Remarks by Geoffrey Green
92 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 4
- Play at 3:02
“You don't need to. There's no rule of procedure that you have to abstain. I know it's been a practice, but I disagree strenuously with that practice. I move to adopt the August 18, September 1, and September 15 meeting minutes.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 15:27
“Thank you. The updated LUMO references not only native plants, but adapted tree species. That's right. And that's not a defined term in the LUMO. What are adapted tree species?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 16:27
“It makes, it'll take me a second to find it, but it makes reference to allowing the bonuses for native tree species and adapted tree species. And since that wasn't defined anywhere in the ordinance, I didn't know what it meant.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 23:40
“Classifications. I actually have a comment on that as well, but just my comments have to do with, I have a bunch of comments, but my relevant ones have to do with housing generally. That issue, the issue you mentioned with the road classifications. And those are my big ones.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 24:14
“I think in the context of the housing in the class.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 25:46
“All right. Well, I'll start. And I don't know if folks agree or disagree. OK, so two comments about housing. First, the general, and then getting to the point about the road classifications and the greenways as well. First, one thing I really appreciate in the update of LUMO is that there have been some changes, I think. I don't remember exactly what's allowed in the current regulations. to try to put one-unit dwellings on the same playing field as two, three, and four-unit dwellings so that it's not, you know, the default is not, you know, the easiest thing that you can build is one-unit…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 27:35
“I'm talking about the 5,000 and 6,000 square foot.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 27:44
“Single family homes can be as large as people want them to be, given all the other limitations that apply. Obviously, your lot size, your setbacks, your maximum height, your lot coverage, your building coverage. There's a whole bunch of regulations. But besides that, you can build your single family home as big as you want to be. There are plenty of single family homes in Chapel Hill that are ginormous. Duplexes are limited generally to 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. So that's an average of 2,500 per dwelling unit. Three unit and four unit buildings are limited to 6,000 square feet.…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 28:35
“Second, one of the main reasons we've permitted so much new residential multi-unit housing in Blue Hill and elsewhere downtown is to provide more options for students. And I think those have been very successful. Despite what you hear, people actually do live in these buildings, including many students. And finally, it's a rule that's wildly over inclusive because it applies everywhere. I certainly can be sympathetic to the idea that neighborhoods near UNC are at risk of having larger student stuffers built near there, communities such as Northside, where we came up with regulations that…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 36:56
“Do we know how many duplexes have been built in Chapel Hill since both the original Housing Choices Amendment and then the omnibus?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 37:16
“So not a lot. I'll also suggest that, I mean, I can't say that I've looked very closely at the evidence, but Sacramento, California enacted what they thought was a very progressive missing middle housing ordinance. And they tried to address affordability by having, they used a slightly different approach using floor area ratio, but which had sort of a sliding scale based on the number of units to try to make those smaller units. And they're getting rid of it because they're just not getting housing production. I think whether it's 12 units, whether it's 20 units over, I mean, it's been…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 39:15
“I think that's a very good idea, Libby. And again, I don't want this to, I mean, I'm inclined to have it be a recommendation that staff look, that council direct staff to look at this after it's adopted, because I don't want to kill any of it. So.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 43:48
“Yeah, it's the idea that we'll draft up and then come back the next meeting with language. So what I've heard is consider having council, recommending the council direct staff to look into additional ways to address two and three, four unit housing size and potential impacts by considering an overlay district that could address particular concerns around student housing types, and then also Libby's suggestion around scaling based on lot size.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 44:28
“Yeah, I just, again, I think this is a big improvement, and it's not more limiting than what there is now. So I'm in, you know. Okay, all right. That's just, whatever, I mean, I'm happy to do whatever the group thinks, but I think having staff to do.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 44:49
“Well, it could get bogged down, you know, where should the boundaries of this district be? And they're not doing map amendments until after the LUMO is updated, so. We can, I'll try to wordsmith it.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 49:38
“Do we want, since we were talking about housing, do we want to, would this be a good segue to the Collector Street Greenway arterial?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 55:20
“If I can build on your comments, I mean, My concern, honestly, is with the sort of mechanistic identification of places that are appropriate for three and four family housing based on essentially an NCDOT-created street classification system. Arterials are intended to be sort of high-capacity roads that carry the bulk of traffic. Are those great places to put three and four family homes? I mean, I think the segment of Estes, just looking at the map, you certainly wouldn't put anything on Fordham. The segment of Estes in between the library and Caswell, I think, is sort of awful. It's now got…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 57:52
“Yeah, I just don't think these are, you know, when you think about, I mean, I generally find it problematic that we stick all of our multifamily apartment buildings on the largest roads that we have, which are the noisiest place and the least pleasant place to live. And again, single family homes get the quietest locations furthest from any road traffic. And I think this is sort of perpetuating that. And so I would recommend, again, similar to the recommendations around around the sizes of three- and four-unit dwellings to sort of figure out another way of coming back after this is adopted…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:06:00
“I'm sort of convinced by Taz's argument that this is a first shot. And I agree that the school nodes are maybe not the most effective on the other hand it does allow more tries and quads in more places so it doesn't hurt so so this is the first shot like john i'm also fine with the collectors with sidewalks and arterial and”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:08:39
“housing unless we're done with housing was there anything else housing wise Jeff on your list I don't think so I did have a housing related question for Taz and this may have been answered in the prior two meetings that I did not attend so I apologize about that I'll simply put it. Are the RA, the R1, and the R1A districts identical?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:09:26
“OK. I'll just say I find it incredibly confusing because you end up, it took me, I do this for a living, it took me three, several read throughs to understand that was the case. I actually did a search for RA to see if there was any point that RA was mentioned as a condition for some standard where R1 or R1A was not mentioned. So it's fine. I assume you did it that way so that people don't think there's been a change in the district where there hasn't been one. But we have a pretty educated community that could probably be OK with the idea that they were in R1 and they're now in RA. Just a…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:24:01
“I'm just curious. It's probably a question for staff. Are there any examples of where a project in a certain location, how far that, what's the word, the scope of analysis would extend?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:24:28
“Do you have any examples of, I don't know, sites that have recently been developed, what the downstream scope of analysis would have been?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:24:53
“I only say that because we're adding a new standard that seems pretty rigorous and requires a lot of effort, but we don't seem to know how much it's going to cost or how much it's going to impact. So we can continue with it. But I had wondered about the downstream analysis.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:42:28
“Do you have a specific requirement? The table was neat with the different types of development and what they need to comply with. Do you have a recommendation for how that should be? Do you have a specific recommendation for how that should be strengthened?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026