would use it in the evening, or afternoon and evening. But I did have concerns about what would happen if the tenants change. They would not need to come back to the board for any approval to change the tenants and a change in the tenants would change possibly how the parking lot was used and would potentially require them to need more parking, even though it wasn't available. I think we're all familiar with this section of Rocksboro. There's nowhere else for people to park if they need it. So I do have concerns, not necessarily about as it is, but about future use of this space. Sounds like if the use did did change that they, you know, and it was a greater reduction than 20% for whatever that use may be. I think understanding your concern is that given that circumstances, it would have to come back for another special use permit. So my understanding of my question to Eliza was as long as it's a restaurant, they would not need to come back. That Eliza and I are staff speaking, I know we're in deliberation, but just to chime in really quickly, that is the correct rhetoric. It's not necessarily been a change of use. It's still a restaurant or a dining and rest or drive through dining and restaurant things of that sort. To further provide additional context about the parking reductions. Parking reductions greater than 20% are those that come before the Board of Adjustments. The applicant in this case, if they were to change the tenant to a different use that has a different parking amount for square footage, they could do other things up to 20%. So they could provide additional bright parking. They could also provide a bus stop or they could apply credit for proximity to a bus stop in order to grant a reduction. So those things can be utilized in the future. It's only get over that 20% range that will have to come back. And then with the change of use, once again, it's just restaurants that won't have to come back. And that would be the same for if another use on another site like a place of worship or school was to get a minor special use permit. If another place of worship or school came in, they wouldn't have to come back for another use permit. But when we get into the changes from a restaurant to commercial office space, office space to a doctor's office, those things are a little bit different. But just to provide context on the different steps that lead up to them having to come before the board in the future, they choose to change uses within that tenant space. Thank you, Eliza. Is any other thoughts? Would anybody like to make a motion? This is Jeter. I hear by motion that the application of number B190047 an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 3718 North Rocksboro Road has successfully met the applicable requirement of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvement shall be substantially consistent with the site plan case D1900440 and all information submitted to the board as part of that application. We've got a motion by Ms. Jeter. Is there a second? Right here. Yeah. My right list. Second. Yes. Hold on. One moment. Krista, is this something we need to talk about right now? Okay. All right. Susan, will you take it from here? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kib. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Ratchless. Yes. Ms. Wamour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. No. Machine carries six to one. A vote of six to one. Your minor special use permit has been granted. Thank you for coming forward to BOA this morning. Thank you very much. We'll get an order shortly. All right. Thank you. So do we want to... Does anybody need a break before we've been about an hour and a little more than an hour? All right. Let's take five minutes enough. Yes. Five minutes. We'll come back at 9.52. That was a very quick five minutes. Didn't seem like five minutes. Waiting for everyone to roll in. Yeah. A couple more. All right. Susan, would you like to call the third case? Well, let's wait. I just realized Micah's not back on yet. We used to... The reason it was a quick five minutes is we usually do it 10 minutes. So five minutes is shorter. You're right. Yeah. Next time. 10 minutes. Well, at least it gave me time to get the dogs out of the house. Susan, would you like to call the third case? Sure. Case B2000021. A request for a variance from the rear yard setback requirements in order to construct an addition to an existing single family dwelling. The subject site is located at 30 Crete's Edge Court, zoned residential suburban and in the falls of the new Jordan Lake protected area in the suburban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. The David's verifying sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Miss Major, Miss Jetter, Miss Wymore, Mr. Redschluss, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Kip, and Miss Delacy. All right. Well, let's go ahead and swear in our applicants. I guess we've got them on here. Yes. Will you raise your right hand and do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. Yes. Thank you. Eliza, do you have this one? Yes, I do. We'll let you take it away. All right. Thanks so much, everyone. Eliza representing the planning department. Planning staff does request that the staff report and all that the public hearing be made part of the public record as with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you. Case B, two zero zero zero zero two one is a request for a variance from the rear yard setback requirements in order to construct an addition on to an existing single family home. The applicant and property owner is going to be Miss Valerie Sharp. And the subject site is located at 30 Greeks edge court. This area is highlighted in red on the screen. The site is owned residential suburban in or RSM in the suburban tier and within the falls of news Jordan Lake protected area watershed protection overlay district. The site area is currently occupied by a single family dwelling as shown in the aerial per section seven point one point TV of the unified development ordinance. A 25 foot rear yard setback is required for a detached single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting an 11 foot variance from the rear yard setback worth resulting in a 14 foot rear yard. The applicant is requesting 11 foot variance. Sorry, the reduction is being requested. So the applicant may construct a covered porch on to the rear of the existing single family dwelling. The existing conditions in front of you. You'll see that there is an existing deck that is attached to the house at the corner so that it kind of touches the rear yard. It was kind of within the rear yard, I should say to add on to and enclose that existing debt, which create a previous surface. A deck as long as it's unsheltered is not considered impervious and therefore it's able to encroach within the rear yard or required yards. When you close out and create impervious any type of impervious surface is not allowed to encroach without a variance. The applicant must make an order for the board to grant a variance. These findings requiring approval are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet and staff will be available for any questions as needed on the screen. We have the existing conditions and then I will allow Valerie and Kyle to discuss more of the proposed conditions. Any questions for Eliza before we hear from the applicant? Did you see someone? No, I didn't. Miss Scharf, before you start, would you like your written and oral testimony to be part of the record? Yes. Thank you so much. And please. I'll turn it over to you. Okay. Thank you. So what we're planning or proposing is to essentially remove the current wooden deck that kind of jets off past the sideline of the house, pretty dramatically into the yard. And instead have a covered screen porch that kind of follows that sideline of the house. And that screen porch area would actually be 14 feet from the side of the house. And that screen porch area would actually be 14 feet from the rear property line as opposed to the current wooden deck, which is only six feet from the wooden, from the rear property line. And then coming off of the screen and porch. To the right of the deck. Facing the house or to the right of the screen and porch facing the house would be a deck. That extends further back from the house. So the advantage of this would be. It allows us to kind of match the norms of the neighborhood. There are a lot of houses with screened in. Porches in this neighborhood. Most of the houses on the street have a rectangular property. So I think the. The aspect of this that has been unusual has been the kind of acute angle of that rear property line. So that rear property line setback kind of means something different for this property compared to what it means for most of the rectangular lots on the house. And that would be the proposal moving forward. So we'd ask for variance of 11 feet in order to have the new screened in porch. Be a total of 14 feet from the rear property line. Instead of the current deck, which is six feet from the rear property line. All right. Any questions for. The applicant. Miss Wymore has a hand raised. Miss Wymore. Hi. Just real quick. What is the additional impervious surface that is going to be created by this proposed covered. Yeah. So the proposed screen and porch would be an additional 225 impervious or square feet of impervious surface area, which still keeps us under the city allowed amount of 35 73 and the current impervious surface area is at 3163. So we should still be about 185 feet. Within the allowable amount. Great. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Miss. Brett's was has his hand raised. Mr. I am building on is a Wymore's comments. This is Rachel's. What is that screen porch? So is it going to be a slab or is it going to be a stem wall to support that screen porch? What are we doing there? I'll probably let Kyle answer that question. So it'll be built on a traditional peer and concrete footings. Like you would see your average screened in porch built. It won't be on a concrete slab or a monolithic slab. Thank you. Any other questions. Eliza, would you go back to the, the previous slide? One of the things I was thinking of looks like. There's a hard skate patio and a pool there. So, you know, if you, if you, if you tried to not make it within that setback, I mean, I guess you would have to go around what I'm assuming is a, a fireplace there and then get into the hard skate patio, which. Yeah, it's, we had thought about that as well. So it's, a bay window rather than a fireplace, but probably the main feature that makes that less than ideal. So if you look at where the wooden deck comes off the house in the current set up shown here, there's a kind of French door that opens onto that wooden deck to provide access. And so that's what we want to use to tie into access to the screen import. If we shifted it over to where the kind of hard scape area is hypothetically the downside of that, there's no option for kind of continuous entry into a screen import from the house. And so that was one of the, the big features that we're trying to maintain because it seemed not desirable to have a screen import. So you'd have to walk outside to get entry to. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Then we shall close the public hearing and. This is a variance. So we don't, we're not getting a recommendation. Are there any thoughts? Anybody want to share. That they want to share. From the board. Mr. Wetzel has had a stand raise. Yeah. I like the way. He's kind of cleaning up this project by. Bringing back the screen and porch and creating a little more buffer to the property line. I do think. He successfully. Shows that. You can do this very well. I'm all for this. This is much better than it was. Thank you, Mr. Wetzel's anyone else. Delacy. Mr. I think this is a really. Tough shape property. And this is, it makes sense to do this. And I think it will. Make the property look better. And. I think it's a great idea. Anyone else. Thank you. This is much better than it was. Thank you, Mr. Wetzel's anyone else. Delacy. Mr. I think this is a really. Great idea. Thank you. Anyone else. Thank you. Miss. Major. Major. Thank you. I think that the applicant has provided testimony. That speaks to all four of the requirements for granting the variance. And therefore I will be inclined to vote. Yes. Thank you. All right. Anyone else. All right. Does anybody want to make a motion? I know somebody does. You can. Say it with your mouth. Paper scissors. All right. I only have copies of the, the orders. I don't have a copy from this for a, for the, for the motions. Sorry. Sorry. Staff is here. The motions are now at the bottom of all staff reports. So very last page underneath all the cute stuff. Is the suggested motion language. you can have everything on the same pattern. But they are at the bottom of each staff report going forward. Thank you, Liza. Delisa, you are muted if you're asking a question. No, okay. I'll make the motion. Thank you, Jessica. I hear if I make a motion that application number B2000021 an application for a request for a variance from the required street yard setback on property located at 30 Creek's Edge Court has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted to the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion by Ms. Major. Is there a second? Sorry, second. Hold on. The language in that motion, Ms. Major said street yard and this is a rear yard setback variance request. So that might have been near, but I just wanna put that up. If that motion is for a different yard than what we're talking about. Oh, did I click on the wrong one? This is for B2000021. So I apologize if there's language that's wrong if I did wanna just make sure we say the right thing. So we might have to redo that. So rear yard into the street yard. Should I read it again? Please. With the rear yard setback. Yes, ma'am. Okay, I got it. I hereby make a motion that application number B2000021, an application for a request for a variance from the required rear yard setback on property located at 30 Creets Edge Court has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. All right, is there a second this time? Please. Second. Yep. I think we're doing a big meeting. All right, Susan, will you call the board? Sure, Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Waimour. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Here. Motion carries seven to zero. By a vote of seven to zero, your variance has been approved. You'll get an order shortly. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Susan, would you like to call the next case? Yes. Case B2000023, a minor special use permit for an addition of more than 10% of the existing floor area to a non-conforming single family structure and a height increase. The subject site is located at 402 Canal Street is a residential urban and the urban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Ms. Major, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Weymour, Mr. Retchless, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Kipp and Ms. Delacy. All right. I'm looking on here. Do we have our applicants? Our applicant on here is to do the other. Okay, see. All right. Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Thank you. Do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. Yes. Thank you. Cole, do you have this? I do. All righty, take it over. All right. Case B2000023 is a minor special use permit request for an addition of more than 10% of the existing floor area to a non-conforming single family structure and a height increase. The applicant is Lytton Architects. The subject property is located at 402 Canal Street. As you can see, that's what I just said. Sorry. The case area is highlighted in red. This site is in the urban tier zoned residential urban RUM as in with the city of Durham's jurisdiction. As you can see, this is the aerial. The house is right now an existing single family structure. Per UDO section 14.4.1B3D additions with a maximum increase in square footage of 10% that are proposed between the minimum yard requirement and the existing building encouragement line and an increase over 10% of the existing floor area requires issuance of MSRP. The applicant proposes a second story to the addition to an existing single family dwelling and 140 square foot addition at the southwest corner of the existing building. Lastly, given the properties location, the urban tier on a site less than four acres it also must meet the infill development requirements for residential districts per section 6.8.1C.1 of the UDO. The proposed additions new height of 20 feet and three fourth inches is in compliance with UDO section 6.8.4C as it does not exceed the maximum height of the 55 feet permitted in the zone district. In addition, it is not more than 14 feet tall than the height of structures along the block base of Canal Street. UDO section 13.4.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must meet in order for the board to grant a variance. These findings requiring approval are identified in the staff core and the applicant's responses to findings are identified in application both within your packet. Staff will be able to wait for any questions needed during the hearing process. Any questions for Cole before we hear from the applicant? All right. Who from the applicant would like to start? I would. I think there's two of them. All right, thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Kobe Linton at Linton Architects. And Cole, I wonder if you have the slide deck that Bridget sent you? I do. I'm gonna stop sharing and then resharing so I can bring it up. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. It's all material that was submitted in our application. It's just in a different order, essentially. So our clients, Timothy and Stacey Price, would like to do a renovation addition to their house at 402 Canal Street. This is the existing structure. And Cole, if you wouldn't mind just going through the photos slowly to show them the existing house. It's a fairly dilapidated structure. And based on its current condition, we are very confident that the proposed renovation would have a positive impact on the surrounding properties. You can see that the structure sits fairly close to the street. And I guess Cole, if you wouldn't mind going ahead to the site or the survey and then the site plan. It's on the corner of Canal and Queen Street, the existing footprint of the house and croaches into the street yard setbacks of both of those streets. And if you could go to the site plan, the next slide. This is, it's not the same orientation, it's flipped, but the proposed addition sits entirely on the existing footprint of the structure, except for a very small addition at the southwest corner of new footprint and a small side porch on the east side of the structure, both of which would be entirely within the setbacks of the property. You know, the reason why we need a special use permit is because the addition proposes to increase the mean height of the structure. So, and actually that's probably better illustrated in the elevations, which are next. So this is the existing street elevation facing Canal Street. And in the next slide, we'll see the proposed street elevation. So we're increasing, we're actually only increasing the Eve line height by two feet in order to keep the scale down rather than make a full two story house or basically making it into a one and a half story house. The Eve line would move up about two feet and the roof slope would increase such that the mean roof height increases by about four feet and three inches. Nicole, if you wouldn't mind just kind of flipping us through the elevation. So this is the north elevation facing Canal Street. This is the west elevation, or excuse me, the east elevation facing the neighbor next to us on the east existing and proposed. And then the next one is the rear elevation existing and proposed. And then last but not least, we have the west elevation, which is facing Queen Street. So this is the existing west elevation. And this is the proposed west elevation. So as I said, the increase to the overall roof height, the mean roof height per the ordinance is about four feet and three inches. All of the new footprint on the, so all of that is within the existing footprint. The only new footprint is actually where you see to the right side of this elevation at the southwest corner. We're adding, I believe, 140 square feet to the southwest corner of the house. And then I guess the only other thing to discuss, I guess Cole mentioned we need to comply with the infill development standards in the ordinance. And if you could go to the next slide, Cole. We only have one adjacent property on our street face and it's right in the corner, which is the house immediately to the left, which is to the east of our property. And you can see that house here on the left hand side of this slide, 404 Canal Street. And the next slide kind of shows the relative height. So we can't, our new property obviously can't exceed the maximum roof height for the zone, but also we can't be more than 14 feet taller than the adjacent structures on the street face. And in this case, we're within one foot of height to the property next door, which is the only applicable property. There are also several other large two-story houses on this block directly across the street, which are significantly taller than the proposed structure here. And in any case, we think that the proposed renovation will be a significant improvement to the block and have a positive effect on neighboring properties. I think that's all I was gonna cover, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. Sure, any questions for Mr. Linton? All right, Mr. Linton, you must have done a really good job explaining everything. This is Rick here. Mr. Rickless. Hi, so in the design of this house, were you able to configure this design with a slightly lower pitch roof to- Oh, I'm sorry, I lost you for just a moment. I'm sorry, would you mind repeating your question? Sure, in the design of this house, did you look at maybe a way to still get your design criteria and satisfied of the customer to have a lower pitched roof so you didn't go over the height? I notice it's like 1215, 1216 pitch roof that's awfully steep. Aren't you able to adjust that so we're not here? So they wanted to create a second floor. The house is currently a one-story structure and relatively small house, as you can see. They have four children and so the only way to have bedrooms for their children essentially was either to do a big addition on the back of the house or to do a second floor. It was sort of a question of whether to go up or go out and they actually currently live directly across the street on Canal Street and the house that we restored for them six or seven years ago. And I think their main motivation for moving across the street to this property is that it has backyard. It's actually got a pretty good sized backyard. And so they didn't really want to do an addition on the back of the house. And so in order to create the space for their children on the upper floor, there were really sort of two options. It was either, and we've done probably 15 or 20 second-story additions just in the past five years in Durham. It's sort of two options. Either we can increase the height of the perimeter walls and maintain a lower slope roof in order to create full-height, useful space above, or we can sort of do a combination and do a modest increase to the wall height at the exterior and increase the roof slope, which tends to keep the scale down visually from the street. And so that's kind of what we opted for in this case, especially because the house does sit so close to the street. We wanted to create that new space upstairs while minimizing the scale. And so that's why we kind of kept the exterior wall increase in height to two feet and just played with the slopes until we had a sort of minimum space upstairs to fit the rooms, which are actually quite, quite small bedrooms in order to fit underneath those roof slopes. And they're obviously all with shaped ceilings that follow the underside of the roof planes. So the actual interior of the bedrooms have the slope. Is that, is what you're saying? To get the height in the bedroom so you had to go with a higher slope roof? Yeah, exactly. It was the only way to create enough full-height walkable space upstairs. Okay, that answers my question. Thank you, Mr. Lynn. Any other questions for the applicant? I have a question. Is there someone else who's gonna be presenting on whether or not this is substantially injurious to the value of the properties in the general vicinity? No, ma'am. I guess we didn't anticipate opposition to this project. And we, based on the extreme dilapidation of the existing structure, this, you know, the photos that we've shared are actually after our client removed, I think it was six or possibly seven 40-yard dumpster loads of debris from the site. It was the folks that lived here were hoarders and, you know, the trash was stacked to the ceiling and throughout the yard, you can see a little bit of it left. Basically, it's extremely dilapidated and very poor condition. The truth is, the truth is that from our client's standpoint, well, we actually had it priced both ways. It would be less expensive for them to tear this house down and build a bigger house on the property. But the, you know, the former owners, their son was murdered in front of this house and they have a very, very significant emotional attachment to this house. And so, and our clients are friends with them. And so rather than taking it down, which they thought would be kind of devastating to the former owners, they decided to work with what was there in spite of the fact that it's going to cost them more. But, you know, I think we don't have a real estate appraiser to testify to the effect on the value of the adjacent properties, but I think just based on the condition of the structure that's there and what we're proposing to do to it, there's just no question in my mind that it'll have a positive effect. This is Peter. I was just going to also follow up on the question that Ms. Major asked around the impact on property surrounding areas. If in fact, this is past, I personally would like some more information regarding the impact on that on surrounding properties before I could proceed. Is there a concern that this might manage adjacent property values? So I don't think there's a concern, but I do think that we have to have evidence that it doesn't in order for us to approve it. Is that a requirement? I guess our understanding from conversations with staff was that it wasn't necessarily a requirement, but that if someone asked the question, the only person who's capable of testifying officially in that regard would be a real estate appraiser. And obviously we don't have one with us today. That is correct. And like you had just mentioned, staff did mention that if there was any questions about property value, then it would have to be addressed by someone with expert testimony. The board does have that capability to ask those questions if they arise. So when we did have a meeting, it was advised that you can, but what isn't required. But to tell you that if there was questions, it would have to be answered by expert testimony. So it is part of the review factors. We, this board has many times kind of taken cases one by one as we are supposed to and are able to draw conclusions with ourselves. So yes, that's all I've got to say about that. Any other thoughts or questions for the applicant? Can I chime in? Please do. Okay. I'm not a licensed appraiser, but I am a licensed real estate broker. How big will that house be Covey approximately? Oh gosh, Bridget, you may be able to be able to answer that better than I can. Do you recall the completed square footage? Yeah. So the existing houses, roughly 1400 square feet and then our proposed edition will be roughly 2,900. And that includes the main floor, our new upper floor and a new finish basement. So 2,900 total. Yeah, and that doesn't include the screen porch or the sign porch. Okay. All right, so just rule of thumb. Again, I am a licensed real estate broker. Taisha could certainly chime in as well and anyone else who knows. The house will be worth at least $200 a foot times 2,900. That's 580,000. I'd say in its current state because it's on a big lot, it might be worth 150,000. I didn't look and see what they paid, but this would be a huge improvement. That was also a problem corner. It was a hangout corner. In fact, it was kind of a weird place to drive by because you'd get greeted and it was kind of weird. So I think this is a huge improvement. Again, just a layman's perspective and the value should be at least three times if not four or five times what it was. One more hazard hand raised. Just one more. Hi, yeah, I would like to just piggyback on Mr. Kip's comments. I am also a licensed real estate broker and I'm a former resident of this neighborhood for almost a decade during which time it was in fact a precarious corner. I would go to so far as to say a blight on the neighborhood. Regardless of this board's decision on this particular case, this is just a perspective of my own. Certainly the property value will be much greater than it is now and I think it's a vast improvement on what was there and what is there. That's all. Thank you, Ms. Weimar. Any other questions before we close the public hearing for any other questions for the applicant? I have one more question. What are the ceiling heights? This is Rachel's. What are the ceiling heights, Mr. Linton inside this house? There again Bridget, you might do better than I can. Yeah, sure. It's nine foot eight and that's we're maintaining the existing ceiling heights for the main floor. That's on the main floor on the up. Yeah. The ceiling heights follow the underside of the roof line. So they vary pretty, pretty widely across the, the width of each space. I think what we've done is we set knee walls on the sides that are I believe four foot knee walls. And then the ceiling slopes up from there. And I think the maximum height in there is probably nine feet as well. But it, but it goes all the way down from nine feet down to four feet. Okay. So the, the original, you're, you're going with the original footprint of the existing house. And that is maintaining almost a 10 foot clearance is what you're saying on that first level. Yes, sir. And so. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions? All right. Let's close the public hearing and have. A. Recommendation from staff. Yes. Staff. Hold on. Would like to recommend. Approval of the plan. That is it in. I'm shown with everything that is shown. Here on the proposed site plan. Ready. Discussion. I'm on the board. If you're allowed at this time to ask council. I'm sorry. I didn't catch that either. I have a question of council. Are we allowed to take lay opinion testimony about whether or not is injurious to the property values of the neighbors. Or do we have to have expert testimony? This is Chris. You grow city attorney's office. You know, I think with the board members who testified. And who are in the real estate industry. I think that they can bring their perspectives to. To the meeting and to the hearing. I think that. You know, the board can, can also consider appraisers. And those are considered experts. We don't have any of those before us, but I think it is acceptable for. The testimony that's been provided. So far to be considered. By the board. It is not expert testimony. I think that they can bring their perspectives to. To the meeting and to the hearing. I think that. It is not expert testimony. And do you have anything to add? I was trying to try and unmute myself. So, so the, the answer to the question is. You do not absolutely have to have expert testimony. What you need to have is evidence in the record that is. Sufficient to give you an understanding as to whether or not there would be. An effect. Negative effect on the surrounding property values. Typically. The best way to do that is through expert testimony. Is it absolutely required? No. This case law that says it's not absolutely required. But that is certainly the best evidence. Thank you for that clarification, Brian and Krista. Miss one more has her hand raised. Hey, I just wanted to follow up to Jessica's. Concern a little bit. And also I think that the criteria is. Other than that have been met. And I will just say again, I lived on one block away from this particular site. For a while. Nearly 10 years. So I. I do have considerable knowledge of this neighborhood. And can, can testify to. The fact that. Any. What they're proposing here will definitely be an improvement. Any other thoughts. I agree. Go ahead, Mike. Yeah, I have one more question. I think maybe for Bridget. Walt's is as far as lighting being a two-story. Building your proposing on the lighting I noticed on, on your application, you had a lot of flood lighting and what, how's that going to look like? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know about the flood lights. For visibility. I think probably. Just one at each. Elevation. But we didn't think this would have any. Be more than. The lighting on the surrounding adjacent properties. And it would kind of be typical to house. This size. Thank you. Ian, did you have something? So I just wanted to say, uh, Mr. Linton had mentioned that the, an alternative was to actually remove this house completely and build a new house. And, um, to me, this is a lot more compelling. Of a design and. Fabric for the neighborhood than a, probably a new ugly box. And certainly it's a big improvement over what was there. So I think this actually goes above and beyond. Um, the economic question, because it's going to bring not only the economic benefit, but also, um, it's very slightly architecturally well done. So I just wanted to add that. And Russia's have their handrails. Nope. I should not have that rate. Okay. I'll lower it then. Thank you. Okay. I'll start it after I get out this call. I'm sorry. Okay. Uh, any other discussion? Um, Could I just ask a quick question? Um, the concept about negative impact is the board. Baby. Um, Susan, can you. Hold on. Is the board only concerned about the financial kind of dollar amount value impact? Is that what we're talking about? Potential negative impacts and surrounding neighborhoods. Are you saying that the value concept that we're supposed to be taking into consideration? Uh, yes. I believe the standard is whether or not it'll have a negative financial impact on the surrounding. Uh, properties. And I believe that that's the standard. And that's why you typically have to have an appraiser. Um, as the best evidence of that. Um, so I don't. You know, the other factors like whether or not it's in harmony. Um, Things of that sort are used to sort of address. Ancillary issues that don't necessarily deal with. Economic harm. Thank you. All right. Well, um, I'm going to have to echo. Um, Many of the remarks that. That is why more made. Uh, and Mr. Kip. I agree. Um, with them on this, I think it looks like it will. Appears to be a major improvement. Before anything else. Anybody having less. I can't see the fate. There we go. Now I can. Mr. Lacey, I'm sorry. I believe I agree with the earlier speakers in that this is, this design appears to be much more harmonious and sensitive to the neighborhood, which is. Um, I think that the old one, which has seen good times and. Most recently in the 30 years I've been here. Not so good times. Um, and I believe that the, uh, that this design is in harmony with the area. And would certainly not be injurious. To, um, to the area. Okay. All righty. So, if you have any comments on this. Uh, recommendation from staff for approval. Would anybody like to make a motion? I do. This one. To approve. Do we need that substantially. Delacing. Mr. Lacey. I hear by may I. Yes. I hear by make a motion that application number B. That should be a motion to be passed. The whole use permit on property located at 4, 0, 2 canal street has successfully met the application requirements of applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance. And is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with all information submitted to the board as part of the application. All right. We have a motion by Mrs. Delacey. Is there a second? Sure one more. Did somebody just ask, all right. We've got a motion and a second. Susan, what do you call the board? Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Richelis. Yes. Ms. Waimour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. No. Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries six to one. A vote of six to one, your minor special use permit has been granted. You'll get an order in the mail shortly. Thank you for coming before the BOA today. Thank you very much. You all have a great day. You too. All right. Susan, would you like to call the next case? Yes. SB 2000025, a variance from the 50 foot riparian buffer and 10 foot no-builds act requirements for the construction of an addition onto an existing single family dwelling. The subject site is located at 803 Carter Avenue, is zoned residential urban and in the falls of the noose, Jordan Lake protected area and in the urban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits there buying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Ms. Delacy, Mr. Kipp, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Waimour, Ms. Jeter and Ms. Major. All right. I think we've got the applicant on here. Let's go ahead and administer the oaths and. We'll just, Derek, you'll have to, if you want to speak, you'll have to show us your video and unmute yourself in order to take that oath. So we're ready. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. You also consent to this remote meeting protocol. I do. I do. All right. Ms. Wretchless has her hand raised. Ms. Major. I think I have a conflict with this applicant. Are you recusing yourself? Yes. All right. Then Mr. Tarrant will need to be sitting on this seat. Will you clarify that, Susan? All right. Okay. So the seating for this case now is Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Waimour, Ms. Jeter and Mr. Tarrant. Thank you. All right. Eliza, do you have this one? Yes, I do. Take it away. All right. Good morning. Once again, everybody, Eliza with the planning department, planning staff requests at the staff report and all materials submitted to the public hearing to make further public record with any corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you. Case B2000025 is a request for a variance from the 50-foot riparian buffer and 10-foot no-build setback requirements for the construction of an addition onto an existing single-family dwelling. The applicant is Elevate Design and Built and the subject site is located at 803 Carter Avenue. The case area is on the screen highlighted in red. The site is zoned Residential Urban 5 and is located in the urban tier and is within the Falls of Neuse Jordan Lake Protective Area Watershed Protection Overlake District. The site area is currently occupied by a single-family building. The unified development coordinates requires in section 8.5.4 B.1 and 8.7.2 E, a 50-foot buffer for an intermittent stream, which a stream determination was done to determine that that is what this stream is. In addition to that, the city of Durham, Durham City County Planning Department ordinance requires a 10-foot no-build setback along all stream buffers in section 8.5.9 C. The flat provided by the applicant, which is shown here on the screen as well as in the second one a little bit better, shows the house with the proposed additions along the front and the back and also shows that a majority of the structure is within that 50-foot buffer and 10-foot no-build. The existing house was built in 1986 and is a legal non-conforming structure as defined by UDO section 14.1.2 C. The request to add an addition to the rear of the east reverse of the house results in an increase in the degree of the extent of the non-conformity and thus is what triggers the variance. The total impact into the stream buffer for the front addition and the rear addition is about 300 square feet. This request does not exceed the impervious surface limitations of the Watershed Protection Overlay District since the property receives a credit for impervious surface constructed prior to 1994. And this request is less than the 24% total allowed for the parcel. The UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the Board to grant variance. These findings require an approval identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application, both of which are within the packets that you all have received. Staff will be available for any questions as needed throughout the hearing process and all of the documents that were included in the application are available for perusing on screen. All right, thank you, Eliza. Any questions for Eliza before we hear from the applicant? All right. I'm not sure which one of you are going to start it off, but I'll turn it over to the applicant. I will. So our goal is to build a, my name is Shahid Hassan. The general contractor. And our goal is to build an additional 365 square feet to the property. We're going to put 325 on the front of the property and an additional 45 for a cause and addition at the back. The current property is a thousand square feet or a thousand eight square feet. And the entire property is actually encroaching on the setback required for the stream. So since the UDO wasn't implemented prior to the construction of the property in 1986 and no other major construction has taken place, the owner had no knowledge of the non-conforming property. So we are requesting to have, I guess a variance for us to build these additions because the addition is a peculiar to this property cause a stream runs between 803 and 801. And it doesn't run between any other properties. So any other property on the street can't have that addition. It's just this particular property and a property to the right over that would have these setback requirements. Thank you, Mr. Hassan. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Tarrant, I apologize if I'm saying your last name wrong, Mike, but he has his hand raised. Mike, go ahead. Yes, you are pronouncing my name correctly. Thank you. I just had a question in the report in the application. It indicated that you were providing mitigation efforts for these impacts to the buffer, but it wasn't clear to me exactly what those are. Do you please elaborate on those for me? Staff will actually respond to that one. So staff within the report did make a note stating that mitigation will be required. So essentially the 10-foot no-build setback is a city of Durham requirement. The buffer, the 50-foot riparian buffer is a state mandated requirement in order to protect water or values of water and water quality. Therefore, when you have any additional impervious surface added to the inner 20 or outer 30, you have to provide mitigation and offset. The applicant will have to, after this, reach out and work with the Department of Mitigation Services. And there are several options. Sometimes it includes a land trust or possibly site features they can do, but those options, they'll have to decide with the Department of Mitigation Services which one is adequate and will suffice for them. And then that documentation of mitigation being met will be provided to staff in order for them to pull their building permit. Thank you. All right, any other questions? Mr. Kipp actually has his hand raised. Mr. Kipp. Yes, I just wanted to ask the applicant or the contractor, has that stream ever come up of to a significant level towards the house? Obviously it's intermittent, so it's only in heavy rain, it's actually wet. So I just wanted to ask. You can answer that question. No, it hasn't. Even the worst storms we've had, I think, hurricane or the tail of a hurricane that came through, it never rose above the banks. Maybe halfway to the bank, but it flows pretty clear. And since it goes underneath the street, on Carter Avenue, the city keeps that portion clear of leaves. So we've never had a problem. And nor was any problem reported when we purchased the house from the previous owners. Great, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant or the contractor? All right, we'll close public hearing. This is a variance. So there is no staff recommendation. Any thoughts for the board? Anybody want to offer anything? I will. This addition seems minimal. And it does seem like a very peculiar site and conditions for the site. So I can imagine how when they were started this, they probably didn't know this was even a problem on the site. So I'm sure it's been a quick learning curve. But does anybody have anything to add? A wretchless, because it's under the 20 foot length, I think he'll be going before inspections to bring up any additional factors of him building that. And because it is a minimal size, I'm for it. Thank you, Mike. Anyone else? I agree with Mike, Delacey. Thank you. All right, does anybody want to offer an emotion? Wretchless, I'll make a motion as soon as I pull it up. Okay. That's the hard part here. Yeah. Page four. I don't know why I can't pull that up. Rats. You want me to do it, Mike? Yeah, go ahead, Virginia. Thank you. Delacey, I hear by make a motion that application number B2-025, an application for a request for variance from the 50 foot riparian buffer and 10 foot no build setback requirements on property located at 803 Carter Avenue, has successfully met the applicable requirements for the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with all plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. Mitigation will be required as part of the variance in accordance with the standards listed in UDO section 8.5.11. I so move. I've got a motion by Regina. Is there a second? I'll second the second of board vote. Give it to Regulus. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Ian. This seems to have taken over. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Wamur. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kipp. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. All right. Motion carries seven to zero. Motion by a vote of seven to zero. Your variance has been granted. Thank you for coming before the BOA. You'll get an order shortly. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great day. All right, Susan, would you like to call the next one? Sure. 2-0-0-0-0-2-6, a request for a variance from the project boundary buffer requirements. The subject site is located at 231 Taft Street, is a residential suburban, and in the halls of the news, Jordan Lake protected area, and in the suburban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time, and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavit, verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file, and the seating for this case is Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kipp, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Wyemore, Ms. Jeter, and Ms. Major. All right. Let me scroll to here and make sure we have a couple of people on. All right, I see someone here. Let's minister the oath real quick. Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. And do you consent to this remote meeting? I do. Thank you so much. All right, and Eliza? Yes, this one is mine. I have a quick question for the applicant. Mike, we have a second person. That looks like it might be yours as well. Are you on two devices? No, I am on this one. I think Asher was supposed to be, and he had an emergency, so he had to live. So it's going to be me on this side. OK, thank you. Just wanted to make sure of that. And yes, ready to go, Chair Rogers. Thank you. Thank you. Case, Eliza, I'm representing the planning department. That's planning staff requests that the staff report on all materials submitted at the public hearing made for the public record. If there are any necessary corrections, just note it. Noted. Thank you. Case B2006 is a reference to the case B2006. It is a request for variance from the project boundary buffer requirements. The applicant is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewajero, and the subject site is located at 231 Taff Street. The case area is highlighted in red on the screen. The site is in residential suburban 8, located within the Falls of New Jordan Lake protected area, watershed protection overlay district, and is in the suburban tier. The site area is currently a place of worship. As you'll see on the screen, the highlighted red area is going to be the case in question. And then the parcel directly north of that is also a part of the overall place of worship use. Per section 9.4.3B of the unified development ordinance, non-residential development proposed in residential districts, a residential zoning district that's adjacent to a residential district or residential development on other properties that would not otherwise require a buffer, shall provide buffers in accordance with the provisions in the commercial neighborhood district. That is UVO jargon to say when you have a non-residential use adjacent to a residential use, even if they are the same zoning district, you have to have buffering between those uses. In this case, the applicant would be required to provide a 30-foot project boundary buffer along this portion of the site, excuse me, along this portion of the site where it has its gathering place to propose gathering place. Given the narrow and interestingly size of the lot, the location of the existing building, the existing parking lot, and all the other existing factors, the proposed location of the new gathering place, the applicant is requesting a 25-foot variance from the 30-foot project boundary buffer, thus asking for a five-foot project boundary buffer. The applicant proposes to provide additional landscaping within the 10-foot setback and the remaining five feet of the project boundary buffer for a total of 15 feet of space in between the parcels. And they are proposing to provide additional landscaping so that it meets the screening requirements as if it was still 30 feet, but within just that 15 feet. Staff has expressed to the applicant and requested some landscaping documents just so that we can kind of alleviate some concerns that we had about the ability to do so. But we do acknowledge that there will be an opportunity for a review in comment of landscaping and planting during site plan review, as if approved this case, we'll have to go through the site plan review process. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes for findings that the applicant must make in order for the Board to grant a variance. These findings requiring approval are identified in the staff report. And the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packets. Staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. And I'll probably exit out of this view so we can zoom in on what's in front of us. And I'm available for any questions. All right, thank you, Eliza. Any questions for Eliza before we continue? Alrighty, we'll turn it over to the applicant. All right, I was on mute, I'm sorry. OK, so I am a member of the building committee now, currently serving the church. So a brief history of what about Ethiopian Orthodox Church. For those of you who don't know, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is the largest of the Oriental Orthodox Christian churches with a total membership of 36 million people, the majority of whom live in Ethiopia. It is found in member of the World Council of Churches, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is the communion, in a communion with all Oriental churches and they independently started with the head of the church being the patriarch presiding in the Holy Synodos in Ethiopia. Under the patriarch, there's archbishop and bishops are appointed to lead the original and international parishes and our church as such belongs to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church under the bishop Abunayakop, who is in charge of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. And that's just a brief history of the church. And I think with the ordinance from which a variance is requested are the nine for three buffer requirements and we'll be addressing the location of the buffer, the buffer with permit activity in the buffer area and adjustment to the required buffer also. It's gonna be addressed if we're approved. So what we wanna do is the Ethiopian Orthodox God, the Father Church is located at 231 Tath Street in Durham, North Carolina 2770 or three with a zoning RS-8 plan to place and manufacture building structure on the south side of the property adjacent to the property located at 301 Tath Street, Durham and with the zoning with the same zoning RS-8. Since the adjacent property is also the same zoning, the planning structure is used only for a few hours every Sunday. We request a variance from the UDO 9.4.3 in terms of 10 foot setback and five foot buffering which is a total of 15 foot from the property line like Eliza had indicated previously. In other words, we are requesting the distance of the property line to the planned manufacture building structure to be 15 foot in permission to have the remaining setback serve as a buffer. So the ordinance required is the city of Durham Unified Ordinance 9.4.3 Sundays require our property to have a capacity of 0.6 setback of 10 feet and buffer of 20 feet. Our request is for the buffer requirement reduction of 15 feet only. And we agree to maintain 0.6 capacity by maintaining the existing plants, shrubs and also planting more trees, nine deschidus, understory trees, five evergreen understory trees and five shrubs as per the urban compact neighborhood and downtown tiers planting requirements. The property is place of worship of a parent of Ethiopian auto-ricksters and currently located at a 1.01 two acres land with 2,749 square foot of ghost building which is only used to hold religious masses as required by the church. There is an area and worship hold building containing 1,100 square foot which is only used for breaking bread and fellowship after the mass. Along with building, there is a paved parking for vehicles associated site work and landscaping. The plan is to place a manufacturing building structure on our property for multiple users. Enable the priest and the choir to prepare the service and dress up with religious attire. The choir to rehearse and dress up with a religious attire in preparation for the service. The priest and the choirs to meet after the service and hold meeting about religious services and the priest to console and confession services to individual members of the church on the adherent at large. In planning for the placement of the manufacturing structure we looked at the alternative such as using the open space in the north side of the church property. However, the buffer requirement is 50 foot as the adjacent property is industrial zone. In addition, the land on the north east corner is populated with older hardwood trees which provide an environmentally and assistively positive presence as well as area of solitude and serenity where the church members and their children can use to relax and reflect. The only suitable location for placing the structure is the one on the south side as shown on the map attached and for which this application for variance is for. And the plan to place the manufacturer building structure is to meet the religious requirements of the church. The religious requirements themselves are now new but not new, but we were unable to meet those requirements until now due to funding problems. The delay caused an undue hardship for the priests and the choir performed their religious duties. We have now secured the fund to get the structure built and meet the church religious requirements. And the request is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance. The building structure is needed for four hours on Sunday only and will not have any noise implications. We will also plant nine deciduous understory trees, I cannot say very well, but five ever green understory trees and five shrubs in the 10 foot setback in five foot buffer area in order to be consistent with the spirit's proposed purpose and intent of the ordinance. In anticipation of increased improvement in previous area by the manufacturer building structure, we are applying for a credit of a previous area for the, for new easement, 1,216 square foot to be set aside and never be developed on the church's other property in the neighborhood and located at 305 Tarth Street. The attached plan, which is over there, especially use, especially specifically use the property will remain for religious worship and will not increase church membership or existing safe harbor ensure public safety is secured by providing a place of refuge for children and other disadvantaged members of the community. And that's all I have. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions for the applicant? I'm sorry, I was looking up something in the code, so I apologize if I missed any hands, so please speak at will. And no questions, no. All right, for the applicant, then we'll close the public hearing. And, excuse me, this is a variance, so there is no staff recommendation. Any thoughts that board members would like to share? This might be right in your hand. Mr. Reynolds. I just got to break this down a little bit, so I understand it. Maybe some of this is gonna go back to the owner here proposing this, but, so to understand this hardship, it's gonna be a mobile home type manufactured. I wonder why this couldn't be adjusted because it's a mobile prefab structure. So yeah, let's direct that to Helen Michael, what is the hardship here, sir? Being that it could be a mobile structure and you could adjust that to fit into the setback. Staff will like to note that a mobile structure is not permitted. It has to be permitted. So it's just to make sure you're using the right language, mobile home and manufactured are kind of two different things that you can do. So this will have to be a permanent setback. Okay, so you're saying it's grounded, more or less. It's grounded. You'll have to have a foundation and all that to ask. I just provide some context on the language, the differences in the code. Gotcha, okay. Well, that clears up a lot right there. About what we're doing here. All right, any other thoughts? Ms. Weymour has her hand raised. Ms. Weymour. Hi, yeah, I guess the hardship again, I just kind of wanted to, I don't necessarily understand the setback being as much of a hardship, I guess. Maybe the proposed size of the building. Yes, the proposed size of the building is kind of pretty much set forth and mainly less than what we're proposing is going to be useless to be frank. Excuse me. And I guess I'm assuming that if we, or if you put this structure in the parking lot or included in that area, I guess that would reduce your parking available parking space. Correct, correct. That you're required, maybe. Yes, it's required for the existing membership count right now. So. Okay. Oh, I was going to stop here. So there, I think you're kind of highlighted lightly, but I'll touch once again. There are existing features within the site that kind of are already grounded where they are. So there are the buildings that you see located there, parcel shed, playground, existing parking. So those are all existing features that are, it's a little bit difficult to see here and it might show a little bit better when we look at the aerial. But there are quite a few existing things that are already there. And then we can see in the, in the application part of what they were saying is the locations here are existing features. Okay. All right, can anyone else have anything to add? All right, does anyone want to offer a motion? Well, I want to add something is that in the paperwork, it's saying a mobile structure. Can we get that cleared up? The manufacturer just said. Manufacturer. So the applicant and I often emails in which I was giving a confirmation of what they were providing which I made sure to carry out today that they are providing the manufacturer the structure of this department. They are not permitted to put a mobile structure. That's it. Okay, thank you. Okay. Final thoughts? Does anybody else have anything to offer or would like to make a motion? I'd go with you. Mr. Lee? Yeah, so basically you're talking about a prefab home not a Winnebago. Correct, yes. Nothing with wheels. You're talking about something that's made in a factory brought on site, clamped together, roof put on and it will be for all intents and purposes of building. I think the roof is already built. Oh, okay. Thank you. Yes, yeah. Mr. Hal, Michael, this is Regulus. You don't own that property next door that people are parking at, do you? There is a, not that property, but the one after is what we got you. Okay, thanks. Yep. Anything else? I'm going to stop here and see if you could see the board. Ms. Weymour does have her hand raised, my apologies. Hey, I have a question for staff, I guess. If the increase of the amount of people in this area was to increase, would this proposed situation cause another visit here for a variance based on the amount of people in parking necessary? Being that this building is going to be right at the edge of their setback on the other side, the parking lot seems like it couldn't increase if this building was put there. So just analyze me and your staff here, just wanting to make sure I've got the question correct. You're wondering if whether or not the increase in attendance will have an effect on the parking? If there is, is to be, you know, let's say a larger number of coming to this place of worship in the future and this building is there that impedes additional parking being available or up in this space. Is that something that the planning would have? I mean, would there be a need for that increase in parking spaces, I guess, that's my question. Yeah, so, Eliza and your staff, thanks for that question. To provide some clarity on the parking status within the city of Durham, for place of worship, they're not based upon attendees, as opposed to, it's one per 28 square feet of available assembly area. So therefore, if you have a place of worship that has a school, the school would have to have a different parking calculation because it's not a part of the assembly area. So the number of people isn't something that we can tie to parking. It's more so if there's an increase in assembly area, then yes, that wouldn't result in a new parking space or parking requirements one per 28. I don't know if we're seeing additional where they could build more without having to come back here because of, I'll go back really quickly to this first page, because of the way things work and the way the zoning is, they're surrounded by residential. This parcel here that they don't own is residential as well as all of these back here. So to place in terms of future building, they would have to bring things into compliance and that would mean project boundary buffers and landscaping as well as parking. So I think that was twofold, but one, we don't base our parking space upon the amount of people that attend. It's based upon the assembly area. And I don't know, I'm not a designer, so I can't speak to it, but I don't know where else they would put something in the future after this request unless they were to somehow acquire a dismemberment. And so a follow on to that then is not based on participation, but then this building isn't being called an assembly area at all. No, it's not. Not in the sense that you would think of sanctuary, I think if that might be like an ascending in here, not in the same sense there. This is more so based upon the application provided by the applicant. It would be for the choir to meet in practice. And Mr. Abrahah will have to put everything that happens that will be used for the choir to practice. Yeah, as I indicated earlier, I think I listed about four points, the priest and the choir prepare for service and dress up and the choir rehearsal and dress up for religious attires and then the priest counseling, confessions individually. And these are the main purposes of this program. Anything else? Thank you for that clarification, Eliza. I'm gonna stop here so you can see everybody then Chair Rogers. Thank you. Would anybody like to make a motion? Delacy. I hear by make a motion that application number B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 2, 6, sorry, 2, 6, an application for a request for variance from the project boundary buffer requirements on the property located at 231 Taft Street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion by Mr. Lacey. Is there a second? Kip, second. Second by Kip, Susan. Mr. Retzlis? No. Ms. Jeter? Yes. Ms. Weymour? Yes. Ms. Major? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Kip? Yes. Mr. Lacey? Yes. Motion carries six to one. By a vote of six to one, your variance has been approved. Thank you for coming for the BLA today. Thank you, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Susan, would you like to call the next case? A speed to 000027. A request for a variance for a reduced pole for a flag lot. The subject site is located at 312 Prince Avenue zoned residential urban and in the urban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the signposting and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Ms. Major, Ms. Jeter, Ms. Weymour, Mr. Retzlis, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Kip and Ms. Delacy. All right, would be, is the applicant, let me scroll through here. We'll administer the oath for the applicant. If you'll raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. And do you consent to this meeting platform? Yes. All righty, thank you. And not sure who on staff has this one. Me, Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Good morning. Coordinator representing the planning department, planning staff request the staff report and all materials submitted the public hearing to be made a part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. Thank you. Yes. And so noted. Case B, 2000-027 is a variance request for a reduced poll width for a flag lot. The applicant is Lorenzo RGU. The subject site is located at 312 Price Avenue. The case area is highlighted in red. This site is in the urban tier zoned residential urban R52 and is within RU52 and is in within the city of Durham's jurisdiction. The site area is currently a single family home, but have approved the proposed new lot created will be vacant. Per section 6.12.5.2 of the UDO, the required poll width using the reduced poll option for a flag lot in the RU5 zoned district and in the urban tier is 12 feet. The applicant is proposing a half-foot variance resulting in an 11 and a half-foot poll width. If approved by the board, the variance will allow the applicant to create a new lot using the small lot option. Staff will be available for any questions during the hearing. Any questions for Cole before we hear from the applicant? Cole, one clarification. Now, 12-foot is the standard in the variance is just for a half-foot, so it's 11 and a half. Is that what you just said, just to clear? Correct. But 12-foot is the poll width for only when using the small lot option, which is what they're proposing here. OK, all right. Would the applicant like to take it? Just a brief summary of what Cole previously mentioned. I need it to do roughly a 12-foot drive-way, but due to the space that we have, 11 and a half feet is the maximum we can go. So that will present a hardship in trying to get correct drive-way at 50. Mr. Lorenzo, I think we're cutting out some. OK, sorry about that. I think I had a phone call coming through on my computer. I think we missed most of what you said, so if you don't mind repeating. Basically, just summarizing what Cole briefly mentioned about the flat coal width that I need, 11 and a half feet, to make this small lot work with the variance that the current requirement is 12 feet. So that's why I'm requesting experience. OK, does anyone have any questions for Mr. Lorenzo or Stacey? This is Wretchless. Mr. Wretchless. Mr. Lorenzo, what part of that half foot is it going toward the property line or toward the house that you need? Toward the house. Thank you. Anyone else? I just like to say in the scheme of things, we're talking about six inches. I imagine the exclusive driveway of the back lot. So six inches is six inches. Obviously, your math is better than mine, a 24th of 12 feet. So that's like 4%. So this to me is pretty simple approval. Staff, staff would also like to mention that in this area, the flag lot will be using ribbing stripping for their driveway. So that area will not be fully paved. What's ribbing stripping, Delacy? It's basically two strips for just the tires to go along. That's what ribbing stripping refers to. Thank you. Thanks, Colors. All right. Anyone else before we close the public hearing? All right, consider it closed. This is another variance. Does anybody have anything to offer or would like to offer a motion? Ms. Major? Some questions of the applicant. I'm sorry. Absolutely. Mr. Lorenzo, have there been any adjustments to the property since you purchased it? No, structurally. Yes. And we're going to do it to change it? No. And is your requested variance consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the UDO? Yes. That's all I have. Great question. All right. Does anyone have anything else or would like to offer a motion? I'll offer a motion. Yeah. I hear by make a motion that application number B200027, an application for a request for a variance for a reduced pole width for a flag lot, unproperly located at 312 Price Avenue, has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinances hereby granted, subject to the following conditions. The improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of this application. We've got a motion by Mr. Kip. Is there a second? Delacy, second. I second by Ms. Delacy. Susan, would you like to call the board? Mr. Lacey? Yes. Yes. Mr. Kip? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Retchless? Yes. Ms. Weymour? Yes. Ms. Jeter? Yes. Ms. Major? Yes. Motion carries 7 to 0. Voting 7 to 0, your variance has been approved. Wish you the best of luck. You'll get an order shortly. And thank you for coming before the BOA. Thank you. All right. We've got two more. I think we can do this. Susan, would you like to call the next case? Yes. Case B2000028, a request for a variance from the specimen tree protection requirements. The subject site is located at 4615 Leesville Road, is zone commercial general and in the falls of the new St. Jordan Lake overlay and in the suburban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Ms. Delacy, Mr. Kip, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Weymour, Ms. Jeter, and Ms. Major. Right. Would the, I want to go ahead and administer the oath once the applicant turns on the video. Hey, Warren, it's Eliza here from staff. Is it good to be speaking today? Yeah, I'm on the, and so is Zach, who's the engineer for us today, Zach Shipman. If I need to be added over, if, Chris, if you could add Zach Shipman over as a panelist. I'm working on the video. Give me a second. Thank you, Chris. I see Zach. So Zach and Warren, you'll have to put your video on for us and unmute yourselves. Good to go, Chair Rogers. They're both present with video. All right. Raise your right hand. Do you soundly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Thank you. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. And lastly, would you like all of your written and oral testimony to be part of the record? Yes. Thank you. Eliza, I'll let you take it from here. All right. Sounds great. Eliza, you're representing the planning department, planning staff requests that the staff record all materials to the hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. To note it. My goal is to say that in under 30 seconds one day. So case B20028 is a request for a variance from the specimen tree protection requirements. The applicants and property owners are Warren D. Mitchell, a private PE, and David Durham. The subject site is located at 4615 Leesville Road. The case area is highlighted in red here, the magenta. The site is zoned CG, which is commercial general. I'm located within the Falls of Neuse Jordan Lake protected area watershed protection overlay district and is within the suburban tier. The site is currently vacant aside from a one story ranch that will be demoed prior to construction of the project. All right, getting into the fun stuff. Per section 9.4.3D of the unified development ordinance, existing major specimen trees located within a required project boundary buffer shall be surveyed and protected as described in paragraph 8.3.5 and 9.3.2 of the UDO. Specifically, UDO section 9.3.2 states that in order to receive credit for any retained trees, at least 75% of the root protection zone shall remain undisturbed. The applicant is requesting to remove several specimen trees located within the project boundary buffer on the screen, on the eastern side of the property. Along the southeast side of the property. The current proposal calls for grading within this buffer area. The applicant proposes to replant the buffer area once the grading has been completed in a manner that is compliant with UDO section 9.4.5, which provides regulations for constructed buffers. Strict application of the ordinance will require them to save and protect all healthy evergreen canopy trees with an 18 inch DVH or greater, otherwise referred to as major specimen trees. The applicants are able to receive credit for other landscaping requirements when these trees are preserved during the development process. Due to topography as well as the location of some easements and riparian buffers, they're proposing to remove those evergreen major specimen trees, as mentioned. After the grading is complete, they will have to provide replant the buffer as mentioned as well. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance. These findings are required, requiring approval are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to those findings are identified in the application, both of which you have in your packets available. And I will be here for any questions throughout the hearing process as you have them. Thanks Eliza, any questions for Eliza before we continue? All right. Mr. Mitchell or would that could, whoever would like to go first? My name is Zach Shipman. I'm with Shipman Engineering, doing the engineering and site planning designed for this project. I'm a registered North Carolina professional engineer, been an engineering consultant for about 16 years and a licensed PE for 11 years. We're here before you to request the removal of approximately a dozen trees, the majority of which are tall skinny pine trees within that 50 foot project boundary buffer. This site is not quite 14 acres, it's 13 and 0.88. We have, the applicant has voluntarily preserved about 4.71 acres or 33% of the site towards the rear to preserve tree coverage in the back of the lot. That was agreed to during the rezoning process. And we're here because we have a couple of hardships that prevent the reason we use this land for the proposed use. So this is a boat and RV storage facility. It kind of requires the footprint that you see there. The topography of this site is quite severe. We have a high point of elevation 446 and then a low point of elevation 390. So we've got about 55, 56 feet of fall and a very short distance there that we're having to contend with DOT. We met with DOT early in the process. There is some ongoing development to the north of this site, some subdivision work. And DOT has requested us to place the driveway to the facility as far close to that property line as we can get it. And so the result is we're kind of threading the needle. We need to grade a roughly flat area that you see there on the grading plan for the building footprint. And that's requiring us to do some pretty substantial cutting of this high point that you can see on the screen kind of in the lower portion there. You can also see a pretty substantial fill slope that we're up towards the riparian buffer where we're filling that low area. And so the idea is kind of balance the grades out as best we can. With the Leesville Road driveway, there's some vertical site distance issues that we're having to overcome due to the steep topography that is requiring us to move that driveway as far as close to that property line as we can get it. And so the net result is we really need to cut into this project boundary buffer. If you look and analyze, I don't know if you can go to the last slide. We've cut a section through this property. The proposed grading, the buildings will sit substantially lower. There you go. You can see kind of the proposed buildings that we're showing. And then you can see the existing topography as the dash line. And then there's a thick dash line that indicates the property line there to the right on your screen. You can see that the steep topography we're having to deal with, the adjacent property owner, we don't believe we'll be able to see much of this project just because the buildings will sit quite a bit lower than the existing grade. And then particularly once we replant the landscape buffer to the required opacity, we believe that it would properly screen this. Yeah, we plan to, we'd like to replant this landscape buffer with a pretty opaque screen that matches the UDO standards. And with that, I'll take any questions that you might have for us. Any questions for Mr. Shipman? Mr. Fretchless Wade, may I? Yes. Hi, Mr. Shipman. How many trees are over 18 inches in that area? I believe it's 12. And we've got them indicated if we can zoom in on my area here as well. I'm counting eight over 18 inches. So the pine trees are 18 inches or greater and then the hardwoods, I believe, are 12 inches or greater. So we have a couple of maples that are right at 12 inches. There's an ash tree that's 13, another ash that's 12, but the majority are tall pine trees. And I forgot to mention this before. So this project, we have over 3,200 linear feet of project boundary buffer along the perimeter of the sides of the property. We're proposing to regrade about 233 feet of that. So that's not quite 93% that we're retaining. So we're not wholesale trying to clear this buffer. We really just want to clear this one area. And maybe this would help. One question we thought of early on was why not put a retaining wall here? Well, that doesn't really help us because to put a retaining wall in, we've got to go back and remove a bunch of this dirt to get geogrid and the structural fill in that would hold up the wall. And so retaining wall might be a good idea, but it doesn't really save those trees and the net result is the same. And then I believe, don't we have to replant them kind of in off that same area that you removed them from? Yes, sir. So there is a landscaping sheet. Well, as I don't know if we can, the very last sheet is a landscaping plan that we've shown our proposed plantings. So you can see what we're proposing there as far as landscaping. I think the net result would be a much more attractive screen than what you've got there now. And you're going to put trees back that are incomparable to the canopy trees that are to be taken out? Yes, sir. That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ritchals. Any other questions for Mr. Shipman? One more has our hand raised. Yes, one more. Hi, I just like to know, what is the property that's adjacent to this where the buffer will be? What is the use of that property and what's currently there and what's? It's a single, single family detached house. I think it's an older ranch house. It sits a decent amount off the property line. And you can see that in our section view. That's good. Which if you like me, I kind of like this one here. This is what you would like to see. Yeah, that one will do. And you can see if you go to the third sheet in our attachment, we've indicated in play of view where that house is at. There it is right there. So you can see that house location where your cursor is at. So it's a decent amount off the property line. It's not right on the property line. But again, we think that given the grading we're proposing that residents of this house probably won't be able to see the buildings because they'll sit substantially lower than the existing grade. Yeah, the topography I guess was my question was all that grading going on if that is gonna affect that property. Correct. Well, one more thing that that plan view shows, Zach, is that adjacent to that cut on our property, they have a substantial amount of existing woods between their house and our property line. So at least 150 feet of existing property. Would it buffer their property? Correct. All right, any other questions for Mr. Shipman? Right, Mr. Shipman, was that the conclusion of your testimony? Yes, sir. All right, thank you. And Mr. Mitchell, just so I can ask you, did you have anything to add or are you? No, I think Zach did a great job of covering it. And it's pretty obvious that the, you know, we can't move the facility further away from that property line because we have a large electrical transmission easement with big towers. That's on the other side of the property. The entire impervious area is gonna be low density because the property is about 13 and a half acres. And I think the impervious will be similar between 20 and 24% impervious. We're trying to keep the, there's just not enough usable property so it's gonna be low density development. And that's all I have to add. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? All right, we'll close the public hearing. Any discussion among the board thoughts? I think they're, they're definitely showing a problem because of the topography, especially the elevations here. And then putting back the trees probably in a more better area really that I would agree to this variance. Delacy also had her hand raised. Ms. Delacy. Delacy, I think that this is a classic example of problems peculiar to a property. They are required by DOT to do one thing and they are required by their, by the tree protection to do another. And I believe that they're doing the best they can with the conflicting requirements to serve this space well. Wretchless. I'd like to say Delacy really explained that better than I could and I totally agree. And you're handsome as well as brilliant. Love it. Well, I'm gonna agree as well. You know, I'm very familiar with this area and I know that that Leesville Road as they, you know, coming down to the red light there is quite a steep grade. And I've always, I've seen this property and I always thought like that's just, it's a tough, I would imagine it's a tough side, especially with the power lines and those, that easement. I didn't really think about a DOT requirement, you know, or suggestion, but I can see why that would be preferred. So I'm in favor of it as well. Does anybody else have anything to share? They'd like to offer. All right, does anyone have a motion? Wretchless. I like to make a motion. Hereby make a motion that application number B2-000028, an application for a request for a variance from the specimen tree projection requirements on property located at 4615 Leesville Road has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance. And it's hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion by Mr. Wretchless. Is there a second? Lacey. Second by Mr. Lacey. Susan, would you like to call the question? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Wretchless. Mr. Wretchless. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Delacy. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Five vote of seven to zero, you're... Sorry, I'm sorry. I did not call Ms. Weymour. Oh yeah, you need to do that. Yes, hi. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Five vote of seven to zero, your variance has been approved. You'll get a report. Thank you for coming before the VOA. Thank you, Mr. Wretchless. All right, Ronald Case. Susan, would you like to call it? Case B2, 000029. A request for a variance from the street yard setback requirements in order to construct a single family dwelling. The subject site is located at 1400 North Grayson Street is zoned residential suburban and in the urban tier. This case has also been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. The seating for this case is Ms. Delacy, Mr. Kip, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Weymour, Ms. Jeter, and Ms. Major. Thank you, Susan. Let's go ahead and minister the oath for anyone speaking in case we're in opposition to this one. Quick clarification point. There are two Tyler Whites. Tyler, is that Mrs. Brown, the property owner, or are you on two devices? No, I'm just on one. It's probably Lisa. Then we will meet her. I can change her. If she wants to pop on video, I can change her name and we can get her sworn in as well. Lisa, can you hear or see us? Chair Rogers, if we see her video come up at a later time, I guess we might just have to administer another pathway here. That's fine. All right, so if anybody knows, okay, we got someone. If you plan on speaking, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, be whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Ms. Brown, we don't have audio for you. Could you try one more time to unmute yourself? We still can't hear you. We don't have audio. So we might have to... I can see that you're unmuting. I just can't see when you... I don't hear anything when you do so. Tyler, raise your right hand. Looks like it's stuck. Did you have an earphone stuck in in your computer? That might do it. Here's to Brown. Hello? Oh, I can hear you now. Brown. That's him. Is that Ms. Sargent speaking? I'm gonna unmute everyone that's not Ms. Brown, Tyler, and the board members. Now is not the time for anybody else. So Ms. Brown, can you talk so we can see if we can hear you? Testing one, two, three. That is great. Okay. We'll do the thing again and we can get it rolling. Okay. I guess I'm a little confused. I don't know, can you change their name to figure out who's who? Yeah. You did. So do we need to administer the oath for anybody? We just need Ms. Brown to say it that we can hear her. She did it and I could see her hand was raised, but we could not hear her. I do. Thank you. And do you consent to the remote meeting platform of this need? Yes. And Mr. Weitz-Weitz? Yes, I do. Thank you. All right. So I think we'll turn it over to Eliza. Yes, that sounds great. One last time y'all, Eliza Monroe representing the planning department, planning staff require request that the staff report and all materials submitted to the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you. Gotcha. So case B2000029 is a request for a variance from the street yard setback requirements in order to construct a single family dwelling. The applicant is Sunrock Filters. The subject site is located at 1400 North Brexen Street. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is owned residential suburban eight or RS eight and is located within the urban tier. The site is currently vacant. Per section 7.1.2B of the unified development ordinance, a 25 foot street yard setback is required for a detached single family dwelling in the RS eight zoning district. As a corner lot, the lot in question has two 25 foot street yard setbacks. One on North Brexen Street and the other one on Englewood Avenue. The applicant is requesting a 15 foot variance from the street yard setback along Englewood Avenue resulting in a 10 foot street yard. Strict application of the ordinance will require the applicant to provide 25 foot street yard on that side. Located when the urban tier of the lot is subject to the infill development standards within UDO section 6.8.2A.2. The intent of those development standards is to ensure that new construction is consistent with the existing neighborhood with regards to required yards, building width, building height, et cetera. This relates specifically when looking at the street yard setback on North Brexen Street. The applicant is meeting that intent of the infill standards by placing a single family dwelling within the street yard within the range and in line with the street yard setback of the adjacent property on Brexen as shown on the screen. The UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance. These findings requiring approval identified in the staff record and the applicant's responses to the findings are gonna find the application, both of which are within your packets. Staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process. And I can also once again close out what Zoom in has needed on this document. Any questions for Eliza before we continue? All right. Thank you, Eliza. With the applicant. Delacy's waving, sorry. Oh, Ms. Delacy. I just would like to know about the sight lines, Eliza. The sight lines? Yeah, like when people turn the corner, are they going, would the structure inhibit the ability for people to not notice the cars around there? The sight. Hello? I don't know if that was someone wanting to talk or not, but whether or not the structure meets the sight distance triangles, they'll have to, so the curvature that's shown, I'm pointing on my screen as if you could see my finger, the curvature that's shown here, the parcel is actually gonna be a rectangular shape. So this part of the parcel here, the sight distance triangle on either side will not be developed. So they're meeting that requirement. Additionally, they'll have to, during further review, pulling the building permit and things of that sort, provide further elevations and schematics to show that they're meeting that. And there's no renderer hindrance to view from the public when driving. Thank you. Good question. Anyone else have any question for Eliza? I am, yes. All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? Yes. And thank you for your time. We are looking to build a single family home, obviously. The footprint is actually on the survey of what we've picked out that we'd like to build. The lot itself, as far as a hardship goes, with no variance, the lot is almost unbuildable. The house would have to be, I think it was 13 feet wide or 15 feet wide or something like that, which in effect, especially for Trinity Park, is not acceptable by today's design standards. When the lot was created in 1925 by Mr. Belvin, it met the setbacks at that time and almost 100 years ago. And since Lisa, who is the owner who has purchased it, who also lives immediately north, she'll be neighboring this property, she's made no changes to it since she's purchased it and had the intent that at some point, this would be an investment for her to sell and help finance things, which at this time is her son's college education. We've also selected a foreplan that we feel fits the neighborhood. It's not a modernist plan or anything funky or out of the ordinary. Fits well with Trinity Park and would bring a lot of value to the neighborhood overall. And also my survey or Cliff Cretl is on the call. We have examples of nearby variances that were requested and approved that were similar or in some cases maybe even a little bit more than what this is for the construction of single family homes in the area. All righty, is that all you had? Just want to make sure before I... Yes, unless anyone has questions, it's pretty simple for the most part. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? The one thing I will add I meant to add is that the parking will, the driveway rather will actually be coming off of Englewood. So it's not going to create any obstructions to the flow of traffic on North Gregson, which has a two lane road is pretty busy. There's a two car garage on the main level where you pull off Englewood and park essentially underneath the house. Ritchells here, Mr. Weiss, do you have any evidence showing the similar variances in the area? My surveyor does, he helped me put all this together. And if he could be allowed to speak, he could give some demonstrations of that. All right, this is Cliff with Cradle Lane. Cliff before, sorry, Cliff Cradle, are you joining us by phone? I am on phone, yeah, thank you. We do have to administer the oath for you to speak. Yeah, so we'll imagine you have your right hand raised. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, sir. Mr. Waddell has his hand raised. Yeah, Ryan, I think you're gonna say what I'm thinking, but go ahead. Yeah, there's no presidential value to any prior decisions on variances or any other decision on the board. So they're really not relevant to this particular case or any other case, because each case has to sort of stand on its own merit and there are different facts for each case. And no board can make a decision that's gonna be binding on another board. So there's really no relevance to other decisions. Understood, understood. We were, this is Cliff with Cradle Engineering 204 East Markham Avenue, Durham, North Carolina. And I will say we're celebrating our 100 years of serving the community this year, 2020, quite a year. Anyway, moving on to this project, we did the survey for this project. And right directly behind us at 922 Inglewood to meet the street yard setback off Inglewood, that particular house is 26 feet back from the right-of-way, which would further the street yard setback of 25 to 26 in accordance with the infill standards. But if you look at the particular area, this being the corner of Gregson and Inglewood, the corner of North Duke and Inglewood, 1501 North Duke is pretty much on the property line. Street across the house across the street to the south of that, 1423 North Duke is on the side property line. And when I say the side property line, I'm speaking about Inglewood Avenue also. In addition to 1401 What Street and 1323 What Street, all of these I just mentioned are corner lots that face the side streets, but the side is also Inglewood, of which are much closer than this proposed 10-foot setback. So given what we're dealing with, this is also a non-conforming lot in the R8 zoning infill standards included. It really is unusable with the current standards. So this was a, what we thought was a very good proposal to be able to utilize this existing lot of record. So I'm here for questions. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Cradle or the applicant? Majors, hi, sir, Henry. Miss Major. Mr. Whites, are you saying that your requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the UDO? Yes. That's all I have. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this? Is there, I believe we may have someone on the call to speak against, is that so? That is so, Constantine and Margaret, I will ask that you all unmute and show video. And Krista, I think has, they're more so, I believe have questions, but the way that we have things that we have to do is just echo it for a moment. Mr. Chair. Yes. Mr. Chair, City Attorney's Office, before we proceed with opposition, I believe Mr. LaPascha had his hand raised in possibly in favor. I don't know, he can confirm that by a, I'm not sure where he falls, but I do think everyone else needs to be sworn in and consent to the remote meeting platform as well. All right. Well, it's kind of hard for me to shift through these. Can y'all just let me know who needs to take the oath? Yeah, I'm gonna stop sharing for a moment so we can see everybody. Thank you. So Mr. LaPascha and Margaret, I can't see. Sergeant, Sergeant, I will, those two individuals I believe would like to speak and therefore would need to have their video and audio. All right. Ms. Sergeant, if you'll turn your video on, we'll administer the oath. Shouldn't take about a... Not sure how to do the video because if it's on my laptop, it doesn't work. So, but I am raising my right hand if that helps. All right. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony and evidence shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Yes. Thank you. And also do you both consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much. I think Mr. LaPascha was first. Couple of questions. Do they know how far the current curve is from the property line on Englewood? And then another one is what kind of residence is planned to put there? It's a single story, two-story, something different? Yes. Sure. So in regards to your second question, it would be a single family two-story home. It would have an attached two-car garage. And the plan that we have selected is, let me pull it up here, 2,111 square feet, three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms. The elevation is a craftsman type look that would fit the neighborhood pretty well. I would just like to say that I was very aggressive. This is Lisa. Okay. I was very concerned about the type of property would go there, but it fits well with, within the architectural design in Trinity Park. It's not a box, it's not modern. So it looks really good. Mr. Weitz, could you speak to Mr. LaPosha's first question, please? Yes, sir. So are you asking from Englewood? Am I correct? You're asking for a variance to a 10 foot setback from the building to the property line. What is the distance from the property line to the current curve? Because I know around here, there's a fair amount of city right away from property line to the street curve existing. Sure, so Cliff might be better off to answer that, the surveyor. The house would sit 10 feet off the property line and then the sidewalk and curb would go off of that. So I'm going to imagine three to four feet, but Cliff might be a bit more qualified to answer that question than I am from a technical angle. Right, so the distance from the property line to the existing curb on Englewood Avenue is 14.66 feet. That's 14 feet, eight inches. So the house would sit at 24 feet, eight inches from the existing curb at its closest point. Thank you. One other question is currently, I see you're using the existing part, at least part of the existing driveway that services Lace's house for the driveway for this property. Is that going to end up being a shared driveway to still have access to the adjacent property or is it going to be exclusive to this one? Our plan right now is to have it exclusive to this one as the other house does have access to Gregson Street in addition to Englewood. Thank you. Yes, sir, thank you. All right, I think next is Miss Sargent. Hi, Tyler, a couple of questions I was asking. I'd like to hear that it's one story, but what is the overall square footage of the house and did you include the garage space with the actual residents in your overall square footage? Okay, so the overall square footage of the heated and cooled space, the actual living space on the plan that we have selected is 2111 square feet. And that consists of three bedrooms, two full bathrooms and one half bathroom. That does not include the garage. The garage is attached. Right. That's the rear, correct? Right, it's at the rear, so it takes up part of the floor plan. On the first floor, on the second floor, the back half of the house would be going over the garage. So this is not a one-story home. This is a two-story home. This is a two-story home, yes. Okay. And I don't know if that answered your question or not about the garage. Well, it was easy to see on the schematic or what was presented before. And I know that Ms. Brown has said that, yeah. Ms. Brown has said that it's in keeping with the overall look of the neighborhood, which is great. Have you built any other homes in the urban tier in Trinity Park or an adjacent old neighborhood that you could give us a reference to? Not in Trinity Park. We have done renovations and new builds in Durham Park over the years. This is the first one in Trinity Park that we have built. And it's a bit different in that it's, this is a, I would say a higher end floor plan and build than a lot of what we have recently built. So I do have examples. I don't think they'd be as apples to apples which you're probably looking for, for a downtown Durham. I do have, and I'd be happy to send it to you maybe after this call or something like that. I do have renderings of what this plan is. I'd love to see those. Yes, that would be great. I'd be happy to send those to you so you can have a visual of what this, what the property will actually look like. And I've got one other question. I'm looking at the survey, I get, well, the proposed footprint on the survey. And if you go down to maybe the middle of the residential or the living area, you've got, you've got basically most of a square that has got, that's not, that's kind of penciled in, if you will. What can you tell me what that is? Are you asking on the northern side of the property? Yes, it would be on the northern side. Right, so that's a privacy fence. And that would basically be like a living patio type area. Okay. And it's extending beyond the dotted line. What does that mean? The dotted line is the buildable envelope with the setbacks and those things. So a fence, typically in the planning department is not considered structure in the realm of it has to stay within the buildable envelope. They can go right up to the property line, which is why it's drawn that way on there in the squares. In there are brick pillars that will be in between to add to the appeal and the architecture of the fence. Okay, all right. Well, I didn't know what it was, so that's great. Now speaking to the driveway, because I'm well aware of this house, I've lived down the street. And I know that she's got a driveway that kind of circles around her house from Gregson to Englewood. The driveway for this house, is that going to come, is that going to actually be placed next to her existing driveway? No, no, we're going to re-pour the concrete and it's just one driveway. So she's not going to be able to exit on Englewood any longer, is that correct? We haven't finalized that one way or the other. Our intent is to have this as dedicated to this property, as her property does have access to Gregson Street, but it could be that as well. Our primary focus has been the variance up to this point. Okay, is there enough room on that lot if she wanted to continue to utilize the Englewood side of her driveway? There would be. Absolutely. I actually on what's across the driveway there as well. What do you mean what's across the driveway? So on the other side of the driveway, there's about another 20 feet. Oh, okay. All right, between you and Jane? Yes. Okay, okay. Jane takes care of that for me. Oh, lovely. Better at it than I am. We have more neighbors like that. Well, I would think you would want to keep the Englewood side of leaving and entering your property just because Gregson is a nightmare trying to get in and out. Sometimes it is. It depends on the time of day for sure. That's true. Not really any more questions. It looks like somebody said it, I think Mr. Lacey asked about the sight lines and yet it looks like there would not be any issue with that if you were making a left-hand turn on Englewood. Sorry, staff here in relation to that sight line actually did want to ask a question during this time. So per the response earlier to Mr. Lacey, per the unified development ordinance, the sight distance triangle is 25 feet. If you make a triangle of 25 feet on either side of the line and draw a triangle, Mr. Cradle, earlier in your testimony, when looking at this, I thought it was 25 on both sides but you said 24 feet and eight inches from the curve. Could you just confirm the distance there so we can determine whether or not the structure is that four inches into the sight distance triangle? That's a good question. That sight triangle starts at the corner and is from the back of the curb. At the particular place where the house is denoted is 10 feet away from the property line to the curb at that point is 14.66. So at that point it's 24.66. So the triangle wouldn't actually be at that point. So it's not 25 running down the whole side of Englewood or the whole side of North Gregson. It's centered on the corner. So that's why we, even with the 10 foot 70 by, 10 by 70 DOT sight triangles, none of that affects this property because it's everything centered on the corner, the intersection point, not further back where the house is sitting. I hope that answers the question. Yes, it does. And I wanted to just make sure to ask that while we had a licensed professional here to respond. Mr. LaPascha did have his hand raised if Ms. Sargent no longer has any questions. Not at this point. Thank you. Okay. One other question I had. Since it's going to be a two-story building 10 feet off the property line, is that going to encroach on the city trees that are planted along Englewood right through there? Is there going to be any issues with the building and the trees? That's a very good question. So there will not be, we do not have to remove any trees to build this house. The tree on the, what would be the Southwest corner of the lot, we may need to bring in a tree surgeon to trim the branches a little bit. But as far as actual tree removal or relocation, we're not needing to do any of that to fit this property on here the way that we're proposing. All right. I guess, has everybody been, everybody on the line had a chance to talk? All right. Any questions from the board to the witnesses? We will. Oh, I have one. I'm sorry to Mr, let me see, to the builder, sorry. I'm trying to look for your name. I've got too much written down here. When do you, when do you anticipate beginning this and when do you foresee completion of the project? Completion within the next six months, weather pending, you know, has a big part of it. And the way 2020 is going, hopefully no meteor strikes or anything else. Yeah, really. Starting of the process, once we have variance approval, we're going to submit approval for permits and things. And that's usually around a 30 day turnaround. And then there'll be a little bit of turnaround time for the labor side of things to actually start. So, but I would anticipate once approvals in place to completion rated at about six months. Okay. All right, thank you. Yes, thank you. All right. Well, we will close the public hearing now and only have board discussion. Are there, does any of the board members have anything to share or would like to discuss? I'm going to stop share so you can see everyone, Chair Rogers. I appreciate that. Any thoughts? Mr. Lacey. I believe that this new structure will be in harmony with the area and the architecture will be sympathetic to the craftsman style that is so loved by everybody for the past hundred and odd years. Thank you for that. Anyone else? Mr. Regulus. I just like to say that I don't believe the hardship was a result, you know, from the actions taken by the applicant. And I agree with Ms. Lacey. This would fit into the area as well. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Ian, did you have your hand up? You may have just been moving around. No? Anyone else? I have to agree with Mr. Regulus. I'm looking at the variance on here. I think the applicant mentioned if this wasn't granted to be 12 or 14 feet, I mean a buildable space height and I understand that that's extremely difficult to try to do anything with. And then the hardship is with this been a corner a lot too. So, or I feel like the hardship has been justified here. But all right, does anybody else have anything to offer? Any other board member rather? All right, this is a variance. And does anybody like to offer a motion? To Lacey. Mr. Lacey. I hear by make a motion that application number B is 029 an application for a request for a variance from the required street yard setback in order to construct a single family dwelling on property located at 1400 North Gregson street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the applications. All right, we've got a motion by Mr. Lacey. Is there a second? Regulus second for the board. Regulus is the second. Susan, will you call the board? Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Ritchless. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. By a vote of seven to zero, your variance has been approved. You'll get into her shortly and we appreciate you, everyone, coming before the BOA this afternoon now. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. All right. That does everything. I think that is all of our cases for today. Is there any old business to discuss? Any new business? I'll mention that we were kind of at 8.15, I get on the call at eight o'clock just to make sure everything's working on my end. But at 8.15, we were all kind of, and definitely by 8.20, I think we were all kind of worried, are we gonna have a quorum? If you're able to join by 8.15, just to make sure we've got everything working right, that'd be great. Just make sure we know everything's working and we're able to have a quorum. But I guess now we'll do the, unless, does anybody else have anything they'd like to talk about? Lacey, are we at full staff now? No, we have one more during County. And I'm sure you'll let us know immediately. I'll do my best. All right, with the approval of orders, we need a motion and a second for each one of these. And for the first one, I think there's only four of us that can vote, which is Regina, myself, Ian and Michael. Is that right, Krista? The first one is the garage that was continued, isn't it? Yes. And then the second one is the one that I sent for the fence from last time. Oh, you're talking about the fence. So I'm looking at B200000003. So I'm just looking at the order as they are appearing on the agenda. Yeah, that was the first case that you all heard today. The second one is the one for, which only four of you can vote. Okay. All right, so we need a motion to approve for B200000003. Somebody just speak up. Motion, Regulus. All right, motion. We got a second from him. Lacey. Mr. Lacey, Susan, call. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. He's not here. I'm sorry. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Redschluss. Yes. Ms. Lamar. Yes. Ms. Geer. Yes. And Dr. Thomas. Ms. Major. Yes. All righty. Next is, this is where only, I think Tisha, Regina, myself and Ian can vote. Let me confirm that. Hold on. Yes. So, Regina, Ian, myself and Tisha are the only ones who can vote on this next one. Isn't, did I vote yes on that one? Because if I voted no, I don't get to vote. That's right. That's everyone who's here who voted yes. Okay. So three of us need to, all right. So B200017, is there a motion for approval from one of us? I think I heard Tisha make a motion to approve. Yes, I motion to approve. Yep, second. All right, yep, second. Just these four, Susan. I think we just declamation, or do we have to do it by roll call? I think we have to do it by roll call, right? Technically roll call. Did you say call the four names you mentioned or? Yes. Okay, so that's Ms. DeLacy. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. And Ms. Waimour. Yes. All right, now this next one, I think Jessica is the only one who cannot vote on this one. It's B1900047, is there a motion for approval on this one? I think Ms. Jeter voted no. Are you sure you didn't, is that? Let me double check. I'm 47. 47 was, I thought it was Jessica. Ms. Major. Ms. Major voted no. All right, so need a motion for approval for this one. And I think Regina did that. Is there a second? Jeter second. Ms. Jeter second. Okay. Am I going too fast, Susan? Just a little bit. Who made that motion in second? We got Regina made a motion on this to approve. Ms. Jeter made a second. Who was that second? Micah, Jeter. I'm using my hands like- 47? Yeah. Okay. Hold, give me just a minute. Okay, Ms. Jeter. Yeah. Ms. Waimour. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Ms. Delacy. Yes. All right, need a motion for P-2-0-0-0-0-2-1. Delacy, move to approve. She is moved to approve. Is there a second? I shall second. Second. Okay. Ms. Delacy. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Wretchless. Yes. Waimour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Is this the one I voted no on? Yeah. No, no, no, no. 21, you can vote. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. All right, next one. Micah, this is the one that you voted no on. P-2-0-0-0-0-2-3. Delacy. Ms. Delacy, is there a second to this one? Actual second. Actual second, yes. Hey, Ms. Delacy. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Wretchless. Yes. Ms. Waimour. Yes. And Ms. Major. Yes. All right, this next one, everyone can vote. P-2-0-0-0-0-2-5. Can you give me just a minute to look? I thought Ms. Major voted no on Micah. Not on 25. 25 for 7-0. Who voted on 25? That was Mr. Tarran. The one that I accused myself from. That's right, Mike, you'll be voting on this order. Mike Tarran. Okay, I am gonna start out with Mr. Tarran. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Waimour. Yes. Mr. Wretchless. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Ms. Delacy. Yes. For this next one, for 26, Mike Wretchless, you voted no on this one. So be... Sorry, Chair. I don't think there was a motion made on that. It wasn't. I was getting ready to ask. For which one? We just hopped right into the voting. For 25, I thought Regina did that. I did. I did, and Mike seconded it. I didn't hear it. Yes. I thought that was on 2030. I saw a move that that number B voted on as approval. Yes. And Mike, he says, yeah, what she said. There was a confirmation on 25. Who made that motion and second? Regina made the motion. Mike Wretchless made the second. Okay, thank you. Okay. So we're on B2000026, and Mr. Wretchless actually voted no on this one. So... Correct. Is there a... A motion. I heard somebody say it. A motion. Micah, I got it. Delacy second. Okay, Mr. Wretchless. Yep. Yes. Mr. Kipp. Mr. Kipp. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. All righty. Next one, just moving right along here, B2000027. Wretchless. Go ahead, Mikey. Wretchless motion. Is there a second? Delacy. Mr. Lacy. Yes. Mr. Rogers, did you make a motion? Mike Wretchless made the motion. Regina made the second for 27. Okay. Mr. Lacy said yes. Mr. Kipp. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Wretchless. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. All right. Next one, B2000028. Motion to approve. Thank you. Tisha's got the motion. Is there a second? Wretchless. Wretchless. Going for a record. Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Mr. Wretchless. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Kipp. Yes. Mr. Lacy. Yes. All right. The homestretch last one, B2000029. Hold on. Oh yeah. Nevermind. We can't vote on this one. She's going to, you're going to draft it. That's correct. So you'll vote on it at the next meeting. Got it. All right. I do want to make an announcement and I forgot to do this. We do have a brand new member on the board. Mike Tarrant. Mike, you want to introduce yourself? And now's the perfect timing. Everybody was wondering who this weird guy is joining the group. Wait to the. You're wearing a tie. You're not weird. That's right. I appreciate it. My name is Mike Tarrant. I'm actually a licensed landscape architect. I work with Stewart. Work with Stewart in our Durham office for about a little over 14 years now. Been a big part of Durham and just really saw this as an opportunity to kind of get back to the community and especially as it relates to development. So I appreciate the opportunity to be here and look forward to serving with all of you on this board. Welcome. Thank you, Michael. Welcome. Nice to meet you. Our next meeting will be August 25th at 8.30. Brian, you have something to add? Just want to say that I feel like a proud parent. Thank you. You guys did a wonderful job of applying the standards, getting the evidence into the record. I feel like I'm just beaming with pride right now. You guys really did do a good job with that. I'll bet you some of these people had their cheat sheets out of camera range because they were bang on. You should. That's great. But I did want to say that it was a great meeting. It really flowed. There were a lot of cases. We even had more community input than we typically have with these virtual meetings. And I think everyone handled it really well. We even had a recusal, which we didn't expect. So I think you guys really did a good job. I think you should give yourselves some credit. You did very, very good. I'll give you an A. I'll give you an A. Yes, I've been on this board for a while. Ice cream? Come on, ice cream. And for us to get an A and a note from Brian, I'm feeling good. We did something right. Thank you. All right, well, next meeting is August 25th at 8.30. We'll see you then. Is there a motion for adjournment? Bye, guys. Somebody else joined. Come on, else, make a motion. Come on, come on. I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Step second. All right. All in favor, aye. Done. Aye. You all have a good week. Bye, guys. Bye, guys. Are we having a meeting after this or no? Yeah, hi.