So now we're ready to talk about the so-called binomial theorem. The binomial theorem gets its name because we want to talk about how do you multiply out the expression x plus a to the nth power. X plus a is a binomial. If you want to take the power of a typical binomial, what happens? Well, it might seem weird to start here, but I'm going to start with the zero with power. If you raise something to the zero with power, you should get one. So x plus a to the zero with power is going to be one. Great. Then you look at the next one, x plus a to the first. Okay? Well, if you take something to the first power, there's really nothing to expand. You're just going to get x plus a right here. Things get a little bit more interesting. We get x plus a squared. x plus a squared, what does that mean here? Of course, that means you're going to take x plus a times x plus a, and you have to foil that thing out. You're going to get x times x, which is an x squared. x times a, and then an a times x, and then an a squared. When you combine like terms, you're going to get x squared plus 2ax plus a squared. All right? x plus a cubed. How does one do that? Well, x plus a cubed would mean x plus a times x plus a times x plus a. Now, the first one, x plus a squared, we already did that one. That's above. So we get x plus 2ax plus a squared. If you multiply those things out, you're going to get, distribute the x squared. You're going to get x cubed. Distribute the x squared onto the a. You get, I'm combining some like terms right here. Oh, I went the other way around. Sorry. We're going to distribute the x first. So x squared times x is x cubed. x times 2ax is a 2ax squared. x times a squared is going to be an a squared x. Then distribute the a. You're going to get an ax squared. Distribute the a on the 2. You get a 2a squared x. And then lastly, you get an a cubed, like so. If we combine like terms, there's x squared that can combine. There's x's that can combine.  To do the next one, it's a little bit more complicated. What you would do is you would take x plus a cubed times x plus a. We multiply this thing out. We're going to take the coefficients from this guy right here, combine like terms, and you're going to end up with just the, I'm just going to list the final product. You're going to end up with x to the fourth, 4ax cubed plus 6a squared x squared, 4a cubed x and a to the fourth. I kind of hit the magic there, but I want to show you something that's going to be pretty neat. So if you look at the coefficients in the sequence, the first one was a one. When you take the zeroth power, when you take the first power, you get one and one. When you take the second power, you get one, two and one. When you take the third power, you get one, three, three and one. And although I didn't do the details for all these, if you do the fourth power, you can confirm it yourself. You're going to get four, six, six, four and one, which these numbers look very familiar. Aha! This is none other than just Pascal's triangle, right? One, one, one, two, one, one, three, three, one, one, four, six, four, one. When you start multiplying out these polynomial expressions, these binomial powers, the coefficients you get are just going to be the numbers in Pascal's triangles with those numbers are called the binomial coefficients. They're called the binomial coefficients because of the binomial theorem. So when one multiplies out something like x plus a to the nth power, what are we expecting?  So we look at all the possible combinations. So like look here, we have x to the fourth, we have one a three x's, two a's, two x's, three a's, one x, zero x's, four a's. So we look at all the possible ways of combining two numbers, two natural numbers to make four. And you see there's five possibilities, zero plus four, one plus three, two plus two, three plus one and four plus zero. Those are the two possible ways. So that's what these monomials are going to look like in this expansion. Then the coefficients are just the nth row of Pascal's triangle using the binomial coefficients. So this is then the binomial theorem, x plus a to the nth power. It'll look like this polynomial where the powers of x's are getting smaller. The powers of a are getting bigger until eventually we end up with, why is that an a? That should be a two, a squared. And so in the end, you go from a to the zero up to a to the n. And then the coefficients are just the binomial coefficients from Pascal's triangle. It's a beautiful little theorem. Let me put it into practice right here. We're going to use, oh boy, typos galore here, we're going to use the binomial theorem to expand x plus two to the fifth power. So thinking of Pascal's triangle, I'm going to need that. So we get one, one, one, two, one, two, one, one, three, three, one, one, four, six, four, one. And then the fifth row is going to look like one five, 10, 10, five, one. Of course, if you have Pascal's triangle written in front of you, you don't have to go through these calculations over and over again. So by Pascal's, by the binomial theorem, what we get is the following. x plus two to the fifth is going to look like five choose zero times two to the zero x to the fifth. Then we're going to get five choose one times two to the first x to the fourth plus five choose two x are two squared x cubed. Then we're going to get five choose three times two cubed x squared. Then next we're going to get five choose four, two to the fourth x. And then finally we get five choose five, which is going to be two to the fifth x to the zero. So simplify these things five choose zero from Pascal's triangles of one two to the zero is one, and we get x to the fifth. The next one five choose one is a five two to the first is two, we get x to the fourth. Next one five choose two is 10 times two to the fourth, which is four times x cubed. And the next one five choose three is also 10. Then we get two times two cubed, which is eight times x to the squared there. Then we're going to five choose four, which is five times two to the fourth, which is 16 times x. And then finally we get five choose five, which is one times two to the fifth, which is 32 times x to the zero. So you don't see any x is there. And then simplifying the coefficients, we're going to get x to the fifth, five times two is 10, 10x to the fourth, we get 10 times four, which is 40 x cubed. Next we're going to get 10 times eight, which is 80 x squared. The next one five times 16 notice if you borrow one of the 16s to you get two times five, which is 10. So you get eight times 10, which is 80, 80x. And then lastly you're going to get 32. So when you compare that to the alternative, that was a whole lot easier to multiply it out that binomial expression x plus two to the fifth. It was super simple. We didn't have to foil anything at all because we solved this pattern here. Let's do one more example. I have it hitting down here. So let's expand two y minus three to the fourth right here. And so the expansion is going to look something like the following. We're going to get four, choose zero times two times y to the fourth power times negative three to the zero power. Don't forget the negative sign. Then the next, we're going to get four, choose one times two y to the third times negative three to the first. Then we get four, choose two times two y squared negative three squared. Next, we're going to get four, choose one, excuse me, four, choose three, which admit it was the same number, but let's go in the right order here. You're going to get two y to the first, and then you're going to negative three cubed. And then lastly you're going to get four, choose four, which is going to look like two y to the zero, then negative three to the fourth, like so. So for the binomial coefficients, we can compute them using factorials, or we can use these Pascal's triangle that's right here. The fourth row looks like one, four, six, six, one, so we'll just remember those numbers. And so we end up with one times two to the fourth is 16, 16th y to the fourth, and then we times that by negative three to the zero, that's one. Then the next one, we're going to, binomial coefficient was a four, we're going to get two cubed, which is eight y cubed times negative three to the first, which is negative three. Then the next one we're going to get is four, choose six, or four, choose two, which is six. Two y squared will give us a four y squared, like that. And then you get negative three squared, which gives a positive nine, pay attention to the sign there. The next one, four, choose three, which is also four. Then we're going to get a two y, and we're going to get negative three cubed, so that's negative 27. And then lastly four, choose four is one, two y to the zero is also one, and we get negative three to the fourth, which is a positive 81. And so multiplying, there's no like terms to combine here, that's already happening. So multiplying, we're going to get 16 y to the fourth. Next we're going to get minus, let's see what we have here. We're going to have eight times three, which is 24. If we times that by four, that's just doubling it twice. So you're going to get 48 and then 96, so 96 y cubed. The next one, we're going to get positive four times six times nine y squared. And so we get four times, excuse me, four times nine, that's going to be 36 times that by six, you're going to get six cubed, which is 216 y squared. The next one's going to be negative. You have four times two times negative 27 y there. If you double 27, you get 54. Then two times that by four, we have to double it again, right? So that's going to be 108 and then 216. So we get another 216, negative 216 y. And then lastly, one times one times 81, that's an 81. So a little bit of arithmetic that has to be done. But for the most part, this is fairly painless compared to what we'd have to do alternatively, alternatively there. The binomial theorem is a super useful tool to simplify multiplication of binomials raised to various powers.


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.


I want to open the floor on this as a partially contributed moderator. I don't know if one of my colleagues on the panel has question to how if technology care about your health, the way it has been presented. Otherwise, I will go into the closing of this session. Are there questions or comments? No. If not, then I will conclude. First, I would thank all the participants for their contribution. I think personally I learned a lot even if I read it before. It was extremely dense. Well prepared. Thank you very much. You know, I think this second session was extraordinarily rich and I fully share what Patrick just said, that is, as both of you said, a problem which is well posed is half resolved. And I think that with this panel and the previous one, we have put clearly a number of quite big problems. And I think there is a future for the WPC health for many years to come. The only problem being that if we are too slow to move on, we will be in trouble. It's one of the characteristics of the whatever you call it, the fourth industrial revolution or if you define it with another name is that the technological evolution goes much faster than diplomacy. I remember the time of my own beginnings in international affairs in the in the 70s. At the time the start, the salt, the salt negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union, we had observed that technological progress was moving much faster than the capacity of diplomat to come to an agreement. And I think that the sort of problems we are facing in the contemporary global world, in the contemporary global world, is a bit of this nature that affects all aspects, all the aspects that we have discussed in this second session, including ethics, because I think as I think Danielle said quite clearly, one thing is the abstract philosophical definition of the good. And the other is how to translate that in concrete actions. And it's very difficult. And we come back also to this issue with which we started on what is a public good or global public good. This is also the same nature that is relatively easy to define abstractly. But when you want to translate that into collective action, it becomes much more difficult. Anyway, I think it is time again. Thank you very much. It was very, very happy with this second session as I was with the first one.


Thank you very much. We will now move to the questions and answers section. May I ask you to be a bit concise when you put your question, but there will be a possibility to ask questions to Marcelo Neri after this presentation.  So starting over here. Okay, Andrea? No, Andrea, you need to put the mic, otherwise nobody has a chance to hear. Thank you very much for this presentation, and this afternoon I will say something similar about Latin America. Now, some Brazilian colleagues have met in meetings. They say that all this is true, but that does not take into account the fact that the rich Brazilian now have moved all the russets abroad, and therefore all the incomes they earn basically they are unaccounted for. So the distribution moves in the right direction, but less so than what is revealed by domestic incomes. Okay, anybody else here? You're only going to have one chance. Okay, here? Yes, here, Subbu in the front. Here in the front. I have a very instructive talk. Just very briefly, from what you've said, it would appear that Brazil embarked on a conscious and deliberate policy of intervention by the state in redistribution. Now, in India, however, there is a great deal of pessimism or war taxation, because it is seen as only having disincentive effects on investment and on growth, and an equally great level of pessimism on public spending, which is seen simply as bankrupting the exchequer. Now, I think it would be really useful if you can say something about the reasonableness of a position such as this in the light of your own experience. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And then a little bit down the row. Just go back up there. No, no, no. That way. Yeah. Here we go. Okay. Thanks. I was possible about the information you gave about the household survey data compared to the GDP. Is it possible that some of that can be explained by changes in the average size of the household, say, over that 10-year period? And the second question is, I guess, a little bit related to the very first question. How about the illicit financial flows going out of the country? But is there any good data, and I know this is difficult, on levels of corruption in Brazil? So again, the trend line in the generation of potentially illicit capital outflows over that 10-year period. Thanks. Okay. Francois Bourguignon in the back. Okay. Thank you very much, Marcelo, for this very nice presentation. The question I wanted to ask is about the perception. What you presented is quite interesting, and we're very happy to see that Brazil is, in many ways, a country of the future. I would like to refer to a survey on the perception of inequality in Brazil. There was this poll which was taken a couple of years ago comparing countries. And Brazil, of course, was among the countries where people thought that they were living in the most unfair society. France was not bad from that point of view, too. But most importantly, when people were asked whether they had the feeling that inequality had increased or not in the past 10 years, when it was in 2011, then people said, definitely, inequality has increased enormously. And it was a time where it was going down. So what is the kind of explanation that you can give to that? Okay. Thank you, Francois. Yeah. I'll be in the front. Thank you, Nora Rustig. Thank you very much, Marcelo, for such a wonderful and comprehensive presentation. I miss you in academia, but the Brazilian government is really very lucky to have you. I have two questions. You didn't talk about the minimum wage. And a lot of people think that what happened in Brazil is attributable to the rise in the minimum wage. And in fact, now in Mexico, there's a big movement trying to increase the minimum wage. And they use Brazil as an example, even though inequality also declined in Mexico. They use Brazil as an example of how it helped bring up the bottom incomes. The second thing is I discovered recently that both in Brazil and Mexico, people with tertiary education's wages declined, not only in relative terms, but in real terms. And I'm really puzzled by that result. And I think, you know, in the case of Brazil, then maybe behind the discontent. But what's behind this decline in real wages of people with tertiary education? They're different hypotheses. And I wonder whether you have been actually, I know Náercio Meneses Filho has been working on this. But what's your take on that? Thank you very much, Nora. Marcelo, you want to try to address? Okay. Thank you very much for the very interesting questions. Try to answer them. First, I forgot to mention that. Perhaps, you know, Freud explains that. But Brazil, in this period in the last 20 years, there's a big rise on the tax burden from something like a 10 percentage point rise. And it was already a high tax burden. So Brazil tax burdened something like 36, 37 percent of GDP, which is much, much higher than most of Latin American countries. So this would explain, you know, some of the wealth flowing abroad, not such a good level of investment. And this is an important part. With respect to corruption, we don't know, it's difficult to access the level of corruption because, you know, the ways to detect corruption change over time. There is some good evidence on data, especially by Claudio Feijais from Catholic University who studies through data from the Justice on impacts of corruption. But the level, I think, it's hard to tell. I know, I have a feeling that today, corruption is more readily observed because of technology, you know. But I think it's very hard to address that. With respect to the income of the riches or the income of people abroad, that's very hard to address. We're starting to have access and this is a good thing. It's just now almost onwards on the income tax basis. I show some data here, you know, public use data on income tax. And this will allow to have a better idea of income distribution changes. I think in a way the answer to income inequality, we already have the most part of the national household surveys. Because to study inequality, you have to look at the whole population. But income tax will help us to give like a zoom in the rich part and have a better picture. But I don't think the income tax will provide the answer to that. Especially because most of the capital that people own, for example, housing capital or shares in stock markets and vehicles, which are the three most important assets, are in historical values in income taxes. So I think we have to work in a very... to create this puzzle to fill some blankets using different data sets. But respect to people's income outside, et cetera, I find very hard to... because sometimes you know that some trends, for example, in the income tax data review that, well, some of the intuition that people have been saying is correct, but the size is just not that big. So, you know, the question is how to fit everything in one data set. In one full picture. Now, with respect to Francois Bourguignon's question on people's perception of sensibility with respect to inequality, the first point, you know, Brazil has been called the country of the future, not even sometimes, you know, joking, you know, we always be the country of the future. But in a sense, Brazil has been in the last 10 years, 11 years, the country of the past, where people who are left behind, you know, people in the rural areas, black people, illiterate people, they are the ones who are performing really well since the dawn of the millennium. And the perceptions on inequality, this is... I find very interesting question and very hard to answer. I think the protests in a way, the demonstrations, are a little, I think it's a side effect of the change of inequality. It's a strong thing to say, but I say that one year ago, I had a lot of, you know, bad reactions for that, but, you know, that's what... I cannot reject that in the data. And so we have to see how well these surveys cover as, you know, the movements, how well they represent the whole population. But I think the income tax data shows something that is a bit worrying, but I think in the end is a good news. You know, I'm saying that income tax, net income tax by the families has increased much, much more than GDP, which would be a sign of formality, perhaps, but perhaps increase of inequality that the surveys are not capturing. It's a possibility. But I think there is a lot, lots of contradictions, and I think one of the most important contradictions of real data and subjective data. When, you know, I think, when Brazilians are asked about their lives, the answer is very good. When you ask about the city, about the country, about the quality of public services, the questionnaires are not only worse, but they are going down, which I think is a good sign, because there is also an aspiration effect, you know, as people improve their lives, people want more, and this is good, especially in the democratic environment. It may improve the quality of public policy, but I think, in a way, the fact that inequality is falling Brazil as other Latin American countries, it's by review preference, you know, an idea that, you know, inequality aversion of the society has increased in, you know, in the last 12, 13 years, but how people see it, I find it's hard to understand. Okay. Additional questions? The minimum wage question. Yeah, your minimum wage, yes. I can answer that if you... Okay, please go ahead first, answer that, and then we will take the next question. The minimum wage in Brazil is a very... we have a certain fruit in Brazil called jabutcaba, which there is only in Brazil. So we say in Brazil if there is a thing that is only in Brazil and it's not jabutcaba is not a good thing, okay? And minimum wage in Brazil is one of those things in the sense that minimum wage in Brazil is not only the floor of labor market, but also of the whole system of social transfer, except Bolsa Família, which is out of this system. It's not linked to the minimum wage. So when you rise minimum wage, you do not only increase the bottom, you know, of the labor market, which may generate unemployment, informality, increases in wage, especially in the formal sector, that's surprising. But my feeling that, you know, after 15 years of rising the minimum wage, because the minimum wage in Brazil is linked to the previous GDP growth, two years lag GDP growth, total GDP, not per capita GDP. So there is a bias upwards in the room and the fact that, for example, this year the government is giving for 2015 a higher than the rule, but I see minimum wage a very good policy for the middle part, not for the bottom part of the distribution. And I think inequality in 2014 will fall very drastically. It's falling. In 2014 we didn't get a big minimum wage hike and the inequality is falling, labor markets. We won't get an effect on the public accounts, social spending, turning to the middle part of the distribution, but since there is a big Bolsa Família increase, because Bolsa Família has been increased without losing its targeting ability. That's the interesting part. And minimum wage lost its targeting ability. So minimum wage 15, 20 years ago had a huge impact on inequality and poverty. But since it's more than double, almost triple its real value now, is not doing that much. We have better instruments. So now it's affecting mostly the median of the distribution, but each hell you spend on Bolsa Família has 400 times bigger effect on the genie than a minimum wage rise through public expenditures. So Bolsa Família, if the objective is to reduce inequality, that's the shortest the move. And now since the tax burden is very, very high in Brazil, and this has impact, because I think Brazil is an interesting case. That's a country who say, well, let's reduce inequality implicitly in the policies. And the economy is slowing down maybe because of that at some point, because of tax burden. And it's a choice. So I think now we are in a moment where we look ahead and see, well, we did very well. But how about productivity? How about other dimensions besides inequality? So maybe think on a shared prosperity type. How to combine better both? I think this is the question. Okay, thank you. There was one question here in the middle, yes? Thank you very much for your fascinating and informative presentation. You gave a profile of demonstrators of the protests last year, and you said that these are people who are working, who are highly educated, and who use public services. And I was reminded of a World Bank paper on the middle class in Brazil, and what that paper highlights, one of the things it highlights is that as people join that middle income bracket, but at this point I'm not sure if it's the new middle class or the traditional middle class, but as people join that bracket, they use public services less and less, and they go for privately provided services. So I don't know, I was just trying to reconcile two images in my head. I was wondering if you could clarify that. And secondly, this is more of a comment. You said that the rate of return for increased to productive assets is less than the access to those assets themselves. That is education, professional courses, and things like that. And you said that this is a phenomenon that is sort of exclusive to South America. I just wanted to highlight that I think there's a similar trend in Sub-Saharan Africa as well, where you have increasingly highly educated people who cannot find good jobs and who in fact have to end up in the informal sector. That's just a comment. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're at the far back. Thank you. Just a quick question. You concluded that inequality in the last decade has been falling. And I was wondering whether this is a universal thing or we can have some disaggregation of your data with regards to urban and rural and where the most impact is being felt. And also looking at the happiness that you reported both the past and the present vis-a-vis the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, are these people who are reporting being happier relative to the non-beneficiaries, people who cut across the country or people who are based in the rural areas vis-a-vis the urban areas? Thank you. Okay.  Thank you for the presentation. My question relates to the greater access to productive assets but then falling returns. I am just wondering if you made a sufficient link between the falling inequality and economic growth as a whole. Whether there is a possibility of sacrificing growth, a short run in the attempt to reduce inequality for Brazil and maybe for other countries as well. Thank you. Okay. In the back. I would like to know if... Could you give an example of a good risk because you talk about good risk but I don't know what you mean about good risk. Can you elaborate on good risk and give a few examples? Thank you. Thank you. So let me start with this last question. Good risk is in the sense, you know, of going up, you know, across the median. So this was 16 out of 100 people in 2002-2003 rose, you know, across in the median and now it's 27 out of 100. So it's the risk of going up and then this went up and the risk of... which maybe I shouldn't call risk is the opportunity to rise and the risk to go down has done a lot of ways. So it's basically, you know, the idea of when your income is zero, risk is good for you. You cannot do worse, you know. So the question on the... on the returns to education which reminds me of Nora, previous questions that I forgot to answer, it's... I mean, there are various possibilities why the returns to education and to other productive attributes is falling. One possibility is... is lack... is the deterioration in the quality of education. This is one possibility, you know. You increase the basis, but the quality is not as good as it was previously in the marginal. That's one possibility. So we don't have good enough data to disentangle that as I know which if it's a quality effect I think at least in the part of the distribution I showed here, I think the story... because people say, well, education in Brazil is very bad which I agree completely. But the fact that what is happening is that people are moving from very bad education to a little bit better education. And there is no supply of unskilled labor anymore in Brazil. So I think Brazil is very different coming to the question of the protests and in this sense because Brazil is not going that much GDP-wise but the labor market is tight. And there is, in particular, there is no supply of unskilled labor. It's the first time of Brazilian history that we have that. Brazil was the last country in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery. Then we have immigration of unskilled people. Then we had a demographic bonus. Now there is no supply of skilled labor which explains... unskilled labor which explains why the price, the wage in the bottom part of the distribution is going up because education moves. So the daughter of a domestic servant doesn't want to be a domestic servant. The son of a builder, a manual construction worker doesn't want to be a construction worker because he's on secondary education or he plans to get there. But for me it's not clear what he explained this fall on the top of education returns. I don't know if wages are really falling on the top but I agree that they are stagnant depending on the basis. With respect to the protests I think there is a very complex phenomenon.  So there is a technology that allows to organize movements, real movements, not only in the internet. When they are in the internet it's one thing. When they go to the streets that's another. The second thing, there is this... I think there is an aspiration effect as I showed here, the quality of education in Brazil, at least using PISA and we have lots of tests in Brazil. Every public school is evaluated, etc.  In the youth I think we are losing the battle. The youth records are improving but because of the previous performance not because of the increase in the youth. The education wise, labor wise, what is happening to the youth, they are not getting a marginal increase during the youth years. So this may be associated with that. And also an aspiration effect where I know you, I think in Brazil first education was the seventh priority and people thought it was good. Now is the second priority only after health and people know it's bad. So there is a kind of... which I think is very healthy for improving and on top of that, or not on top of that, but also I think there is maybe this issue on inequality. You know, there is. Many stories and they don't contradict each other. They just add up in a sense. Technology, aspirations, inequality, and so on. Okay, thank you very much minister. I have to draw this to a close now cognizant of the time. Please join me in applauding Marcelo for this. Can I ask you just to stay seated just for a couple of minutes. I just have a couple of things that I need to say.  We will make sure that they will be outside so that you can collect them. May I quickly add that all plenaries will take place here in this room. The four parallels will be held here in this room and in Naojica also on this floor. And then at the second floor in two rooms. The coffee breaks will be upstairs, second floor in the foyer there. And the lunches and the conference centers just outside here and you're all warmly welcome at seven o'clock tonight. Presenters, please get your PowerPoints to the people in the presenting rooms as quickly as possible. You should be aware that all sessions are video recorded with the PowerPoints embedded and then it will be on via the YouTube channel afterwards. The poster session tomorrow afternoon will be held in the foyer at the second floor and there will basically be a rotating system where presenters will be presenting six times so that you have a possibility to see all of the presenters in action. The posters are already up there so have a look at them in advance. For those of you entitled to you and your wider travel support please ask at the registration desk if you have any questions and please go to the boardroom of the you and your wider premises at the third floor for your payments. Now I'm requested to say that this is a non-smoking facility. If you do need to smoke please go to the balconies outside and please do turn off your mobile phones. This is a UN event. You are please requested to keep your badges on at all times for security reasons and so on. You can leave your coats and so on out here in the cloakroom but do not leave money or other things there. If you have any questions contact anyone of the wider staff who are walking around with a blue tag and there are quite a few around and now may I say that by the end of the conference you are going to receive a feedback questionnaire please would you kindly fill it in say what you think one of the other indicators that our funders monitor is the answering rate and then also what you do state so please I know they are boring these questionnaires but please. Now last but not least UNI-wide offers a visiting scholars program and a PST intern program. You may wish to note that the deadline for the next application is 30 September. Please help us spread the word. Now may I finally say that tomorrow's closing panel is at 4, 4 p.m. May I request that you are quickly in your seat at 4 o'clock President Halonen will be here and as you know she is finished. Enjoy your coffee. Let me just for the sort of advice of the chairs of the next session we will be trying to get back after coffee 11, 20 so a 15 minute coffee break we are harming the Brazilian coffee export a little bit maybe but we will start the sessions at 11, 20 and we will then inform the launch place that we will start launch at 12, 45 and then hoping that we can reconvene in the afternoon at 1. Okay did you get that small adjustment? Thank you very much and thank you Marcelo.


When I found the interesting about that, for example, on that question you had about your measurement that there was a decline in civil liberties in the United States, we actually did have done a public opinion poll about that outside the United States, asking people whether they believe that the U.S. protects the civil liberties of its own people. And we found actually somebody that parallels the findings of the idea, which was that beginning in 2013, people in Europe began to think less well of the ability of the U.S. or the Retract Record of the U.S. to protect the civil liberties of its own people. In other words, before 2013, depending on the country, somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the public said, WS America preserves the civil liberties of its own people. Beginning in 2013, that began to go down, which was the NSA scandal, remember. Then there was Ferguson and Black Lives Matter, so it went down further. Then there was the election of Trump, and it went down further. And now, only 30% or 40% of people, depending on the country in Europe, believe that the U.S. protects the civil liberties of its own people. So your perception, based on non-public opinion data that protection has gone down, and the public's perception in Europe that the U.S. doesn't, or is less likely to protect civil liberties of its own people have been complimenting each other, I think, very nicely.


definition and meanings. So in this session we are going to discuss the definition and meanings of democracy that what is democracy and how the experts of this field how they are trying to define this concept and a very famous definition by Lord Bryce because he defined that the word democracy has been used ever since the time of ancient time period and at that time the government is basically the the power of the government and the practices of that power in the state that calls the system of democracy then a very famous definition by Abraham Lincoln as he defines that democracy is the government of people by the people and for the people and as well as Gettle defines that democracy is the form of government in which the mass of the population possess the right to share in the exercise of sovereign power. So there is a variety of definitions given by the experts regarding the concept of democracy but we can understand that democracy is the concept which is basically created for the representation of the people. If we want to understand its components then they are right to participate. The second major component which is actually beauty of this concept is their right of representation. How do they use their rights? Here again it is a debatable thing but in democracy people say that the government is the form of government as a result of their right of representation and then as a result of their right of representation the government is the form of government. The power given to the rulers is given by the system from where it is derived? Basically when people express their opinion then they will form the government. Here we have to look at one more thing that democracy is a concept but democracy is divided into many forms such as some are called direct democracy, some are called indirect democracies, some are called liberal democracies, some are called illiberal democracies, some are called representative democracies. These are the categories in which we can count the long list. What is the reason for this? Democracy is a form of government on the basis of the representation of the people, on the basis of the participation of the people then how these categories are designed or developed? Level of participation. This is the criteria for the measurement of democracy. The kind of democracy we will talk about is the most important factor is the level of participation, the level of participation of the people and on the basis of the participation. Is it purely on the basis of the representation of the people? The system has given so much weight to the representation of the people. This is a basic criteria that we have taken from the beginning to today that democracy is applicable all over the world in order to implement a different form of democracy. In other words, there are people in democracy, there is a parallel that is of the rulers. People's representative government. But if people's representative government has so much right that it is actually representative is it directly created by the votes of the people? Is the system indirect? So all these bases are helpful in determining the type or nature of democracy.