Joint City County Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Durham. Okay, good. I don't want an echo. Good evening and welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. Members of the Durham Planning Commission are appointed by City Council and the County Board of Commissioners to make recommendations to the elected officials. We emphasize that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you are intending in person and wish to speak on a particular agenda item, please register on the sign-up sheets located on the table to my left. You will be called upon to make your comments at the appropriate time. You may also call in during the meeting by dialing 1-301-715-8592. If you call in during the meeting, you will need to wait until the particular public hearing you are interested in starts. After all of the pre-registered speakers have shared their comments, I will ask if there is anyone else wishing to speak. At that point, you will need to digitally raise your hand by pressing star nine on your phone. And when recognized, state your name and address before making your comments. Your applicant has a total of 10 minutes for their presentation. Each speaker after the applicant has two minutes to speak. Commissioners will be given five minutes for Q&A. Please keep your comments succinct. Commissioners, as a reminder, after the public hearing is closed, you obtain the floor by being recognized by the chair. The time to make all public statements is before motions are made. All motions are stated in the affirmative, so if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Where's the rest of my notes? I don't have the rest of my notes. Finally, I ask everyone here, the Commission members, the staff, and the public to conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. If someone fails to act in that manner, the Chair will ask the offending person or persons to leave the meeting until such time as they regain personal control. If decorum fails to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until A genuine commitment to act respectful and courteous is observed. Thank you. May we have the roll call, please?

Chair Chigaris.

Here.

Vice Chair Cameron.

Here.

Commissioner Bailey.

Here.

Commissioner Capers. Commissioner Clemmons.

Here.

Commissioner Czajkowski.

Here.

Commissioner Hunter.

Here.

Commissioner Juarez-Maldonado.

Here.

Commissioner Montes.

Here.

Commissioner Neinkirkner. Commissioner Piontek. Commissioner Ritchie. Commissioner Wolk. Here. Commissioner Wolk.

Here.

A quorum has been established.

Thank you. We have a new commissioner here this evening, Commissioner Walton. Would you like to say a few words?

It's great to be here. Thank you. Yeah, my family and I have been in Durham for about 10 years now. My wife, Katie, and I are raising our two wild and rambunctious kids. During the day, I work at Open Table Ministry, which is a 501c3 nonprofit. We're part of our continuum of care. We're directly across the street. So working a lot of folks with housing instability and excited to see how we can support work around affordability and transit specifically. So glad to be here. Thanks.

Thank you. Welcome. Number three, adjustments to agenda. There are no adjustments to the agenda at this time. Number four, approval of the minutes and consistency statements from July 14th. Do I have a motion?

Chair Segarra, as I move to approve the minutes and the consistency statements from the July 14, 2026 meeting. Second.

It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to approve the minutes and consistency statements. Do we do the electronic voting for that? No, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item number five on the agenda, public hearings, initial zoning map changes. 5A508 Olive Branch, may we have the staff report please?

Good evening, Chair Shears, Vice Chair Cameron, and Planning Commissioners. I am Peyton Burgess, and I am here tonight to present Z26-00004A-508, Olive Branch. And before I begin, staff would like to state for the record that all Planning Department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law, and affidavits of all notices are on file in the Planning Department. The request is for a direct translational zoning of residential rural for a little less than a half acre parcel located at 508 Olive Branch Road. This request would allow the connection to city and water and sewer for a single family home. The existing and proposed zoning is residential rural. The site is surrounded by the same. The aerial map shows the general location of the project along Olive Branch Road. The property is currently designated established residential on the place type map. The proposed zoning was determined to be consistent with the designated place type. Neighborhood meetings were not required as a part of this request, and there have been no comments received on the Durham rezoning explore in relation to this case. The proposal is consistent with the place type map designation of established residential and 205 applicable comprehensive plan policies, though it should be noted that two of the policies are to be determined. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions.

Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please?

Good evening, I'm Emily Williamson with Stuart Proctor, and we are the applicants for 508 Olive Branch Road. And if you will hold on one second, I'll pull up our PDF. Can y'all see the, you can? All right. Again, it's 508 Olive Branch Road. We just want to build a single family home. We want to connect into the Durham water with a single residential tap, and we want to connect into the sanitary sewer, which is adjacent to the site in the rear on Underbrush Drive. The site was platted in 1966. It wasn't created recently, so it is undersized for its zoning, but compatible with all of the adjacent properties. The Durham city limits are pretty much all around this property to the rear and to the front. This is just the site plan as it was hopefully annexed in with the fire hydrant across the street and the sewer in the rear. Do you have any questions?

Thank you. Thank you. Community members in person, I believe there is one person signed up Emily. Or that you OK. Any other community members in person wishing to speak on this? Nope, anybody on the zoom. I don't see any attendees. OK, the chair is now closing the public hearing. We are open for commissioner discussion. Is there any questions or comments from the commissioners? No, everybody's good. I have a small question. This might be for city staff. Policy 165, it states that this will create a donut hole. Could you please explain that? Because when I was looking at some of the maps, it looked like maybe it would actually be part of the city limits going one way. So how is that a donut hole?

so the donut hole would be created because it's got city limits on both sides so where it's connecting those it technically creates a piece of um like not within the city limits that's cut off so that's what the donut hole is so now the city limits assuming this gets annexed the city limits would fully encompass the piece to the south does that make sense So a donut hole is defined by only having... A donut hole is a piece of non-city property, so county property that's surrounded by city property.

Okay, so this creates a donut hole, but not on this piece, just somewhere else. Correct, correct. Okay, all right, thank you. Let the record reflect that Commissioner Nunn-Kirchner is here. Did you have any questions or comments on this case? No? Okay. May I have a motion to move case Z26? Quadruple 04A, BDG 26, Quadruple 02, 508, Olive Branch, forward with a favorable recommendation.

Chair, as it relates to case Z26, Quadruple 04A-BDG 26, 00002, 508, Olive Branch, I move that we forward this case to City Council with a favorable recommendation.

It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. May we have the electronic voting, please?

The motion passes 10 to 0.

Thank you. The next item on the agenda, 5B, MIS, Durham Headquarters 2, Z26, Quadruple 07A, BDG 26, Quadruple 04. May we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair. This proposal is for one parcel of land totaling 9.72 acres and located at 3429 Industrial Drive. The current zoning is industrial light county jurisdiction. The applicant proposes to change this designation to industrial light city jurisdiction to connect to city water and sewer. This is a direct translational zoning of industrial light from the county to the city. A direct translational zoning is one in which the existing county zoning is translated to the identical city zoning district upon the annexation of the property into the city. A translational zoning does not and cannot include a development plan and any future development may proceed according to what the zoning would allow. The site is immediately surrounded by existing industrial light zoning. The aerial map before you shows the general location of the project. It is located on the western terminus of Industrial Drive and east of Welcome Venture Industrial Park. The proposed industrial light zoning is consistent with the designated place type of general industrial and recreation open space. as the zoning district allows for a range of industrial uses intended for the general industrial place type. The recreation and open space place type represents the floodplain located within the parcel. Since the EDO includes additional protections for the floodplains, staff recommends no change to the recreation and open space place type. Neighborhood meetings were held in accordance with the neighborhood meeting guidelines on February 26th and July 31st, 2026. There were zero attendees in the first meeting. The second meeting had one attendee. No comments have been received on the Durham rezoning explorer. As stated previously, this proposal is consistent with the place type map designation of a general industrial and recreation open space. The proposal is consistent with two of five applicable comprehensive plan policies, with three policies still being determined at this time. Thank you. The staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please?

Evening Planning Commission. My name is Casey Booth. I'm the general manager of the surveying company that's holding this, performing the drawings for this, and also work for the company that this will ultimately house. As Andrew insinuated, we are proposing the annexation of the property The current plan for the site is an office slash warehouse that will house our company, Middleland Infrastructure. We have been a part of the community working within Durham for the last 26 years, have a strong relationship with the city and the utility department. Our proposed use does not change the existing zoning condition of light industrial. And we are solely asking for this annexation to be able to tap onto city sewer and water, which currently or own our property, both the sewer at the rear of the site and water at the roadside of the site. I have no other comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other community members in person or on the Zoom? Please step to the podium and state your name and address, please.

Hello, my name is Jerry Horner. I'm the owner of Leo Property. I'm at 3427 Industrial right next door. And I'm just curious about the rezoning because I'm next door. I'm currently in the county and we do have city and water. So I'm curious as to why you would want a city designation as opposed to a county designation.

Sure. So currently, if anyone wants to access those utilities, annexation is required for any parcel. There was a time when the city extended utilities without annexation, which some of the properties along Industrial Drive sort of went towards or basically obtained those utilities before that change in the requirement for annexation. So because they're asking now, they've got to be annexed. And when you annex, there's an initial zoning into the city.

Great. So just to confirm, that would not have an effect on our property next door in terms of the annexation? Correct. No forced annexation?

Annexations are voluntary.

Okay. And I don't know if you can speak to this, but can you tell us what you're building next door? Thank you very much.

Yes, so maybe to elaborate more, again, what we're constructing is our home office slash warehouse is what it's deemed through the use requirement for the light industrial. We currently rent or lease property within the city of Durham. We've been doing that for 26 years. We finally decided it was time to build something here. We finally got the gumption to do it. So again, it's office space for our project manager, estimators, and such. It's a warehouse for our internal fabrication department and then overall on-site storage for just miscellaneous small equipments and such for our company.

Thank you. Are there any members on the Zoom wishing to speak on this item? Please raise your hand. Nope. The public hearing is now closed. We are open for commission or discussion. Are there any questions or comments on this case? Nope. May I have a motion to move case Z260007A-BDG 26, quadruple zero four, MIS, Durham headquarters two, forward with a favorable recommendation.

Chair, as it relates to case Z26, quadruple zero seven A dash BDG 26, quadruple zero four, MIS, Durham headquarters two, I move that we forward this case to city council with a favorable recommendation. Second.

Second. It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. Please open the electronic voting.

Commissioners, we had an abstention. You're not actually allowed to abstain, so we will need everybody to vote. So I'd like to ask that you re-vote so we can make sure we have everybody voting on this item. Commissioner Neinkirchen, why don't we just have you state your vote in the, oh, you're voting no? Okay. Then the motion passes 10 to one.

Okay, next item on the agenda, 6A, Commissioner Montes.

Yes, Chair and fellow colleagues, I'd like to recuse myself from the Rocky Ranch case Z2400042 just to avoid any potential conflict of interest. I'll be stepping outside.

All right, public hearings, zoning map changes, reserve at Rocky Branch, Z2400042. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Chigaris, Vice Chair Cameron, planning commissioners. Peyton Burgess again, and I am here to present Z2400042, reserve at Rocky Branch. If this proposal looks familiar, it's because you have seen this case before at your April meeting. Since this meeting, the applicant has made a few changes and the case is back before you all tonight. The proposal now requests to rezone three parcels of land totaling 51.9 acres and located at 618, 702, and 716 Virgil Road from residential rural to planned development residential 3.661 to allow for up to 190 single family, detached townhouse, duplex, and or detached apartment units. The request was previously for 225 single family or townhouse units, so the new request has decreased the density and added additional housing types. Again, the existing zoning is residential rural. The site is surrounded by residential rural and PDRs 2.999, 3.70, and 3.220. The current request is for PDR 3.661. The aerial map shows the general location of the project along Virgil Road. The property is primarily designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map with a small amount of recreation and open space. The proposal was found to be consistent with the designated place type. The applicant has proffered a variety of text commitments, including those listed. The difference since the last time you saw this case is, again, the decrease in density, addition of new housing types, commitment of at least two housing types being a minimum of 20% of the total unit count, and a commitment to the 100-year storm event. The applicant held neighborhood meetings on April 10th, 2025 and March 24th, 2026. Eight community members attended the first and two attended the second. There have been six comments against this proposal received on the Durham rezoning explore. The proposal is consistent with 21 of 29 applicable comprehensive plan policies, although three policies are currently to be determined. It is also consistent with the designated place types of mixed residential neighborhood and recreation and open space. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant, please?

Good evening. Can you guys hear me?

Good.

Hi, my name is Jamie Classen. I work for the CSC group. We're also the property owner as well as the applicant. Reserve at Rocky Branch is opposed to residential development on approximately 51.9 acres located at 618, 702, and 716 Virgil Road in Durham. We are requesting a zoning change for residential rural to plan residential development 3.661 together with a textual development plan that would allow for up to 190 residential units. The proposed development would provide a mix of single-family homes, townhomes, duplexes, and or detached apartments, creating a more diverse residential community that would be permitted under the existing zoning. The site is currently designated mixed residential neighborhood on the city's place type map, and city planning staff have determined that the proposed zoning is consistent with that designation. The proposal represents a refinement from the original plan, reducing units from 225 to 190, and expands the permitted housing types to include duplexes and detached apartments. Importantly, the development plan commits to a minimum of two housing types, with each of those types comprising of at least 20% of the total units. This approach supports a broader range of housing choices and is consistent with the intent of mixed residential neighborhood place type, which is, again, encourages a verizing of housing types at price points within a residential community. The project would add both market rate and affordable housing to Durham's inventory. 3% of the final unit count would be income restricted at the 80% AMI with affordability being maintained for 30 years through recorded restrictions. The project therefore provides an opportunity to expand housing availability while incorporating a defined long-term component into the development. A principal benefit of our proposed community is the diversity of housing choices that would be available within a single neighborhood. Rather than relying on a single use type, the development can incorporate townhouses, duplexes, and detached apartments. City staff found this to be consistent with the comprehensive plan policy encouraging a mix of housing types within a neighborhood. The development also provides meaningful opportunity to increase housing supply in an area the city has identified it to be accepted under the existing zoning planning staff estimate the site could accommodate approximately 103 total units the proposed zoning would permit up to 190 providing additional housing capacity while establishing development commitments concerning building height setbacks environmental protection transportation stormwater amenities and affordability The project incorporates several commitments that go beyond baseline UDO requirements, including buildings that would be limited to 45 feet in height and setbacks that would be at least 25 feet from the perimeter boundary, while additional separation from project boundaries that include tree bufferage areas, floodplains, wetlands, and stream buffers. These measures are intended to provide greater separation between the development and surrounding properties and including environmentally sensitive areas. Reserve at Rocky Branch also includes community-oriented amenities. The development plan requires at least two active recreational community amenities. They may include a dog park, playgrounds, disc golf courses, play fields, pocket parks, community gardens, or other types of trails or activities. These amenities can provide opportunities for the residents to enjoy recreation, gathering, and neighborhood interaction without having to leave the community. Environmental protection is a significant component of the proposed development plan. The site contains a wildlife corridor identified in the Eastern Durham Open Space Plan, along with floodplains, streams, and steep slopes. We have committed to leaving these areas, specifically the wildlife corridor and floodplain, undisturbed as open space. Buildings will be separated from environmentally regulated areas, and the stormwater control measures will not be located within the stream buffers. The development plans further commit to using native trees and new plantings, and limiting impervious surface to no more than 60% of the site, which is lower than the required 70%. We have also committed that the post-development runoff rates will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates for the 100-year storm event. Together, these commitments provide additional safeguards for drainage, erosion, and the site's sensitive natural features. The project also provides significant transportation-related commitments. A 10-foot-wide concrete shared-use path will be constructed along the project frontage on Virgil Road to accommodate pedestrian bicyclists. The development will have a primary entrance on Virgil Road and a second connection to the community that exists to the south. There will also be a full movement access at the site driveway and an exclusive northbound left turn lane on Virgil Road. Despite the reduction from 225 to 190 units, we have committed to the transportation improvements identified in the original TIA, including traffic signal at Carpenter Pond Road and Virgil Road, subject to the applicable warrants and approvals from DOT. The project, therefore, incorporates transportation improvements intended to address traffic generated by our project and improve the surrounding roadway network. Taken as a whole, Reserve at Rocky Branch provides a planned approach to residential development that combines additional housing capacity with commitments for housing diversity, affordability, environmental protection, recreation, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, stormwater management, and transportation improvements. The proposal is generally consistent with the city's mixed residential neighborhood place type and was found to be consistent with 21 of the 29 applicable comprehensive plan policies, while several additional policies addressed through compliance with existing UDO standards. The project also provides a direct community investment through a $19,500 contribution to Durham Public Schools. This commitment is intended to help address the development anticipated school impacts and represents a benefit beyond baseline UDO standards. The current proposal establishes the framework of enforceable development community commitments intended to guide the project and mitigate potential impacts to the benefit of the current and future residents of the city of Durham. Thank you.

Thank you. May we have the community members in person who have signed up to speak? Pam, Pam, Wanda, Tina.

Good evening. All right, good evening everyone. My name is Pamela Andrews, 6108 Wake Forest Highway. Durham County's new erosion control and stormwater amendment became effective on May 2023 after rigorous reviews. This amendment was introduced for stricter regulations to prevent sediment runoff. Key changes included additional rows of silt fencing, stricter erosion control of triassic beds and soils, and new use of flocculants. Triassic soils are highly erodible and prone to runoff. this parcel next is it it's called rocky branch but it does not actually touch rocky branch this parcel touches martin branch as shown in the picture the two creeks are separated by virgil road which runs right down the middle deforestation of these parcels will allow sediment to flow into martin branch yet again with every rain shower tree roots really do serve an important purpose as you can see martin branches on the left Virgil Road's down the middle, and Rocky Branch is on the right. Next page. This page shows the two streams separated by Virgil Road. Also notice the steep topography. It's 10% to 25% steep slopes on this site, which can be clear cut, masqueraded, and likely dynamite blasted to get the flat terrain needed for these high density parcels. Notice townhomes are all around. We've got them to the north, to the south, actually to the north, to the south, there to the west, and on the east is the future growth area. Notice the number of streams, back up one, Notice the number of streams impacting on-site which will flow down into Martin Creek. Silk fencing does not hold back drastic clay soil. Next. Best management practices for the new amendment are not keeping sediment from leaving the construction site shown in Sound River's lawsuit settled in September of 2025. Let's look at the impacts of these two densely developed areas. Next. So on your left, that's Rocky Branch without any kind of destruction to around these areas. On the right, Martin Branch has been slammed over and over again. It then flows into Lick Creek, which flows to Falls Lake. Please don't do this.

Good evening. My name is Tina Motley Pearson, and my address is on file. So if you see, I'm going to like piggyback off what she was saying. You see the red arrow in that circle there? That's the site, and you see it's right by the confluence of Martin Branch and Lick Creek, not necessarily next to Rocky Branch and Lick Creek. And clearly, Durham's best management practices are not working. This is Lick Creek at Southview Road, just before entering Falls Lake, and this was just taken last month. In September 2025, the Southern Environmental Law Center worked with Sound Rivers in a lawsuit that resulted in a landmark victory for the Lake Creek watershed. There was clearly a violation of the Clean Water Act due to the amount of sediment from developments upstream of Martin Branch and Hurricane Creek. And like Pam said, even though this development is named Rocky Branch, it's actually Martin Branch. Do you feel like the name of the development might be a little misleading? And do you really think that allowing more development to this already sediment-laden creek with a successful lawsuit against it will magically make all the sediment disappear? Senior Attorney Jamie Whitlock at the Southern Environmental Law Center stated, we cannot allow North Carolina's streams and waterways or Falls Lake to become a dumping ground for developers. So this next slide shows the difference between unimpacted versus impacted streams from construction runoff. The state standard is 50 NTU. And if you look at the column for the impacted stream, like Martin Branch, you see it's all red. A couple of the readings are over 2,000 NTU. State standard is 50 NTU. And the unimpacted stream of Rocky Branch is reading at 3.8 at the lowest to 28.4 at the highest. It's a huge difference. So this is not an area for dense developments. Thank you very much.

Good evening, my name is Thomas Freeman. What I'm gonna focus on primarily is this slide. I have three, but I'd like to draw your attention to what's called the best management practice. Friends, it is not a best, while it may be called a best management practice, it's a horrible management practice. You can see the worker as he is about to commence his work to pump the heavily laden, silt-laden muck out of the permanent sedimentation pond into the creek. You can see both of the blue lines. They're nice and tight and firm. That's because they're pumping that muck into the creek on the other side of the dam. I'd also draw your attention to the collection device, the square concrete device in the center of the page. That's the device that is the drain for that sedimentation pond. And you can see this was on June 30th, just three days after the heavy record-breaking rains on the 28th. So there is a four-day requirement. The contractor here was very eager in that he pumped it three days, and you can tell by the outline, the stain on that shore that he has been pumping for quite a while. Next slide, please. Okay, so you saw the blue hose going over the crest of the dam. While this is not that exact location because we respect the property lines, we don't go on private property, you can see this is what heavy sediment laden water does to a creek. This is Lick Creek, by the way. Next slide. What I'd like for you to take away here is the slide to your right UC Falls Lake, the mouth of Falls Lake used to be at NC 98. The heavy sediment load now establishes it considerably downstream. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name's Pam Williams. I want to talk about the floodplain wildlife corridor, wetland and soils. As you can see on this map right here, the floodplain is in that dark blue, the wildlife corridor is in this muted green, and right around the floodplain is the national wetlands. The amount of national wetlands that will be impacted, I mean, on this property is 1.1 acres. So we should not be disturbing the wetlands. So the commitment for floodplain and wildlife corridor undisturbed. It's almost, it's not a joke and we really do appreciate it, but when it comes down to crossing this property line right here to get to the existing sewer that parallels a Martin Branch, then a No practical alternative would have to be given in order to cross into the wetlands and to get to the existing sewer. So it's not a complete 100%. We're not going to impact wetlands. We're not going to impact the floodplain in this area. I want to bring to your attention, I know it's been mentioned before, that of this land and everything, 31 acres have slopes between 10 and 25%. This is going to require massive grading of the existing terrain in order to make it, the roads and the homes and everything, pretty much level, and to tie into this development down here and up here. Basically, we have massive grade, a lot of sediment coming off. That is why we're asking for just not the 100-year stormwater basin for the sediment basin, but also for the erosion control. We would like 100-year stormwater basins for the erosion control during the five years or four years that it takes from clearing and grabbing to constructing all the homes. And then I, okay, I already mentioned that. Okay, oh my. Thank you, I'm sorry. Eva.

Hi, I'm Wanda Allen, and my address is on file. This slide right here represents the growth, the scale of growth in southeast Durham. The issue before us tonight is not simple growth. It's the fact that the infrastructure is not keeping up with the pace of development already approved and already underway in southeast Durham. The slide shows that 22,000 units are already approved, representing fifty, I'm saying fifty-one thousand additional people, a size of the population of Wilson.

Seventeen thousand four hundred additional vehicles per day.

So the data is showing that the infrastructure is not in place. It's not keeping up. We're not keeping up with fire, EMS, police calls, sewage. So Policy 117 clearly says that we need to address this and we need to make sure that the individuals are safe. Next slide, please. Lit Creek and Brow Creek. This slide is showing what is already happening in Lit Creek and Brow Creek. Since 2023, there have been 34 developments, 29 are underway now. and are underway now. These developments represent 9,341 dwelling units and nearly 80,000 daily vehicles. Yet, listen to this, yet the transportation infrastructure has not kept up. The only improvement is US 70, and it is way behind. We are not developing on empty land, folks. This land is developed already. It can't take any more cumulative impact. Why is the cumulative impact important? Because the effect of Little Lick Creek watershed is only 2.5 miles. These 34 developments are having a major impact. Do not authorize this, please.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Ava Pearson. Sorry. Good evening, my name is Ava Pearson, and I live at 2205 Olive Branch Road. In Southeast Durham, we don't have enough fire service, EMS, police, or infrastructure for the amount of development taking place. For this particular development in Southeast Durham, Stations 8 and 17 are the primary fire stations. Fire Station 8 does not have EMS. Station 17 is a six-minute drive from this location and only has coverage from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. EMS has not been included in the operational impact analysis as requested by the county commissioners. Slide. When you start adding lots of people to an area, chances for accidents go up, and the nearest police station is a 12-minute drive away. Policy 119 ensures new development within the urban growth boundaries are within the established level of service for emergency services. Durham police have 397 sworn positions filled, including more than 60 recruits in training, but there are still 134 vacancies. We need adequate infrastructure to protect the citizens. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rebecca Freeman. Good evening, Planning Commission, Chair Suarez, and Commissioners. I'm Rebecca Freeman. I have lived in Durham all my life, and right now I'm living, my home is off Highway 98 in southeast Durham. Commissioners, my presentation to you tonight is nothing new. In fact, it's already been mentioned. It continues the thread that Ms. Allen and Ms., Ava was speaking about just a moment ago. There is a see no problem, hear no problem, and speak no problem attitude about infrastructure services needed for all the growth that has already occurred, approved developments not yet started, and more developments in the pipeline. Where is the planning for fire, EMS, and police for the additional thousands of new residents already moved in, for the thousands of new dwelling units being constructed, and even more development still in the planning stage through the approval process. It's been recognized and acknowledged by the city officials for years. Additional fire services to southeast Durham is needed. That was way back several years ago or more. No more development until they could get a fire station. It's nowhere to be seen. Nowhere on the books. Police Department continues to report staff shortages. EMS services must frequently call on other counties for help or just delay services delivered to callers' detriment. This has happened many times. We recognize and applaud all Durham first responders who provide services to Durham residents. This is not their fault. But with each additional development approved and built, infrastructure falls further and further behind. Why is Durham focused only on building housing, packing people in, but not the core services that new residents need? In fact, the lack of services infrastructure puts all residents at risk. Y'all, me, all of us here in this room, even those who have lived in Durham for many, many years. This is not responsible growth. Durham officials must publicize their plan to right-size infrastructure. It's totally irresponsible to continue this pattern. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak? Nope. Anybody on the Zoom? Donna Steinbeck?

Hello, this is Donna Stainback. Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Okay. The slide that you were just looking at was on the sewer capacity of the Lick Creek Lift Station. At the March 5th meeting in 2026, presenting the sewer capacity issues of the three highest capacity basins, they presented the status of Lick Creek at 67%. That doesn't sound too bad, but when you break it down, it comes to be that this southeast regional station pumps to the Lick Creek station And that only has 2,375 three-bedroom units remaining of units permitted in use. Well, we have over 3,524 approved but not permitted project developments in this area as of March 1, 2026. Lick Creek is overcommitted by an estimated 1,149 units, you know, two to three bedrooms, if they were started in the next four to five years, or, of course, if they were started earlier, because the improvement to fix this problem is not due until 2031 at a cost of $25 million. My concern is how can these projects be considered when we are already looking at such significant impacts to infrastructure? And who is keeping up with the infrastructure impacts? Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else on the Zoom wishing to speak? Please raise your hand. Or if you're on a phone, star nine. Going once. Going twice. Gone. Okay. The public hearing is now closed. Are there any commissioner questions or comments? Any discussion? Nope. May I have a motion to move case Z2400042, reserve at Rocky Branch, forward with a favorable recommendation?

Chair, as it relates to the reserve at Rocky Branch, case Z2400042, I move that we forward this case, this application forward to City Council with a favorable recommendation.

Second.

Second.

It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to move this case forward with a favorable recommendation. May we have the electronic voting, please?

So it's 11-10-0 or 11-0.

The motion fails 10 to 0.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda, 6B. We'll wait for Commissioner Montes to return. Item 6B, Thompson Village, Z2500026. May we have the staff report, please?

Good afternoon, Chair Shearer, Vice Chair Cameron, and Planning Commissioners. Peyton Burgess back again, this time to present Z2500026, Thompson Village. The proposal requests to rezone seven parcels of land totaling approximately four and a half acres from residential suburban 20 to residential suburban multifamily with a textual development plan. The requested zoning would allow for up to 80 dwelling units, though it is unlikely that the site would reach that density as the proposal does not allow multiplex or apartment housing types. Again, the request is to rezone the existing residential Suburban 20 to residential Suburban multifamily with a textual development plan. The site is currently surrounded by residential Suburban 20. The aerial map shows the general location of the project. The property is designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map. The proposal was found to be consistent with the designated place type. The textural development plan has a variety of commitments, including limiting the housing types, 60% maximum impervious surface, no mass grading, a minimum of 5% tree coverage, native street trees, and a donation to DPS and the dedicated housing fund. I want to also note here that this case is a little bit different than what you're used to seeing because there is not a commitment to a certain number of units or density. Because of this, the site would allow up to 80 units by right because of the requested zoning. Additionally, the proposal would not be required to meet a minimum number of units like you typically see in cases that do have a specific requested density. The applicant held neighborhood meetings on March 11th, 2026 and July 27th, 2026. No community members attended the first and one attended the second. There have been two comments against this proposal received on the Durham rezoning explore. The proposal is consistent with the designated place type of mixed presidential neighborhood and with 18 of 26 applicable comprehensive plan policies, though it should be noted that one policy is to be determined. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions.

Thank you. The chair is now opening the public hearing. May we have the applicant please?

Good evening. I was eight years old when my grandfather started building the house for my aunt at 3809 Mary Martin Road. He asked me to help him. He was breaking some brick pavers to put into a patio that he was making, and he told me to tap it gently, and I took the hammer and smashed it, and then he told me he didn't need me to help him much more. It's been a minute since I was eight years old. That was my aunt's house, my uncle's house, my cousin's house. My aunt died first approximately five years ago. My cousin died from cancer approximately three years ago. And my uncle died one year ago, roughly, and I inherited the land. I've been on that land all of my life. My grandfather lived just down the road a little bit. He built the house. His name was George W. Ray. My ties to the community are extensive and go back to the time that I was born. Not born there, but was always there with grandma and granddaddy, my uncles, aunts, and everybody else. What I want to do there is approximately 19 homes is what we will do for single family homes. And if we do town homes, it would be 30, 35 something like that would be the maximum number you could put there. The site is only four and a half acres. We did have some meetings. We had two extra meetings, by the way. No one came to those meetings also. Everybody that I have talked to has been in favor of the development, including a lady that called me today. One of the problems that is out there, one of the problems that the area has is that the soils are a red clay soil, and many of the septic systems are beginning to fail, and it will be very difficult to build back a septic system in those red clay soils. The house at 3809 already has city water, but it does not have city sewer. There was one woman, a very sweet lady that lives across the street, I think she's one of the NAVE votes or one of the people that voted against it, and I promised I would tell you that she said she didn't want town homes because she didn't want the traffic, and I promised her I'd tell you, and I have now told you. Everyone else that I talked to was in favor of the development, and all of them, even if they weren't excited about it, were excited about sewer being in that area because they're worried about their septic systems. There are no streams on the property. Again, it is four and a half acres. There are no floodplains on the property at all. We are approximately 5.7 miles from the police substation, and we are 3.8 miles from the fire station. I hope you will vote to let us go forward with this development, and I'm open for any questions. My engineer is here if you have any technical questions. He knows more than I do.

Thank you. And your name was? Lee Lambert. So, okay. Nobody else has signed up on the in-person sheet? Is there anybody else? Are there any? Anybody on the Zoom wishing to speak on this item? Please raise your hand or use a star nine on your cell phone. Nope. Sure. Is it related to this specific case? Yes. Okay. Please step to the podium and state your name and address for the record.

It's my mother who is concerned about this. Her address is 3904 Mary Barton Road. And she's been there since 1978. And when they originally built, it was required for them to have an acre. And as far as the septic systems, I'm not aware of them failing around that neighborhood at all. Hers is fine. She did have to pay to be put on city water. What does that mean for her coming forward if they run water down there? Are they going to make her redo her water? And the roads around there, the infrastructure is not set up for that kind of community. Those roads are not paved with – they don't have the curbs and everything else. Those are small dirt roads that they just – put blacktop on. And also, the question comes down to, also, as he builds this and he says, you know, up 280, but he's telling you guys he has no direct number, can you limit the number that he can build before, instead of just leaving it open? And does he have to pay for improvements to get the roads up to the standard? Will she have to repay to hook up to city water again? The other people that are on that road that have city water, would they have to pay to hook up again? Those are questions she has, and nobody can seem to help her answer it. Also, is he going to have natural areas like a park or something? If you're going to develop many houses in that one little area, are you going to have a park or something for those people in that area? Because right now in that area, there are no parks. and I mean I've been She you know she's really concerned about you know the traffic and then multiple housing units It would be one thing a single family four units per acre even if he went to eight units per acre because you guys let him go with the density But he's talking about townhouses and stuff unless you limit how many he can go right now it says he doesn't have a fixed number and that concerns her too and And like he said, we've been there since I was eight years old. They bought the land when it had already started being developed, and I knew the Thompsons. So that's her concern.

What was your mother's name? Joyce, J-O-Y-C-E. And the last name?

Gregory, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y.

Okay, thank you. Was the applicant care?

No, the traffic goes to Southern High down that road now. Okay.

Yeah, and now, yeah, there's people parking on the side of the road and everything else. I don't know if, you know, would that become another issue, people parking on the road? now we have people who have moved in across the street and they're parking on the roadway will that continue to happen as they develop that area and what road is he planning on using to filter the traffic in and out of that area because none of those roads are ready for that kind of track thank you thank you applicant could you please address some of these concerns yes ma'am and I am so glad that I kept my word and said I knew there was somebody that was not not going to be for it

The maximum number of single-family homes that can be built, and I'll be glad to limit it to that, are 20. The maximum number of townhomes that we could build are 42, and I would limit the number to 42, although I am 80% sure. Yes, ma'am? I'm sorry the maximum number of single-family homes that we could build is 20 in terms of getting them the homes on there with the setbacks and everything that's required for stormwater Open space that we're voluntary doing is 20 will limit it at 20 the maximum number of townhomes that we could do and I don't think we'll be doing towns, but I'd like to leave that option open and is 42, and so I would limit it to 42. The street in front of the development is approximately 50 feet wide. Is that right? 40, 50 feet wide? 60 foot right away. So honestly, it would be enough to handle both the towns and the singles based on the width. And of course, anything that we build will be built to city specs inside of the development.

So that's a commitment?

Yes, ma'am.

to either 20. Sorry, let me jump in really quick right here. Peyton Burgess again. So the reason why this site has not capped the amount of homes, as the applicant has worked with me throughout this process, is because the UDO has a clause that basically says that you have to meet 20% of whatever your proposed density is or you can't go any more than 20 less than that so you have to essentially hit 80 of whatever number you propose and when working with the applicant on this project they expressed their desire to have flexibility um if they wanted to do townhouses or single family and the difference in the amount of units that they could get would be too much so if they committed to the number for townhouses, but then they decided to do single family, they wouldn't hit that 80% mark. So per the UDO, they would actually have to come back for rezoning. So kind of a way around this and what's happening here with this is they've requested the entire density entitlements of the district. So there is still a textual development plan, but it does not limit to a specific number of units, and if you were to add a commitment to a specific number of units, then you would then be subject again to that clause saying that you would have to hit at least 80% of that density. That said, there will be a UEA for this case, a utility extension agreement, and that is another way. It doesn't necessarily limit via the same avenue that zoning does, but the utility extension agreement does bind an applicant to a specific number of units. And I believe that the utility extension agreement that is in the works right now was for a maximum of 40 units, I think. But I can confirm that and pull that up in just a second.

That sounds right.

42.

42. Can I commit to doing the UTA at 42 units and not mess up my zoning, Peyton? No.

No, that's not something that you would be able to commit to. That's just a separate thing that's going on with this project that's currently gone through and under review. And we just don't have that document ready yet because it just hasn't been finalized and signed. But that is it is under the application at 42 units.

So I guess I don't want to mess me up because I don't want to have to build. I don't think it's going to be towns. I think it's going to be singles. Sometimes it takes, I mean, I've started this development a year and a half ago. And by the time it might get started to be developed, it could be another year, year and a half. I have to be able to sell it to make money. If everybody needs townhomes, then I'd like to be able to do townhomes and sell them to them. If everybody needs single-family houses, I'd like to be able to sell those to them. So as Peyton said, I don't want to mess me up, but I do want to try to work with neighbors and give them not exactly what they want maybe, but there's just no way you could put 80 on there. You can't do that. Honestly, if I could, I'd try, but I can't. So tell me what to do and I'll try to do it. What should I do?

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions on this particular proposal that I don't know that we can answer them.

Would it be possible to postpone and do the UTA and then come back?

So the utility extension, Aaron Cain with the Planning Department, the utility extension agreement only goes to council. That is something that is reviewed by the Planning Commission. And that will have a firm number of unit, maximum number of units. As Peyton said, it's currently drafted at a maximum of 42. He would not be able to go above that number without revising the UEA and potentially bringing it back to council for another approval of that UEA. So that would limit him on the number of units. I believe also you are committing to not doing apartments. And as you said, apartments are really the only way to get to that 80 number. And if you're not doing apartments, you're not going to get to that 80 number because you're not doing apartments.

Correct. I am not doing apartments. Can I commit to that without getting in trouble?

You have committed to that, yes.

Okay, good. I commit to not doing apartments, therefore I cannot get to 80, and the maximum I can do is 42, but I probably want to do single family, if you'll let me.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am, thank you.

I'm going to close the public hearing and open up for Commissioner comments and questions. Any questions, comments?

Commissioner Nunn-Kirchner? Yes, my question is, if 42 is the maximum, what's the minimum to have this change in zoning?

So the 42 number that we're talking about of units is in the utility extension agreement. I don't believe that it has a minimum. There's no minimum? No, but because that's in the utility extension agreement, so it's not a commitment of the zoning. The zoning in the UDO is where that comes in, that requirement for a minimum.

Okay, so that requirement comes in when we change the...

When you make the commitment to a certain density, yes.

I see. Oh. So does the RS, Residential Suburban Multifamily with Development Plan, require a minimum or maximum? No. No, it does not.

Okay. Well, the zoning inherently limits it, limits the density to a maximum, which is that 80 units. But that's just the zoning. So like we said earlier, since he's limiting the apartments and saying he's not going to do that, the zoning technically allows up to 80 units. You couldn't physically get 80 units. Okay.

Excuse me. And as he stated, his plan is to sell and to sell at the maximum. So if it's zoned... Residential suburban multifamily with development plan would that be that's what he was aiming for to increase its value Is that correct? Sir you have to step to the podium I'm sorry. I need clarification on some of these things because it's very confusing so the 4.4 acres In this particular area where there's no infrastructure to support multiple housing, right? There's like according to what I've looked at and what I've heard from the community that would stress and tax the community with more I mean on four acres to put what, 42 housing units? Is that right? That's 10 units per acre. Think about that. That's significant. So this is what, and this is so you can go and tap into the water and sewer.

There is city water to most of the houses, including the house that my uncle, my grandfather built on site has city water. We do not have city sewer. And I understand that not all septic systems out there are failing, but I know that some out there are. The reason that I'm not allowed to limit the density except by that UTA I can do that in the UTA which I've done I will not there is no way that it would be 80 if we did townhomes is it possible to get to 42 I kind of doubt it since I want to keep my grandfather's house that he built on the corner it's limited to 36 maybe but see I can't do that I have to put that on the UTA

So your objective to add the sewer service to the property, that 4.4 acres, is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

That's your objective? Yes, ma'am. Is there another way that objective can be reached without changing the UDO, changing the residential suburban to residential suburban, multifamily with planned development?

So sewer access is from annexation. You're able to get sewer access once you're annexed. Separately from the annexation is the rezoning request.

Oh. So is that included in this proposal, the annexation?

So the Planning Commission, so annexations are not brought to the Planning Commission. So you all review zonings, rezonings. Okay. So. Thank you. That clarifies everything.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Yes, Commissioner Hunter.

I don't know that I have a question. I just have a statement. It feels like we're putting the cart before the horse.

I can't hear you. Sorry.

It seems like we're putting the cart before the horse in this situation. There are a lot of unanswered questions in relation to what's going to be built, points of entry, points of exit. It looks like you have an exit off of, or you have a portion of the land off of Valmet Road or Drive. Would you, and is it possible to do some sort of continuation to allow him time to get some of these questions answered and brought back to the commission? Or is that something you're interested in?

I'll be glad to. I mean, first of all, if I am allowed to sign the UTA, I could sign the UTA before we come back, and that would dramatically limit the number of units that could be done, if I'm allowed to do that. Am I?

So you are allowed to sign the utility extension agreement. However, it is not in force until it is approved by city council. Okay, so you could sign that. I think we have a draft version regarding Commissioner Hunter's question for a continuance. The Planning Commission has the right to do that. It can continue the case. You must hear it within 90 days or it automatically goes forward. So you can continue it up to three months. But from what I've heard from the applicant is that The applicant's not going to know in the next 90 days whether he's going to build single-family or townhouses. So unless that's the determination you're looking for and he's not able to make that in the 90 days, I don't know that there's much benefit to a continuance on those grounds. If you have other reasons and other concerns, that's certainly your prerogative, but just something to keep in mind.

I would like to continue it for a month, and let me see if I can answer questions if that's okay.

I was going to address this during new business. We have no cases on the calendar for next month, and we are going to instead hold your retreat next month during the Planning Commission time. So I would ask that if this is continued, that it be for two months.

Commissioner Montes, do you have a question?

No, not a question. I'd just like to give you a couple points. If you were to continue right now, there's not much that's gonna change. If the concern is you have an understanding of what your maximum lot yield is gonna be, just limit that on your UEA, work with staff, go to council. This is just my point of advice. It's not gonna change anything for you to continue it right now.

Okay.

You're not going to have a site plan. We're not going to understand points of entry. We're not going to understand any of that. We're here to vote on your rezoning. That's it. So fix the UEA. Limit it. I would advise you go to council.

Okay. If I could address points of entry. Given that it is a four-acre site, first of all, planning staff indicated that they would prefer us not to go on, I think it's Flanders Drive. And so we did a strip of land down Flanders Drive that we've designated as the open space that will not be touched. That will put us as one entrance on Mary Martin and then one entrance for safety purposes on... Oh, I'm sorry. One entrance on Mary Martin and one entrance on Fountain. Is that right? Come here and tell me then.

This is Craig Dewar. So I'm Craig Dewar with Land Alternatives. I'm his consultant, 403 April Bloom Lane, Cary, North Carolina. Yeah, I was going to kind of echo a little bit what Commissioner Montes was saying, is that if there's questions that we could answer, I wasn't aware that we had, other than the density question, I wasn't aware of other questions that needed to get answered at this point. Valmet Drive, it's not possible to connect to Valmet Drive. If you look at the plan, it's a narrow little strip of about 20 feet wide That is one of our proposed routes for sewer, but we can't access it in that direction. We have talked to the transportation staff about requirements for a traffic impact study. One wasn't required. They determined that there's no traffic impacts associated with this project to your own staff. We have discussed at length with staff about connecting to Flanders or not. Um, if we connected to Flanders, we'd have to improve Flanders from what is now actually a dirt road to a paved public street. Um, if we did single family, we may or may not. If we did townhomes, we wouldn't. Um, but we haven't, again, we haven't committed to exactly what our point of entries are because it depends on whether it's a townhome development or a single family development. Um, But there'll definitely be a point of access on Mary Martin. We actually made a commitment for a community amenity to address the lack of community amenities in the area. So if there's other questions we can answer, that'd be great. But if it's only about density, I agree that that's not going to change in the next 90 days because we have to wait for the UAA.

Can we continue this for two months?

This is requested.

Yes, we can continue it. We'll have to make a motion on that. I do have a comment before then. Yes, ma'am. I did some quick math. At 4.4 acres divided by, if it was 20 single family homes, that would be less than a quarter of an acre each, not including the amount of land that would have to be removed for roads. 42 townhomes would be a tenth of an acre, not including what would have to be removed for roads and parking access. So it's highly doubtful that it would be the 20 single-family homes, because I just don't see how that's, I mean, unless they're like, 15th of an acre or 0.15 of an acre each anyhow a lot of unanswered questions so yes i believe at this point and figuring out the access and how much is actually of this 4.4 acres is going to have to be lost to parking or road access is going to be very important in the decision-making process. So that being said, may I have a motion to continue this case for 60 days or two meeting cycles, I believe is the proper verbiage.

Chair, as it relates to case Thompson Village, case Z2500026, I move that this case be continued for 60 days or the next two.

You can just do this on a voice vote. You don't need to do the electronic voting for a continuous.

Two meeting cycles to be heard at the October meeting. Second.

It has been moved by Vice Chair Cameron and seconded by Commissioner Hunter to delay this Z25000 or continue Z2500026 Thompson Village for two meeting cycles to be readdressed at the October Planning Commission meeting. May I have a... All in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Thank you. Item seven on the agenda, committee updates. Updated rules of procedure, Vice Chair Cameron. Did you want to say something first?

I wasn't sure if you wanted me to say something or you.

I can report.

Go for it.

So the Rules and Procedures Subcommittee met a couple of times in the spring to review and update our rules and procedures. The majority of the edits are just housekeeping. First of all, they were all attached to your agenda with the PDF for everyone to read. The majority of the edits are housekeeping items, correcting the name of the department to the planning and development department. I, in particular, want to call out page 7 of 17, 3.5 quorum, B becomes B, there was an A, there's a B, and now there's a C, which continues on page 8 of 17. Once a quorum has been established for a hearing, the unexcused withdrawal of a department DPC member does not extinguish the quorum for the purposes of the present hearing before the DPC. The withdrawing members' votes shall be counted as provided in section 6.1 below. Basically, if you leave a meeting and you're not here to vote, it just counts as an affirmative vote. Yes, right, that's what it's saying, basically. Yep, okay. The next I would like to call everyone's attention to is 11 of 17. the 5.3 governing body notification. We've added a sentence there. Previously, it just read, the chair shall direct the clerk to notify the appropriate governing party of the attendance record of any DPC member who misses more than three regular meetings in a 12-month period. And the addition is, in addition, upon the finding of three unexcused absences within a 12-month period, the commission may, by majority vote, recommend to the appropriate governing body the removal of the commissioner from the DPC. That reasoning is because we have business to move forward for the community of Durham, for the citizens of Durham. If we have too many absences, it gets very hard to have a quorum of eight. We had a period here with the commission where we had to cancel a couple meetings because we did not have a quorum. And so we want to hopefully deteriorate commissioners taking these appointments and then not showing up on a regular basis and being able to participate, serve the community, and be able to move this business forward. Page 13 of 17 under 6.3D, there's also an addition. The previous just read of an objection is raised by DPC members' participation at or prior to the hearing or vote on a particular matter and that member does not recuse themselves, the remaining DPC members shall, by majority vote, rule on the objection. And we added, if a community member objects to a DPC member's voting participation in a particular matter, such objection must be submitted in writing prior to the start of their regular scheduled meeting at which the matter will be heard. In such cases, if the DPC member in question does not voluntarily recuse themselves, the remaining DPC members in attendance shall by majority vote rule on the objection. Again, this is clarifying from an issue that came up with a community member questioning about a commission member's conflict of interest, and we hope that would add some more steps to the process for everyone to follow. Are there any questions to the committee that participated? Need any more explanation?

I have a quick question, and it says in writing. Does it specify to who? Like, is it Aaron? It should always go to the staff. So it's in writing to city staff.

Which one are you asking?

The last one that we did. I mean, even if they use the generic planning commission, it goes to staff.

And on the attendance, it says unexcused. So if you do the 24-hour notice ahead of time and that's considered an excused absence, then those are not counting as part of the three. It's just unexcused. Just unexcused.

They are not counting as part of the three, but the first paragraph is remaining where if you have four absences for any reason, excused or unexcused, we do report that to the clerk's office and then consult with the officers, the chair and vice chair as to how to move forward. It is not bringing it to the level of the three unexcused absences where the planning commission could make a recommendation for removal. It doesn't do that. It just lets the clerk's office know there's been an issue.

Basically, if you get to three, the reasoning was if you get to three unexcused absences, the commission can have the option to accelerate the process and recommend to the city or the county for removal instead of having to wait.

Sounds good.

Madam Chair, I move that the updated rules and procedures be accepted by the Planning Commission. Is that correct?

I was just going to say, I think you all can voice vote on the rules of procedure. I think that's fine.

Yeah. So we have a motion by Vice Chair Cameron that the updated rules of procedure, do I have a second? It's been seconded by Commissioner Hunter that we approve the updated rules of procedure. May we have a voice vote? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Okay, thank you. Number eight, new business, Erin Kane.

Yes, my thunder was stolen a little bit on that last previous item. We have no cases currently calendared for next month. It's just a quirk of how the cases have been falling and the reviews have been going. So we wanted to take that opportunity. You all usually like to have an annual Our retreat we've been doing that for several years now and so since you all were supposed to be here anyway we thought we'd go ahead and do that remember that meeting is scheduled for Thursday September 10th. Due to the court other quirks of the calendar the 7th being a Labor Day and so the council's meeting on the 8th. which would normally be our day. So you all last year moved it to Thursday, September 10th. It'll be at 5.30. We will not be in this room. We will be down in conference room GA. I will send you all information on that, but it's downstairs. It's a good-sized conference room that should fit us easily. We do have several activities for you, one of which will have you arguing with each other and moving around most likely, and we're really looking forward to that. uh we the other thing it will do is one we'll have a probably slightly especially now that we've continued a case to um october we will likely have a longer than normal meeting in october but i think we'll be okay we'll also need to do officer elections in october um normally we do them in september but if we are not having a formal meeting then we'll do them in october Just as a reminder, this is Chair Chigaris is finishing her first year as chair. She is eligible for a second term as chair. If you reelect Chair Chigaris, we will need to have a vice chair that is from the city. Chair Chigaris is a county appointee. uh the rules procedure require and the interlocal agreement i believe requires that the vice chair be from the other jurisdiction if you choose to not re-elect uh chair chigaris or she chooses not to run um the next chair would need to be a city appointee you cannot have two county appointees follow and then the county i mean then the vice chair would need to be a county appointee So I'll reach out to the current chair and vice chair, see if they're interested in continuing. But if there are any other nominations, please send them to me. Otherwise, that's all I have.

I have a quick question. When are we going to have that vote? In October or September? When are we going to have that vote? In September or October?

We'll have the election, officer elections in October. We need to do them. Because we don't have September. We need to do them during a formal meeting in a public, in a more public setting.

What date in October?

It's the second Tuesday, whatever that is. It's the, I think it's the 13th. There we go.

I have a quick question about the not meeting next month since it's now the, since I have had something come up and I'm not going to be there. Since it's not a meeting and it's the thing, does that count as an absence?

You know, that's a good question. It's not come up before. We have never counted retreat attendance as mandatory for attendance purposes. So I think my off-the-cuff answer would be no. If you cannot attend, a quorum is also not required. But we will be serving dinner. So if you're looking for a free meal, come to the retreat on the 10th. Plan is to get Neomond, so it'll be good stuff.

I guess that was number nine, staff announcements. Number 10, adjournment. The meeting is adjourned at 7.03 p.m.