e, the stadium is definitely for conference competition play. This proposed, because I guess what I'm asking is just as it relates to lighting and timing of typical football games, I believe Northern currently uses Durham County Stadium. I'm just curious from a noise and lighting standpoint what the alternatives might be there. This is it's this school's own stadium, its own identity and they will plan on playing their competition games at this field. Fred, can you speak to the, I just want to make sure that Mr. Tarrant's question is answered. It sounded to me like you were also asking about practices as well, Mr. Tarrant. More curious about the competition because typically our football games are usually Friday nights around seven o'clock or so. And so football practice is typically just after school. So I was just curious as far as the level of noise if there were going to be games hosted here that extends the lighting hours, extends the noise hours, et cetera, understanding all within the city's ordinances, but just trying to get a better sense of what impacts it might be on adjacent properties. Thanks and Fred, can you jump in with that from that one? Yes, good morning, it's still morning. We do intend on having competition games on the football field. We do have a multi-purpose area to the east of Old Wells Street. So that's where practices will be primarily held or yes, so that's ideally where those practices will be held. Thank you. Other questions for the applicant? I've got one. Oh, please, please. Sorry, handicapped parking near the football stadium and the soccer field, will that be in that little circle? That's correct. That's specifically for those spaces are specifically for ADA and any special use that the athletic director and principal deems necessary for the event parking. Okay, thank you. Weymour also has her hand raised, Eliza Monroe from the playing department calling on Ms. Weymour. Thank you. Just to go follow on onto the question about the bus traffic on Old Well into the neighborhood. Was there any consideration of sidewalking into along Seven Oaks or into that neighborhood coming from the property for pedestrians? There was no much like the traffic improvements. There's no requirement to provide offsite improvements. It's not owned by the developer in this case during public schools. And we have not been requested to do that or it's not been required in the union. Well, will there be sidewalks along Old Well where the buses are still on the property? Coming up. The Durham public school system there, we are providing a sidewalk to the property line at Old Well Street. Okay. Other questions? I'm not seeing anyone from the board child that has their hand raised. I probably will stop sharing my screen to open up for any other deliberation from other people that are signed up just so we can see everyone. Thank you. That sounds, we may need to bring it back up, but yes, please. At this point, I think we would like to hear from the folks who are interested in speaking in support of the application. Eliza, I think there's maybe, I don't know, 10 or 11 people or so. Is it possible for you to call on those people so that we've got a little bit of a semblance of order about getting through that testimony? Is that a possibility? That is a possibility. So when everyone signs up, they just sign up as proponents and that does include the applicants themselves. So in that case, Lindsay's considered a proponent. So if those individuals who are here as proponents to speak in favor and not just proponents to provide expert testimony, if you could please raise your hand, that would be the easiest way. If not, I can go through really quickly and try and get a list for everyone. It looks like Mr. If you're speaking in favor, please raise your hand so that we can call on you so that Eliza can call on you. I will remind you that we would like to keep testimony to three to five minutes. Please try to limit any discussion of hearsay and please try to avoid repetitive comments. If you're simply there to support someone who has said something who spoke prior to you, you can just say that and that would be great. We don't need to hear. I love this project nine different times. So with that in mind, Eliza, please. I'm looking through the list very quickly and it looks like a majority of the proponents that signed up for this case are experts in this testimony. The only person who has what looks like a personal email address that signed up as a proponent is Mr. Madison, who we mentioned earlier, did not say here when we called roll for him to attend. So I don't think there's anyone else that is here from the general public that's not an expert that is here to speak for this case. If I'm incorrect, please speak now. But I do think that it was just that individual and the remaining persons on this call are proponents and or opponents of the case. Okay, last call for anyone who wants to speak in favor of this proposal. Please raise your hand or turn your microphone off. Hearing none, we will now give the folks who are here in opposition to the project an opportunity to speak. We will try to do that the same way. Eliza will call on you and the same elements that I mentioned before about trying to be concise, try to avoid repetition and try to keep your comments civil, that would be great. Thank you. Eliza, please. I'm going to Eliza and our staff speaking. I'm going to speak in advance of, I'm gonna call Mrs. Vickers, Mary Vickers in advance. From what I understand, Mary has kind of created a agenda of persons who will be speaking and that they have all self-appointed themselves as a specific representation for certain concerns each person. So I'm gonna actually turn it over to Mary Vickers to kind of orchestrate how they would like to proceed forward. Very fantastic. Thank you, Ms. Monroe. There are six of the old farm neighbors who wish to speak as opponents to this. We will begin with Ms. Mary Abrams. Thank you. My name is Mary Reader Abrams and I am a proud member of the old farm community. As a property owner and a resident of the old farm neighborhood, I adamantly oppose the minor special use permit requested to allow a school to locate within a residential zoning district. To this end, I will discuss the character of our neighborhood. Old farm is one of the oldest and most active neighborhoods in Durham.  My husband and I moved to Durham in 1973 and into the old farm neighborhood at that time. We chose old farm for a number of reasons, the layout of the community, the different types of homes they offer, the spacious living arrangement of the homes, the large yards where our children could play and roam safely, great school districts, great location to easy access to community resources while maintaining a degree of privacy. During the seventies and eighties, we witnessed an increase of a number of homes being built in our area and today approximately 500 homes are in the old farm area. Many of our neighbors made a lot of upgrading and expanding and other type of improvements to their homes and all of these improvements increased their values significantly. We are a close knit community. We communicate with each other on a frequent basis. We have a neighborhood association that meets monthly to discuss issues of concern as they relate to our comfort but our safety and the upkeep of our community. Our meetings are open to all of our neighbors who are encouraged to participate with us. We discuss all issues impacting our neighborhood and try to come to some consensus as to where we stand. In addition to open meetings, we also hold three affairs during the year that we invite all of our neighbors to come out and play with us. They are held at the old farm park. We also, excuse me, maintain frequent communication with each other throughout block captains and through flyers and through quarterly newsletters and through telephones and informal friendship and network groups and as well as posting on the next door which is a neighborhood social internet platform. As a community, we strongly oppose and object to any plan that promotes access all to or between the old farm neighborhood and the proposed new school. As a matter of fact, we strongly recommend that a restraining wall be erected to separate completely the two entities and prohibit the possibility of any free movement between them. We are also adamantly opposed to the erection of a stadium on this proposed site. Instead, we stress and highly recommend that Northern Continue to utilize the nearby recently renovated Durham County Stadium for the following reasons. It is close in close proximity to the school. It is ideally located away from established neighborhoods. It is easily accessible from both Duke Street and Roxbury Street. It possesses adequate facilities to accommodate the football program and most of all, it possesses adequate parking to accommodate all attendees coming to those activities. We also feel very strong that it is good financial sense as well as save taxpayers dollars to utilize an adequate existing facility. We do not oppose progress, nor do we oppose education, but we do oppose the invasion of our peaceful and wholesome neighborhood by buses and other vehicles requiring access to the proposed Northern campus. We know all too well from past history that such activities ultimately lead to the deterioration and destruction of neighborhoods, particularly neighborhoods of color. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Abrams. Ms. Abrams or Ms. Vickers, there was a mention that there is a neighborhood association in place. Are either of you speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association or are you here as neighborhood residents? I am actively involved and I think all of us that are speaking are very actively involved with the association and we're discussing various aspects of what we see as interest to us as a community. But is there a chair or a representative of the neighborhood association present who is speaking on behalf of the association? Yes, Leon. Who is that? Leon King. Okay, okay. All right, thank you. Our next speaker will be Gary Cossi O'Connor. Good morning, please. Good to unmute Gary. Unmute. Unmute. Gary needs to unmute. He's up. I can't hear you. Yeah, we're having some trouble hearing you. Well, we can help now. That's better, yes. Is that good? Yes. All right, should I start again? Please. Okay, sorry. All right, good morning. I'd like to thank the board of adjustment for allowing me to speak this morning. As a property owner or resident of the farm, I'd like to share my views in opposition to the minor special use permit requested to allow a school to be located within the residential zone district. I am Gary Cossi O'Connor, as I said. I am the owner of Flowers by Gary, a retail business located at 4914, almost at the intersection of Seven Oaks and Rocksville Road for the last 15 years. Also a resident of Old Farm Neighborhood for many years. We moved into Old Farm partly because it was literally in our backyard of our business, but mostly because it was quiet and a friendly atmosphere of the neighborhood. As an avid marathon runner, I like the ability to run my neighborhood with little window traffic and Old Farm provides it. Most time I'm able to run at any given day and see very few cars, but see many times morning and evening, neighbors walking, riding bikes, walking dogs. If Old Well was to be opened up as a bus route into New Northern High School, it would add approximately 100% more traffic. We would be dodging not only cars, but buses at a minimum of four times each day. This would be very hazardous for me as well as other people with kids riding bicycles, baby strollers and walking their dogs in the neighborhood. In researching the impact of property value in Old Farm, I looked into research as of March of 2020 done by Duke University, showing schools in a predominantly black neighborhoods may affect the selling price of homes as much as 20% less than other neighborhoods. Therefore, if a resident of Old Farm decides to sell a home, it could potentially bring 20% less than other homes in adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore, that would affect the tax base for homes sold in Old Farm and would be conserving less for many years to come and a decrease in the tax revenue for Durham County, not only affecting Old Farm neighborhoods, but Durham County as well, where the tax revenue builds and support buildings of future buildings and local programs. Also, I'd like to recommend on the Durham Public website school, website under bus transportation program policy, 6,400-6,460 states that public school buses shall be routed on state-maintained highways, municipal streets or other streets with publicly dedicated right-of-way. Policy 64.2 states that school buses shall not be routed on state or city-maintained primary roads and not into side roads or housing development. I do oppose a granting of this minor special permit. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Chair, this is Lindsay. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to object to Mr. Corsio-Connor's testimony. My understanding is he is not an expert in property valuation or appraisal values or in transportation issues. And I don't believe that he has been tendered as an expert. Noted on your objection about the property values as far as expertise on traffic, I'm not sure that he was positing one way or another. He does live there. I'll defer to the attorney if the attorney has any more guidance. Mr. Corsio-Connor, city attorney's office. I think it's your call, Chair. You said noted on the first objection in regards to property values. I guess I'm sure council for the applicant would clarify, but they may be looking for something more specific in terms of sustained on that objection if that's what you were intending to do or were you just noting it for the record? Yeah, I will agree that Mr. Corsio-Connor is probably an awesome florist and flower guy, but he is not a property appraiser. At least he did not indicate as such. So I agree that testimony regarding property value is probably not something that we'll be able to include in our deliberation. Our next resident is David Harris. Good morning. My name is David Harris and I am a resident of Old Farm. I'm also the parliamentarian for the Old Farm Neighborhood Association and also the safety committed chair. And I'm here opposing the approval of special use amount of special use permit. I'm a lifelong resident of Northern Durham. I'm 72 years old. So, and I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak as I'm gonna speak with reference to concerns about traffic issues related to Roxburgh Road and Roxburgh Street. I remember as a teenager when US 501 was a two lane highway from Durham to Roxburgh and Old Farm was indeed a farm. As people began to move from the inner cities to the suburbs, subdivisions started popping up all over Durham, including Northern Durham. As a result, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has been steadily making improvements to the 501 since the 1960s. I moved to the River Forest subdivision in April, 1972 which is just north of the Eno River at US 501. At that time it was referred to as city out neighborhood because the developer and development of the neighborhood included some city services, but the area was still located in the county at that time. So, as a result, we paid special rates for those city services until the area was annexed into the city. I moved to the Old Farm subdivision in January in 1878 which is across the street from the Eno River from River Forest and adjacent to the proposed new location for the Northern High School. My wife and I are very active parents of three sons all of which attended Northern and attended and graduated from Northern High School. I was a member of the Northern High School Advisory Committee and also chair of the Booster Club for several years. Now, with reference to the concerns that I have with the site access points to the new proposed Northern High School, a vividly opposed opening up Old Whale Street to any Northern High School traffic due to safety concerns about 56 bus trips daily through the neighborhood with also bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Our neighborhood does not have sidewalks. So, the walking, the bike and pedestrians would be walking in the street with 56 bus trips daily through our neighborhood. Second, regardless to how you label the entry, it can say buses, pedestrians and bikes. If you open up the road, all the Northbound traffic would be coming through our neighborhood utilizing our streets without sidewalks. It's projected from the TIA that about 1800 students, 166 staff members and 28 buses and parents will be utilizing the school on a daily basis which will be generating about 19, a little bit over 1900 total additional trip per day. About 45% of that traffic would be going Northbound. 35% would be going Southbound. And... Mr. Harris-Ramskop, I have to be fair to the applicant and I understand exactly what you're talking about. You're concerned about the traffic. Are you a transportation engineer by trade or by expertise? I am not a transportation engineer. I am a resident. Understood, understood. And you looked on the website, that the school put together and that's what gave you the number of bus trips and teachers and so forth. Is that correct? It came out of the TIA, yes. Out of the TIA, okay, okay. So, I mean, again, would 1800... Please try to limit your testimony. If you're not an expert in traffic, I mean, I understand that's the concern but try to avoid making analysis or conclusion if that's not an expertise area. Okay, well, okay. Could I just refer to the TIA again with reference to delays in traffic? The 2019 TIA recommended it from a minute to a minute and a half delay with this additional traffic. In 2024, they were related to two to three minute delay in traffic, that's on Roxbury Road, but my concern is about opening up old Wales because old Wales will definitely deteriorate our neighborhood because of the additional traffic coming through there of the people going northbound from this location. Okay, thank you. Thank you, thank you, sir. And Mr. Chair, this is Lindsey Smith. Yes, ma'am. Just for the record, Durham Public School would like to object to Mr. Harris's testimony to the extent that he purported to provide analysis on the impacts of traffic to the old farm neighborhood. Understood, thank you. Our next resident is Carolyn Young. Morning. Carolyn? Yes, I'm there, I'm sorry. Good morning, I think we are just making it for morning. My name again is Carolyn Young. I'm going to be speaking as a property owner and resident and in terms of any of us being experts or none of us are, we are concerned neighbors. And in terms of the amount of time that we had to present this information to you in terms of getting expert witnesses, that has been an issue because of the, we were given this information at the beginning of January and you guys have had this information for way longer than we have. So just want to say that up front. Understood, yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. I will be sharing my view as an opposition of the minor special use permit request to allow a school to be located within a residential district. I'm discussing the issue of flooding in support of my opposition. I've lived in my home on Rippling stream for 45 years and during that time, I've had three children attend Northern. I'm situated in a picturesque spot with the Inna River in my backyard. When we first moved here, we were told we were in a 100 year flood plan. Wow, 100 years sure has passed fast. I love being outdoors and working in my yard and that has always brought me great pleasure. As time has passed, I've become more and more concerned about the amount of flooding we are incurring from the Inna River. Many times, heavy rains have caused the river to rise, fill the bow-like area between the river and my backyard and then flow over into my yard. Over time, this incessant process has washed away my landscape timbers, my flower pots and my soil. In 1970s, heavy rains caused floodwater to damage at least two homes in the neighborhood that had to be demolished. One of these homes was only three lots away from my house. The old farm park, which is located at the end of my street, has suffered significant damage. The playground equipment had to be removed and will have to be relocated to higher ground. In addition to heavy rains causing flooding, we've also suffered damage from two hurricanes. When Hurricane Fran came through, my home was surrounded by water. We were told to evacuate. Some of us were taken out of the neighborhood by boat. Hurricane Florence also surrounded my home, but this time I left ahead of the storm. Upon my return, I had the insurance company sent out a flood adjuster to assess the damage. I was told I'd had 10 inches of water in my crawl space and three in my laundry room. Some of my neighbors and I had to replace duck work, insulation, HVAC units, et cetera. A rainy day should make you want to kick back and be lazy. If it's a long, hard rain, I have to be on alert. I keep a go bag ready in case I have to leave in a hurry. Sometimes I've just moved my car to higher ground in the neighborhood and waited out the storm praying for the best. I've spoken from my personal experience, but I speak for all my neighbors, even those who don't live on the river. We don't want any dredging or anything else done to the river or the creek or the tributaries that might cause more flooding than we already have with Mother Nature. One last note. Sometimes when we have heavy sustained rains, Rippling Stream Road floods. This impacts the whole neighborhood as Rippling Stream is one of only two roads that you can enter or exit the old farm community. Thank you. Thank you. I will speak next. My name is Mary Vickers. I am a retired nurse. I have a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Shaw University, a medical technology certification from Duke University and a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I have been a resident of the old farm neighborhood for over 45 years. As a property owner and resident of old farm, I will be sharing views that are in opposition to the minor special use permit requested to allow a school to be located within a residential zoning district. I will discuss health and safety concerns as well as health disparities found in minority communities to support this opposition. Opening Owell Street and routing traffic through our neighborhood will have a detrimental safety impact on neighbors who use our streets for daily physical activities. It will also pose an additional safety hazard to the residents of the JFK Towers housing for the elderly and disabled. Some of these residents use motorized wheelchairs to access services offered in the business portion of our neighborhood. These residents already face significant challenges as they try to navigate busy roads in wheelchairs. Emissions from cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles are a concern for residents of this neighborhood because a vast majority of school buses are powered by diesel fuel. Diesel exhaust emits very fine particles of carbon and a mixture of toxic gases and chemicals. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has classified diesel exhaust as carcinogenic to humans. Benzene, a known component of diesel exhaust has also been classified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. This agency is part of the World Health Organization and one of the goals of this group is to identify causes of cancer. They have found sufficient evidence that Benzene causes several forms of leukemia and increased risk of lung cancer and symptoms of allergic reactions. There's also some evidence of a positive association between diesel exhaust and bladder cancer. Light pollution has been associated with migraine headaches and seizures. As stated in the article, five things to know about communities of color and environmental justice by Jasmine Bell, April 25th, 2016. Communities of color have higher exposure rates to air pollution than their white non-Hispanic counterparts. Therefore, introducing and increasing the release of toxins into our neighborhoods is not in the best interest of our residents. Old Farm is a neighborhood comprised of predominantly black and brown people. It is of extreme importance to us that the residents of our community be given equitable consideration as policymakers, boards, and planning committees make decisions that will impact the health and safety of our community. The 2012 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences article entitled, Environmental Inequality and Exposures to Airborne Particulate Matter Components in the United States by Michelle Bell and Kaita Ebisu described the concept of environmental inequality and environmental justice. They discussed larger health burdens from environmental stressors on minority populations. The United States Environmental Protection Agency uses environmental justice to refer to fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. And they note that such conditions reflect not only adverse consequences, but also a lack of positive environmental health, economic, or social benefits. Described in the article referenced above by Jasmine Bell are the higher incidents of air pollution, environmental toxins, and other disparities that impact the health of our minority communities. The article states that decades of studies have proven that environmental racism is a threat to the health and overall safety of communities of color across the country. But this is not a problem without a solution. Indeed, policy makers such as yourselves already have the tools to address this injustice and to develop policies in communities of color with these disparities in mind. We ask you to keep these issues in mind as you make decisions that will impact our community for years to come because we do not want our community to become yet another statistic. In conclusion, we the neighbors and property owners in the old farm neighborhood are opposed to granting this minor special use permit as it is planned. We respectfully request that any roads that connect directly from our neighborhood to the proposed school be stricken from the plans until another route is designated and approved for buses, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. Thank you for this opportunity to share my view. Our next speaker will be Leon, I'm sorry.  The Durham Public Schools wants to object to Ms. Vickers' testimony to the extent that she is attempting to opine on the environmental impacts of environmental toxins and air pollution. She's not an expert on those issues. And also there is no evidence that she's presented that the school will in fact have any kind of environmental deleterious environmental impact on surrounding residents. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Leon King, our last speaker. Leon, Mr. King is our last speaker. Okay. Yes. Yes. Please sir, go ahead. Thank you. Thanks for coming. Please feel free to start. Good morning. Once again, I guess it's almost evening. My name is Dr. Leon King. I'm a retired research toxicologist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I have three degrees, a Bachelor of Science or Masters of Science from North Carolina Central University and earned a PhD in Toxicology from NC State. I have spent 27 years of my life examining the effects of diesel exhausts and emissions and classified, most of my work at EPA was used to classify diesel emissions and its particulates, gases and chemicals as carcinogenic. What I'd like to do in this proposal, one, I've been a resident of Old Farm for 47 years four of our children are graduates of Northern High School. And I would like to, as a property owner and resident of the Old Farm community, I would like to call the committee's attention or the Board of Justice's attention to the letter that was written and submitted to your board from the Old Farm Neighborhood Association and signed by our president. And it addresses the three concerns that we have in opposition to the special use permit. And it's clearly defined. So I don't have to read the letter, but briefly, we object to entrances and through fares, the dredging and filling of waterways and the proposed location of its stadium. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. King. And thank you for submitting the letter. Are there, is there anyone else to speak on this application? Does anyone have any questions? Anybody on the board have any questions for any of the speakers? Okay. I think council, unless you advise me differently, I think it's appropriate to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to some of the comments that were made by the speakers. I need to speak. I'm sorry? I need to speak. Mr. Elizemore's staff here, Mr. Meadows, I do think there's some individuals that were not a part of that neighborhood association group, Mr. Bartel, and there might be some other persons. If we miss you, please speak now or raise your hand, but Mr. Bartel is the only person I can see. Hi there, Mr. Bartel, I see you, yes. Did you take the oath at the beginning of this matter? Were you here? Yes, sir, we did. Please take it away, sir. Okay, on your truck map, on the top, on the right-hand corner, the large part of land is mine. As far as the... No, okay, the water retention pond is big. What happens if it collapses? Number one, number two, how many gallons of water will that retention pond hold? If it rains one inch, a little over 27,000 gallons of water falls per acre. And all this water is gonna run off to my property, which some of the matters which is across the street from me puts about 3 million gallons of water on my property. They just approved another subdivision at Hebron and Denville, Hebron Village. That's gonna put another 3,000 gallons of water on my property. And with this project here, I'm gonna get another six million gallons of water from that property. So when it rains one inch, I'm gonna have 12 million gallons of water running across my property. I have talked to Deaner about cleaning the ditch out. Deaner told me that I could not touch the ditch unless I hand dug it. And I'm talking 400 feet of hand digging through woods. I can't do it. I'm 70 years old. You have a creek that's running across the property, which Deaner gave you permission to reroute. You know, to our creek and... Without discussing with us. Without discussing with us.   There's already been two fatalities on Rocksville Road as is. Monk Road and Rocksville Road needs to stop light. There's a wreck there almost every week. You can check it during police department on that one. All the buses is gonna come from Stadium Drive, up Hebron Road, turn down Monk Road, and then try to go on to Rocksville Road. You will have to have a light there at Monk Road. Now, my wife hopes to see a couple of things. Just a moment. Is she sworn? Yes, sir, she is. You might not have heard me the second time, but I did say, yeah. Okay. Would you mind speaking your name for the record so we can ensure that we have an adequate record of who all spoke today? My name is Diane Bartel at 4911 Deadfield Street. And I'm Julius Bartel. E-I-A-N-N-E. B-A-R-T-E-I. D-I-A-N-A, yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Please, go right ahead. Okay, we have a lot of problems with the subject, well, the problem up there with the school. The noise would be horrible, plus all the bands playing and the games. And the old place you used to have was a whole lot more rural to do all that in. For instance, I can actually own a certain atmospheric conditions and the fall of the year, hear the games that they play over at the stadium and sometime even hear the score from my front porch. So I don't know what it's gonna do right up at me. All right, water retention pond is so big, if it collapsed, we figure that it could flood possibly half of our sub-anacres. And that's not right. Also, many gas station stores, food places to get beer, sigs and other stuff, though where they get a friend to go in and get it for them and then you're gonna have a lot of that going. Some kids will go over to Bojangles and Hardys and Taco Bell, et cetera. In other words, they'll be hit by traffic when they run across the road or in their car, they're gonna get hit, because that's horrible traffic any time of day. Quarry pit is to, you know, like we have the quarry, y'all do about a thousand feet from that end of that property where it comes into ours. The quarry pit is to be used for raw water storage in case of a drought. And many years ago, we had a drought and it was rationed and grown, and this area has grown a lot. The whole city and county of Durham has grown a lot since then. Also, school or other would pollute, causing runoff to the outlet for the quarry. Now, as you'd be, it's not other side of the outlet for the quarry, see. In other words, it would be putting oil, gas, brake fluids, et cetera, plus fertilizer and pesticides from that site right just before the outlet to pull it in from a high flow water into the quarry. That's in with the city already too. And quarry is owned by Durham, but they don't own around the quarry. And this dangerous calls Hanson, who owns the area around it that does, you know, aggregates. Hanson refuses to put gatekeeper or security there. Neither does the city. We suggested city put code box to let in cops, fire and ambulance. They said no. One child already has been hurt at 4.30 p.m. Sunday, July 12th on a motocross bike, a kid lost the control of the bike and he may lose his vision. Three years earlier, someone jumped to land in water from one of the rocks in the quarry. And he's now paralyzed. And that's just two of the worst. Then, let's say, the properties in area have had 40 plus years of dynamiting and are very unstable. And a lot of the houses in old form and Argonne Hills plus us have damage from blasting. All right, the quarry can no longer legally blast, but many houses and businesses already have damage. So no blasting. More rock on proposed site than old site. Well, you're complaining, but you didn't want to do it where the old system was because of the rock. Well, guess what? You're at the quarry now, you got even more rock. That's been proven by them. And do them. Yeah. Ma'am, we'll ask the applicant to talk about whether or not they'll do any blasting. The quarry that you're referring to, is this on the property in question? No, it's not, but it's about 800 to 1,000. You got kids dying in it, man. I understand, ma'am. Thank you. But the applicant doesn't have any control over what goes on in that quarry. Sure, we understand that. But to inform you what kids are going to do. Sure. I appreciate that. As a thousand feet from the end of your property line. Right. The concern is that it'll be an attractive nuisance to students on the campus. Moral responsibility, moral. Okay. All right, thank you. Is there anyone else to speak? Anyone else? Last call, anyone else to speak? Last minute of staff here. I'm not seeing any hands just to reiterate. If you want to speak, you'll need to unmute yourself and speak out loud. Okay. All right, thank you. Ms. Smith, please, if you would care to respond to any of the points that were raised, in particular, there was a direct question about the retention pond and its structural security. So please, anything that you would like to respond to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I'd like to re-admit some additional evidence from some of the answers and respond directly to some of these concerns that have been raised by the old farm residents. With respect to the flooding concerns and the retention ponds, I believe Ken Moran can speak to this. Ken, do you mind unmuting yourself? Sure, I'll be happy to. I'll speak first to maybe reinforce some things I had mentioned earlier. We did the analysis up to our property lines as required per the UDO. And we analyzed up to the 100-year storm. And that is generally the larger event that we follow and practice. And it was required by Durham. As far as the dam, the concern primarily of the, I guess the large stormwater device in the Northeast, the elevation of the embankment is really about, let's say eight feet at the highest point. When we start running into requirements to meet with the state regarding dam safety, we start approaching 15 feet as a requirement for the height. So we're about half that height. The structural intent of the design is to use an impervious clay core as well as putting in collards to prevent water leaking along a barrel. Which are required by Durham as well. The discharge point is at the top of the bank to the stream, which is a requirement from the state DWQ to provide a high-flow bypass of the larger storm events through the buffer, which is a requirement. That's why you see each one of the control measures across the site with the extensions to the streams. And the emergency spillway is a little further to the south. If it is incorporated during a large event, it would still enter the same stream in question. The stream just north of the east of their site, it does appear to be quite defined. So as well as the, I guess the question was also about the verticals, the elevation, the stand, the permanent pool of water is about elevation 341, which is comparable to some of the adjacent elevations of the property. So when there is a large event, most of the water will be going through the barrel. The rest would be going through the emergency spillway and the maximum height of the water is probably five feet inside the device during that event. And the other question I think was some concern about during construction, our plans are being reviewed by the state, the emergency control department, and we're meeting the 25-year storm design, which is a requirement because we're in the watershed. I see. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lorrain. Good question. Any additional questions for Mr. Lorrain? I do have some additional responses, but I didn't want to move on if the board wanted to pause for additional questions. I'll do that. Do any of the board members have any questions of the applicant on this matter? Okay. Please proceed, Ms. Smith. Okay. So I would like Mr. Rankie to go ahead and unmute himself. And I do think Mr. Rankie, can you speak to the concern? I believe there was a concern that was raised about the intersection between Monk and Roxburgh. Can you speak to that concern? Sure. And once again, to know the exact timing, I wish we had NCDOT here, but one of the reasons that wasn't considered as part of this study is that's already a spot safety study they've got going on at Monk and Roxburgh, as it is, I think it was mentioned there, is a crash history and such there. So I'm not sure where it stands with the funding, but I know that's something that during the scoping and TIA process, they indicated that that's something NCDOT is looking at providing a signal there. Once again, I'm not sure with the exact timeframe that would be if somebody from NCDOT were present, they could give more information, but it is something that it is acknowledged that there are safety concerns there. The reason they're not saying this as part of the school is there's already the idea to put a signal in at that intersection because of those existing safety concerns that aren't necessarily triggered by the school, but are already happening out there. And Mr. Ranky, just as a point of clarification, with respect to when you were going through the traffic impact analysis and you were working with both the city and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, did any party deem old well or the old farm neighborhood a capacity or safety concern throughout that process? No, they had us consider where essentially it would, most of the traffic would come out at seven oaks and Roxborough, they had us consider that intersection just because that's sort of your pinch point. I guess Roxborough has the heavy traffic so to see what's going on there, but the addition of the 28 buses coming and going and then some staff, it's likely not gonna trigger any capacity issues. So that wasn't anything where they had a specifically look at any of the interior intersections there, just where it would be at its worst at seven oaks and Roxborough. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Ranky on this particular issue? I do and the other board, do any other board members have a question for Mr. Ranky on the transportation issue? I would appreciate a little bit of discussion about the bus routing and the decision process that was gone through to make the determination to route the buses through the neighborhood. Okay, that I think might be a school system question more than me. So I'd like them to address the exact reasoning of the bus routing and that's something, we considered in our analysis, but the reasoning I think would be best coming from them and I think it had to do with the eliminating conflict of students and buses, but I'll let them speak to that. Fair enough, thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Ranky. Yeah, Mr. Davis, is this a question that you can field? I will, however, I've recently rejoined during public schools about six months and so the initial decision was made prior to my arrival. However, historically, as we look to bifurcate student drivers as well as buses and staff, we look for opportunities where we can safely route students on the buses as well as student drivers and staff. And so it would be, it being necessary to find opportunities in which oh well, suffice that need. Could I ask another question, Mr. Davis? Sure. And I understand this is not your expertise and if I'm posing this question to you and there's a better person, please let me know. The buses that are coming through the neighborhood, that access way for the buses and the staff, do you expect that there will be an equal amount of traffic along old well that you would see at one of the other entrances or do you think that there would be less fewer number of vehicles along old well relative to the other entrances of the site? And I'm gonna save Mr. Davis as that's probably more of my alley. So it would be significantly less. A lot of the interior circulation and stuff, like I said, and I'll kind of weigh in to what he was discussing because it did come up in a scoping meeting where they were separating out the buses and students. So this is once again me speaking on behalf of something that was mentioned by Durham County Public Schools in a scoping meeting with the DOT and city staff is to eliminate that interaction between students and buses. They have the different access points. That access for the buses, like Keith was mentioning, there would be some, sorry, students and buses. There would be some staff that enter at the bus but it's a more direct route to kind of come in off of Rocksboro for probably most of the staff. So it would be mainly the buses. It would not be anywhere close to the traffic expected coming in off of the Rocksboro entrances just because you have the parents and the students coming in off of those which are much higher trip generators than the buses and some of the staff. A lot of them are no staff here. Just wanting to note that Mrs. Young has her hand raised. So I do not forget about that. Thank you, Eliza. I saw Miss Young raise her hand and I would like to give her an opportunity to ask a question of the staff. I'm sorry, of the applicant. Please, Miss Young. Yes, thank you. One of the things going, talking to transportation when you're talking about the traffic on Owell to access Owell, you've got to either come down my street Rippling Stream or Seven Oaks, the parallel road coming in. We've got, as I said, almost 500 homes out here and there's a lot of traffic out here. I know sometimes I can't cross the street going across, just to go across the street to see a neighbor, to walk across because of traffic coming in, because of the park traffic, the, what is it, what else is back there? There's the park, there's a Holt Association, there's a swimming racket club back here and seems like there's something else going on back here. So that's an issue that I'm concerned about. So how are you accessing Owell other than coming in from Seven Oaks or Rippling Stream? The other question I had was about the flooding issue. Some of that was, like I said, technical. All I know is that my land, my backyard floods a lot. Even with a heavy rain, it comes up. So with what you're building and the quarry and everything else that's going on, what guarantees do we have that there would not be more flooding? As I said, my road, I mean, I've had the water come up in my driveway that just comes in and floods in. So how do you address that? Pretty soon Rippling Stream could become, if more stuff comes out here, Rippling Stream could become part of the Eno River. So I'm just very concerned about that. Thank you. So a couple of questions posed there. Please, to the extent you're able, there was a question about access to Owell and then a question about flooding. Sure. Mr. Renke, can you provide information regarding the question about Owell? Sure. So the way NCDOT requested us look at that is kind of going very conservative and saying they had concerns about Seven Oaks and Roxboro. So absolutely most of the traffic, if it's not generated within that development, it would have to kind of come off of Roxboro. They had us consider that all of the traffic would come in at that intersection. So the traffic was considered, like I said, Roxboro has the very heavy volumes. That's the intersection that they were concerned most about capacity and safety. And that's sort of how we looked at that is, yes, we definitely considered the traffic coming in there. We know as it disperses throughout the neighborhood, some of those roads, they're not as heavy volume as Roxboro. So we kind of looked at the worst case and we had to make sure that it operated an acceptable level of service and delays and such. And so we did recommend signal timing adjustments out there, which is something the NCDOT is taking into consideration to better accommodate the traffic. Just from a standpoint of what's going on out there today, even just optimizing timings and with the new signals going in, sort of making sure that it will operate as the best it can at an acceptable level of service. Thank you, Mr. Ranky. Mr. Lorraine, do you have anything else to add with respect to the stormwater control measures? I know you've already spoken extensively about this, but is there anything else that you can add that might respond to the comments? Well, I think from the owner's perspective and for this project, I mean, we really can only analyze what we are required to analyze and meeting the 100 year storm event is above other communities. So I think that requirement is a little bit more conservative. Obviously, you know, river or any kind of an analysis of that impacting, that's way beyond the scope and probably not something that would be a part of the site plan review in my experience over all these years. It certainly wasn't a requirement for the UDL. Thank you, Mr. Lorraine. Mr. Chair, if the board has other questions, we'd be happy to entertain them. Otherwise, at some point, I would like to make a brief summary statement for the board. Any other questions from the board? I just had one clarification. This is Tarrant for Mr. Lorraine. Just wanted to confirm it as it relates to this application. There is not any floodplain on the subject property at all, is that correct? I can answer for him too. It's correct. There's no floodplain shown on the most recent FEMA floodplain maps. Thank you. Other questions? Okay, Ms. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the board and to the community members who have provided their feedback as well on this project. What I'd like to do briefly is just remind the board that the issue here today is approval of the minor special use permit. As we have discussed earlier, the site plan is under consideration. It is ready for approval. It is free and clear from any comments. And so it is appropriate for the board to consider approval of the minor special use permit today. There are a number of factors that under the UDO that the board must consider and take evidence on in order to approve this minor special use permit. Now, just to remind the board that the standard here for evidence is that it must make its decision based on competent material and substantial evidence. And so today here, we've provided you with a number of experts who have been qualified and tendered as experts in landscape design, in lighting design, athletic lighting design, in engineering, in traffic engineering, and in real estate appraisals and who have provided their opinion that this particular project meets all the requirements of the minor special use permit. And so, I know that the board has heard significant concerns from the community regarding traffic in the old farm neighborhood, the potential for floodwater and other concerns related to health and safety. And I would hope that the board would look at those in a couple of different ways. I think the first is, to the extent, as we mentioned earlier, to the extent that some of these folks attempted to provide analysis and opinion on traffic, the impact of traffic, the impact of real estate prices or the impact of this project on real estate prices. This particular testimony is not really appropriate for the board to consider because it has not been presented by experts. Now, that said, certainly the board can consider the concerns of the community members. However, many of them are not really... It's a little bit hard to say how they are related to, or if there's any evidence that they've really presented that this particular project will, in fact, have these significant negative impacts on their community. They have concerns about that, they have concerns about floodwater. Many of those are outside the scope of this project and outside the control of the Jordan Public Schools and the planning team here. And so I would simply say that with respect to those concerns, I think that the experts here have responded to many of those concerns. And also, to the extent that there are concerns raised about hypothetical impacts, there hasn't been really any competent evidence that has been presented to support those negative impacts. And so I would say that those should not really weigh into the board's consideration today. The final thing that I wanna raise is I believe that we had spoken earlier that the city would be seeking a continuance to address the issue of payment or reimbursement for the property improvements that are on the site plan as we conveyed earlier, the board, the Jordan Public Schools is certainly willing to, you know, proffer to the board today that, you know, that it is willing, it is absolutely committed to making those roadway improvements and obtaining the required permits for those and it will not seek reimbursement from the city for those. Now, I understand that the city still would like to seek a continuance and I'll certainly lead that to the city attorney to address. However, I would say that, you know, as I mentioned earlier, the payment for roadway improvements really is not a part of the factors for consideration here today before the board. The consideration for the board today is the proposal, the application for the special use permit and the site plan. You know, it as submitted is ready for approval. You know, the Jordan Public Schools intends to move forward on that plan if approved. And so I do think that the board has, you know, the information that it needs today in order to approve the special use permit. That's all that we have today. Certainly appreciate the time. I know it's been a lengthy hearing. And of course, this is an issue of great impact and importance to the community. And so certainly want to make sure that the board has all the information that it needs in order to make its decision and certainly appreciate the time today. Thank you so much. Thank you. With that, I think we'll close the public hearing and move into discussion. I've got a question. Sure. Okay. The gentleman does strong water. He did not answer the question. How many gallons of water will it run off of the school property onto my property? He just said it'd be five feet. That doesn't tell us anything. You know, there's going to cover five feet of my property or how many gallons of water that it's going to run off if it gets a one inch of rain or an inch and a half of rain. So from that, from that large retention pond. Jason, to my property. I'll let the applicant speak to it. I will say this, you know, the applicant has to get permits through the state to operate facility to make, to construct those devices, to maintain them, to operate them. And as far as we can tell, they're within the parameters, the framework of the state's requirements. Okay, but what I'm asking for is what is the flow rate that's going to come off the retention ponds after they're built? What's the flow rate coming off the retention ponds if it rains one inch? I'm going to let the applicant choose to answer that if they wish to. And if they're not able to answer it here, maybe they can answer it for you offline. I don't know that the flow rate is absolutely germane to the decision that's before us, but I will let the applicant address that if they want to. All right, and I'm going to ask you another question. Sir, we're getting ready to close the public hearing. So this is not an opportunity for you to think about questions and ask them. What else is it that you need to know? Well, close way, as the gentleman with stormwater has to know how many gallons of water that retention ponds will hold for how long before it overflows in order to build it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if the Durham Public Schools is in a position to be able to answer that position for Mr. Bartel, Mr. Loring, do we have any analysis on that? Is that something we can answer? And if not, you could just let us know. Well, I don't have numbers of gallons per minute or cubic feet per second or measurements at my fingertips at this moment that I don't think is really a good idea to put on public record to an exact square footed or something, but I will say that we've analyzed it. We're reducing the one inch storm. We're reducing the 10 year storm. We're reducing the 25 year storm and we're reducing the 100 year storm. So I cannot say that there's any other requirement that we have and we also have other than treatment as well. So all the impervious areas we're gathering and we're treating in these ponds, they're being released through low flow orifices, probably about an inch and a half range.  The larger events up to the 25 will generally stay inside the pond and be released through the barrel that are controlled by different notches or orifices or holes or whatever layman's terms we wanna use. And then a large event is 100, let's say the 100, most of it goes through the barrel but there is some that will also go out through the emergency spillway that the elevation throughout there is basically a range of where at least that pond will get up to. Yes, there is a large amount of water that is contained within that, but it's all water that is designed to be released at a slower rate than what is currently anticipated to flow through the stream based on standard engineering practices that are accepted and accepted by Durham. So I'm not sure I can answer it any better than that. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Warren. Thank you. With that, I am closing the public hearing. I appreciate everybody's attendance and questions and comments. We are going to discuss among the board now and talk about it. So with that, I will again, close public hearing. Board members, discussion. Oh, I'm sorry, we need a staff recommendation. I apologize. We first a staff recommendation and then we'll discuss my apologies. Sorry about that delay. I was trying to get comfortable. Planning staff would actually recommend the continuance for this case B2000051 in terms of the possibility of having the NTDOT, the Interfinement Department of Transportation available to answer some of the questions that came up today, as well as resolve the matter of the payments for the improvements that is not currently resolved. That is all I have to say. Mr. Meathers, you are muted. However, Tisha and Mr. Tarrant have their hands raised if you want to repeat what you're saying. Thank you. Continuance to a date certain? Staff will allow the board to determine the exact date, but yes, continuance to a date certain in which we could reach out to NTDOT to have their testimony here and their or their attendance here and they could provide testimony. There was many people that mentioned, I wish NTDOT was here. That's kind of a direct quote from some of the individuals here. So I want to make a recommendation for continuance to allow that to occur. Understood, thank you. Discussion, how do people feel? Delacy, please. Delacy, hello. Yes, thank you. Does the motion for continuance supersede any discussion or do we do discussion first? Delacy, that was a recommendation by staff, so it was not a motion. So I believe you all are good to go. Okay. You're free to make that motion if you'd like to, Ms. Delacy. Why don't we vote on the motion? And well, we should have the discussion before we vote on the continuance or what do you think? I think we have spent a long time on this case. If the preponderance of board members are comfortable continuing, I don't think we should belabor this anymore. However, I'm open to the will of the group. Well, why don't I put forward a motion for continuance so that it can be voted up or down and we can decide? So I'll put a plan. Therefore, I move that we continue this case until the date's certain of whenever the chair chooses. I second. I think. I'm sorry, planning staff want to interject really quickly for Mr. Meadows. The next date of the BOA meeting is February the 23rd if we wanted to have an exact date. How was our case load for the 23rd of February? Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we're going to be, go to putting this first and all of the testimony except for whether Mexico pays for the wall is done and you've already closed and set it up for discussion. Is that correct? That is correct. So Eliza Monroe staff speaking here with regards to Mr. Meadows question about the case load for February and also about the order right now for February. So February is slightly busy. We do have about six cases on the docket currently for that agenda. In terms of Mr. Lace, please comment about the order. We do need to speak logistically about the case that is supposed to occur after this one since we do have a couple of members. We have a shortage of members today. So we do want to speak about logistics of hearing the case that's on the agenda after this one. So following that discussion, there may be a chance that that case would need to either go first or we would have to play around with the agenda. So the order is not something we can establish today. However, we can say that we can either go to February which has six cases currently not including the potential for B202000052 and then March is wide open as well. And the date for March is that fourth Tuesday which is also the 23rd. Mr. Chair, may I make a request? I don't know if we can receive request. I will have to reflect to Krista about whether or not we can do so. Just cause at this point we technically close the public hearing. So it should just be staff and the board speaking. Actually, I don't really even want to be talking to. Thank you. Krista. Thank you. Krista Kukrosity, attorney's office. I would feel comfortable if that request is presented to the chair. Mr. Wardell, do you have any input on that? What is the request? I would simply request just for the record that the grounds for the motion be stated. I know the recommendation was made and the grounds for the recommendation were made but I would request for the record that the grounds for the motion be stated as well as the motion for continuance. I think that's appropriate. I also think it would be appropriate to have the applicant weigh in on what their position is with regard to a continuum. I think it would be appropriate for the record to accept that as well. Mr. Chair, may I weigh in at this point? Please. Yeah, and thank you very much, Mr. Wardell. As I mentioned in my closing, the Durham Public Schools position is that we don't believe a continuance is necessary or advisable at this time simply because the grounds that were listed in the recommendation, I mean, if the board has additional questions about the actual transportation plan that's set forth in the site plan, then perhaps so. That does not sound to me as if the board, I guess we don't know yet, right? There hasn't been discussion by the board, but it certainly doesn't sound like that. But what it sounds to me is that if the recommendation has been made in order to work out this issue of reimbursement. And again, if you look at the factors, the issue of payment for and reimbursement for the requested and the recommended improvements is not one of the factors. And it's inappropriate that the board's position is that it's inappropriate at this point for the city to request a continuance in order to essentially make the approval of this special use permit contingent on getting some kind of agreement from the Durham Public Schools to waive its right to request reimbursement. I think that's simply inappropriate at this point. And so our position would be that the board should not grant a continuance because that's just not one of the factors that needs to be considered today. And that's all we have to say. Thank you. Okay, so... We have a motion on the floor in a second. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second? And it's... This is Jeter. I think I seconded the continuance. You seconded. So we have a motion and a second. The basis for the continuance is to allow the DOT to be present to provide additional information. Is that accurate to everyone's understanding? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair. Call the question. Mr. Chair. Are you ready for roll? Yes, ma'am. Ms. DeLacy. Aye, yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. No. Ms. Waimour. We're voting on the continuance, correct? Not on the case. Correct, that's right. All right, then, yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Ms. Boshane. Yes. Motion carries five to two. Okay, so we will continue this case until 8.30 a.m. on Tuesday, the 23rd of February. Thank you. Good. Do we wanna try to press on or do we need to take a break? Planning department staff here, before we press on, I think there was some discussion we wanted to have about the case that might be hearing after this B2005-2, the appeal and the logistics of it. So Chris and myself will be moving individuals back over to the attendee side and then we can see everyone and have this discussion among staff, the attorneys in the board. So I think just left is Gary. Okay, I believe we are now just members of the board. So I'll kind of head it up a little bit or open the floor to Brian or Krista, whoever prefers to head it up. I believe we have to have Don go to the waiting area because he's representing the city. Yes. Any appeal? Not that I don't like Don, I love Don. Yep, I just switched him over to an attendee as well. Thank you for catching that, Brian. I think now we have just board Brian, Krista and staff. Okay, no, this is not closed session. I think Mr. Lacey was asking if this was closed session. No, this is not closed session. We are just discussing the parameters of what's going to happen in this next case. So this next case is an appeal of a notice of violation. And so you'll be sitting more like an appellate court, right? So you'll be receiving evidence and then based on the evidence that you receive, you'll make a decision as to whether or not the notice of violation is proper, okay? So the city is going to be represented by Donald tool and then there may be an attorney for the appellate as well. So the appellate will make an argument, you'll listen to the argument and the criteria is whatever the violation says. So you'll look at the violation and you'll see what the wording is within the violation and then you just have to make a determination based on the evidence, whether or not the appeal is either appropriate or not appropriate. So you would be voting to either uphold the NOV or to not uphold the NOV, okay? And the NOV is notice of violation. Any questions about what your role is here? I have one, Mr. Willow, and that is we are confining our decision to whether or not the notice of violation was issued properly, not whether or not there is a violation on the property. Is that accurate or am I just mincing words? It is accurate, but they're almost in lockstep because the city will have to show that there was sufficient evidence to support the NOV. And so when you look at the evidence, you'll have to weigh whether or not that was sufficient to show that there was a violation of whatever provision of the UDL has been violated. Okay, so upholding the notice basically means we also uphold the fact that there was a violation. You're upholding the validity of the notice of violation. So for example, you can have a situation where there was possibly in fact a violation, but there could have been a technical problem with the notice of violation, okay? In which case the notice of violation would be moved because of the technical issue. Right. So typically they lockstep, but there are times when you can have a violation and the notice still might be affected. Okay, any other questions about what you are tasked to do? Brian, I may have missed something else, get the switch between rooms there for a minute. So did I understand that we're not asking questions as we typically would, we're just here listening to the testimony on both sides and then making a decision from that? You are allowed to ask questions. Typically you are listening more to the evidence in the arguments, but if you need clarification, you certainly can ask for clarification to determine whether or not there's sufficient evidence to support the notice of violation. And so that argument will be made by the city attorney. And then there'll be a counter argument that'll be made by the appellant. Because the appellant is saying, for whatever reason, I don't know what the reason is that the notice of violation is defective in some way. Okay. Thanks. How many people do we have seven for this case? Yeah. Yes and no. Majors, I believe it's going to recruse herself from the case. So then that would leave Meadows, Feuder, Roshani, which Natalie, I'm probably saying her last name wrong. Mr. Kitt, Weymour, Tarrant, and then Delacy who's joining us via audio, which I don't think, since she has been here this whole time, I don't think there should be a reservation. So we do have seven. Okay. So if we have seven, that's fine. If we would have had six, then we would have needed the consent of the appellant to go forward. If there are no other questions, then I say, you know, this is our first appeal in a while. So just listen to the evidence and decide whether or not the NOV is what's properly issued. Just have it like to request, like maybe like 15 minutes, I just need to do some quick runs around the house and then come back. Should we, how do people feel? I wouldn't mind taking a five or 10 minute break. I really wouldn't. You know, I would suggest we take more than that and maybe 30 minutes. Okay. It'll give people time to get something to eat. And then when we come back, we can finish up. I don't know what everybody's schedule is like, but it's one o'clock right now. Delacy, I have to leave at 2.15. Okay. Do people feel okay? Taking a break for 30 minutes, coming back at 1.35. Yes. That's nodding. Okay. Let's do that. Let's stand adjourned until 1.35. We'll see you back then. Thank you. Anybody who sees her? I think we are back. If you're here, if you could, okay, Regina, we can hear you.  Yep, you've got a little bit of white noise, Regina. So I might ask you to mute yourself, Oli. Okay. How do I mute? I can mute you. All right. It's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. I guess we're ready to go. Yes. Madam clerk. How was everybody's lunch, by the way, other than short? We're still missing someone. I'm at the board, Peter. Micah is nodding. Two, three, four, five, six. Yeah, we're one shy. Jessica, I thought you were, are you in this one or are you, you're nodding this one? So there's only one, two, three, four, five of us. And Miss Peter. And Regina, six. So we're waiting for Micah to come back. Is that right? Yes. All right. Everybody who's joining, we're waiting for our seventh member to rejoin us so that we have seven. We'll give her another minute, and then we will proceed. Aliza, who is the applicant? So this is an appeal. So it'll be the appellant. Is Miss, Mr. Faisen and Mr. Satterfield are going to be. The reason I'm asking is I might have to ask Mr. Faisen if he wants, if he consents to going forward with just six members. Gotcha. We can definitely do that. Mr. Satterfield, or if you wouldn't mind unmuting and putting your camera forth as well as Karyn, Dawn, Landis. And we can go from there. So I thought we had seven. We, Micah is not back with us. We thought we had seven as well, but she has not rejoined us yet. Okay, and where's Regina is via telephone? Yeah, but I still don't see her. She's, I see her. Are you here Regina? Can you unmute yourself please? To unmute on it's. I'm here. I'm unmuted, but they're gonna mute me again because I've got white noise. I got you, okay. And we'll ask Miss Major if you can turn off your video just so we can make sure that we're only seeing those that are gonna be participating. So wait, she has to. On record, yes. Thank you, Brian, for bringing that up. Let's go ahead and do that. Or should we ask about the six, six, should we ask for consent for six members? What should we do first? Well, let's, Micah is back. So she's here. Awesome. Okay, let's go ahead and proceed. Shall we call the question before Miss Major recuses us? I mean, should we read the case? Yes, please. B2-00-052, an appeal for an administrative decision to administer a notice of violation for operating a business from a residential zoning district and the storage of heavy equipment. The subject site is located at 1828 James Street is a residential suburban and is in the urban tier. Thank you, Miss Major. Yes. Are you going to be joining us in this case? No, I will not. I have a conflict. Okay, Mr. Wardell, I assume we need to have a motion and a roll call. No, if she recuses herself, she just will not be called for the seating in the case. And then she would essentially just log off because she would have no participation in the case at all. Great, all right. Madam Clerk, could you call the seating? Yes, Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Ms. Wildmore, Ms. Jeter, Mr. Tarrant and Ms. Boshane. Thank you. Before we get started, I need to administer the oath. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Real quick, Susan didn't finish her full spiel when she was calling the case. She has to say the whole, you've written the other, I think David saw that stuff. I got excited. Sorry. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified, notarized to affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. All right. For those who are going to speak, either in favor of or against, can you please turn on your cameras and turn on your microphones so that we can administer the oath? I assume that everybody who is going to has. And so if you would please, do you swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I need to hear from everybody who's gonna speak. I do. Yes. Are you muted, Mr. Phasen? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Yeah, I can't hear Mr. Phasen. Something's wrong with his audio. Mr. Satterfield, are you here representing Mr. Phasen as his legal representative? And then I would like to ask Mr. Wardell if he's the sole representative, could we still proceed if Mr. Phasen was not able to unmute himself? Well, Mr. Phasen is the only witness I would anticipate they would have and if we can't hear him, we can't go forward. Understood. And this is Chris Peterson planning department. One recommendation I might have is if Mr. Phasen has a secondary phone, we can have him on camera and then he can also use the call-in line and we can grab his audio from that. Would that be acceptable to the board? I think so. Mr. Phasen, I will send in the chat the phone number to call in, bear with me one second. If you're unable to get your microphone turned on, this is Chris Peterson planning department. If you're unable to get your microphone turned on, I submitted a phone number in the chat. I can also read it out loud if you wanna try to call with a phone number and the phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. And then the webinar ID is 947-2342-2731. Promise of technology. All right, I see a phone number ending in 1-997. Is that you, Mr. Phasen? And press star six to unmute, please. Can you hear us now, Mr. Phasen?  Please lower the speakers on your computer so that we don't get the feedback like that. And then press star six again to unmute your phone. All right, let's try this again. Can you respond? Can you speak, Mr. Phasen? Can we hear you now? Okay, I can hear you. All right, terrific. Thank you. It was really a master deal. Thank you. Okay, so do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes. Great, thank you. I think at this point, I assume there is a staff report or a report from staff. You would be correct in that assumption. I'm pulling that up now and sharing my screen. I would like to note before we get started that this is the first time that the board has heard an appeal in a while is specifically in this virtual platform. So if there are any questions or comments, please feel free to ask them as we go along. I know typically what we wait until the end, but if there are any procedural questions or comments, please feel free to ask them. But hearing none at this time, I'm going to go ahead and get started. Good afternoon, everyone. Liza Monroe here from the planning department, planning staff request that the staff report and all material submitted here at the public hearing be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. Though noted. Thank you. Case B2000052 is an appeal of administrative decision to administer a notice of violation for operating a business from a residential zoning district and the storage of heavy equipment in a residential zoning district. The appellant is Calvin Faison and the subject site is located at 1-828 James Street. The site in question is highlighted on the screen in red. The site is zoned residential suburban M or RSM and is within the city of Durham jurisdiction. Currently on the site, there is a single family dwelling structure. It is my understanding that there is not someone dwelling there but there is an existing structure on the site. Staff will now go through a summary of how we ended up here today. And during that time, I'll go through the administration of the notice of violation as well as the analysis. On October 8th, 2020, the notice of violation was issued to Calvin Faison as the owner of 1828 James Street, which as I mentioned before is residentially zoned RSM for operating a business in a residential zoning district and storing heavy equipment on that lot. Based upon physical evidence and research done by staff, it appears a contractors building is operating here. Pursuing to unified development ordinance, section 5.1, the use table, the retail sales and service, which was mentioned originally in the report and after federal evidence, this commercial use of an office are not permitted to be operated in the RSM zoning district. Pursuing to UDO section 10.2.3, vehicle parking permitted in residential districts and usages, heavy equipment is not permitted to be a part of the residential zoning district. And the heavy equipment within the unified development ordinance as defined in section 17.3 is defined as vehicles such as buses, tow trucks, furniture trucks, fuel trucks, refrigerator trucks, dump trucks, or submit mixers. Vehicles with a class of seven or above that would typically have a gross vehicle weight of at least 13 tons or any construction equipment or within city limits, any farm equipment except in the RS20 or RR districts. In this case, onsite, there is a furniture truck that was photographed by staff and is located to the rear of the previously mentioned structure. Based upon these findings, which we would consider that type of truck, a panel truck as a furniture truck, which was a part of that definition of heavy equipment. Based upon these findings, Karen Swope, the code enforcement officer conducted, I feel this inspection at 1828 James Street during that inspection, she took this photo here and then zoning violation was observed as the business, which at that time, if you went to a simple search on Google would come up a space and home repair, appear to be operating out of the unoccupied residential property located there. Additionally, there was the truck that you see parked and that was deemed to be determined as heavy equipment. Code enforcement officer Swope drafted and issued the notice of violation and that violation is what we're now here before you all talking about as it has been appealed by the appellants. The appeal, the appeal was actually submitted on November 30th, 2020. That day is important because it does show that they were within the amount of timeframe that's permitted by the rules of procedure. The appellant states that these violations do not, the proposed dimension violations within the notice are not existing on this property. As they claim, there was not a good business operating at the reference property and they say that there was no heavy equipment as defined by a UDO part on the reference property. Staff would like to note that the building, the truck that you see was photographed on site in October as being on site and that is what we would define as heavy equipment. There are additional photos as well of other things being stored on site that were taken more recently within the past week or so by staff as well. And those were provided in the agenda and they're also available here on screen. So I'll go through those momentarily so that you may see what we're referring to. This is another shot of the furniture truck from, this is taken from right-of-way, public right-of-way so therefore not on property. These are more shots of that. There are also other things that are being stored here which was a part of the notice of violation to be removed off site. This here is the sign in which was noticed that this case was coming before the board today and that is the residents, the existing dwelling structure that is currently vacant. So at this time, I will note that UDO section 3.15 has established the guidelines for the procedure that the board must embark on when reviewing an appeal of administrative decision. The staff report, the applicant's application as well as any supporting documents received by staff in a timely manner are all available on the agenda and have been given to the board and staff will be available for any questions as needed during the hearing process as we will remain controlled of the Zoom screen. Any questions at this time? And I can stop share in a couple of moments but in the meantime, I'm just gonna meet myself and kind of open up so I can allow anyone to speak. Does anyone from the board have a question of staff? Kisha? Yeah, hi. Just to reiterate, maybe I lost me in the translation. The impetus for the violation was the sign in the front yard. Sorry, let me go back. Sorry, I was trying to unmute myself. The sign in the front yard there is actually the notification sign for Board of Adjustment meetings, that blue green sign. The impetus for the violation is, I'm gonna go back to the actual NIV itself so you can see that language. Operating a business, which at that time in October, if you search Google, if you search 1828 James Street, the name phase and home repair came up. So the violation was operating that business from a residential zoning district in the storage of a vehicle, which we gave as heavy equipment, the right truck that has been mentioned and shown on site within a residential zoning district. There are also the parameters for correcting this violation here as well as instructions of whether or not someone, if they would like to appeal this decision. This letter is what was given to the applicant in October that we are now seeing. So I hope that clears up a little bit. That sign is a notification sign. Those photos are very recent within the last week. So that is the sign that is there based upon general statutes were required to notify neighbors to be a letter as well as signage posting. So that is what that sign is. I understand that. I guess I was wondering how did this, how did they find out that this was operating there? Was it just because the truck was there and they, someone drove by or confused as to how that came about? Planning staff would like to possibly allow that question to be answered by Karen Swope, who is the code enforcement officer that has been involved. I will, before we open up, I think Brian has perhaps hand raised and also Don might have some things to say as well. Before we go any further, I have one more question I'd like to ask about the site itself. Do you have the aerial photo, Eliza? Can you go to that please? The aerial photo should be now shown on the screen. No, there we go. Okay. I see there's a red parallelogram that outlines the site itself. And then it looks to me as though a portion of the site is occupied by, I don't know what that is, but is that, is that a permissible activity or is that storage thought to be part of the violation? Yes, Mr. Meadows, if you, I'm gonna switch back now to the actual notice of violation. There was that first part about the correction of the violation. It mentions the removal of all construction-related materials from this property within seven days of the receipt. It is staff's understanding and once again I'll allow Mrs. Swift to chime in here. It's staff understanding that those things that you see there are those construction-related materials that were being requested to be removed from the property to correct that violation. Okay, thank you. And Brian had his hand raised as well. So I wanna make sure that we, Brian's kind of running the show here everybody. No, Chad is running the show. Chad is running the show, Brian's got the GPS in the passenger seat. Ms. Weymour, I know that there are questions that you might have, but since this is an appeal of the NOV, just listen to the evidence presented. And then if you have questions at the end of the evidence, then just jot it down if those questions aren't answered during the presentation. Okay. Thank you. Mr. O'Toole, did Don have a question? I can't remember. I thought I heard Eliza say he had his hand raised. You know, by the way, this is Don O'Toole from the city attorney's office. Thank you. I think Ms. Swope when she testifies will be able to explain what initiated the NOV process, but it wasn't, it was not initiated by staff. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. I guess the next step is to hear from Officer Swope. Yes, this is Karen Swope. I am a senior planner, zoning enforcement officer with the Durham city. The warden has got his finger up. He's telling me to- Sorry, just procedurally, typically the appellant will present first nail and they will sort of present their case as to why they believe the NOV is not supported by the evidence. And then the city would support the NOV. Would support the NOV. My apologies for messing us up on process. This is my first- It's okay. That's okay, that's okay. Mr. Faisen, we would like to hear from you or your representative about the notice of violation and how we got to this point. Hello, everybody. I'm Darren Satterfield of you all in mind. I will ask my client questions and he'll answer them, kind of direct the evidence if that's okay. That's just fine. All right, Mr. Faisen, can you hear me? Yes. According to the city, this property is owned by a phasen home repair. Is that accurate? Okay, I can barely hear. Okay, say that one more time. Is the property at 11th Street claims owned by phasen home repair? Okay, it's my name, phasen home repair. My wife's name owned the deed. Have you ever operated a business at that location? Pardon? Have you operated a business at that location? Okay, when you say a business, I store materials there and I put my trucks there. I'll be specific. Have you accepted or performed work at that location? From other, from customers? No, I haven't. Have you accepted money? Okay. Have you accepted money for services before? Let me ask the question and you can answer. Have you accepted money for services performed at that location? No. All right, do you have no receipts for work or contract or met clients at that location? No. Is there a specific reason why the property is still in the name of phasen home repair? When I purchased it, it was on a finance and I put that name, my wife's name on the deed. Who's first initially got it? What do you currently work, Mr. Phasen? Okay, say that again now. Where do you work? Okay, I work for myself but I work out of my house as far as the office part of it. In regard to the vehicle that's at a location, how long has that vehicle been there? I got it roughly a year after I purchased the building. I think it was like 1995 or 1996. It's somewhere in that neighborhood. It's when I purchased from Charlie McBrown. To verify that I was in the debt of deed. And do you know the dimensions of the vehicle, the size of the vehicle, height, length, width? Well, the length on it is roughly between 14, 16 feet and so single axle box truck. And the space was being parked in the same area either the location, they took the picture or back in the fence, it normally be in that same position. Ms. Phasen, do you have anything to add in regard to your business or you operating a business at that location? Like I said, I operate the office part of my business at my personal residential house. No transaction goes on at that particular address. In regard to the items that are stored at location, are those your personal items? Yes, I own rental houses and it's my personal stuff for my rental houses. All right, any further questions? Are there, does anyone have, and Mr. Wardell, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that it would be appropriate to allow the board to ask questions of the applicant or the applicant's representative. Yes, and cross examination as well at this point would be acceptable, but the board can certainly ask any questions that it would have and then the city would be able to ask questions that they may have as well. I see, does anyone have questions? I do, Bo Shane. Ms. Bo Shane, please go ahead. Thank you. So did I understand you to say the truck had been there since 1995 or 1996? It's been there that long? Someone in that neighborhood is when our person said building, I can't give you exact date, but it's been there pretty much ever since I have owned the building. And it does run, correct? Yes, it does. It has plates on it? It doesn't have plates on it at the moment. Okay. Other questions? I have a couple. Mr. Faisen, you said you work out of your home. I assume this 1828, James Street is not your home. Is that right? Your home is somewhere else? Yes. Okay, okay. And I'm sorry, I'm confused about the ownership of the property. You had mentioned that your wife's name is on the deed. So what does, is the deed in the name of Faisen, Faisen Home Repair, or is it in your wife's name without any reference to Faisen Home Repair? It's in all three. This is the way it was over there. So I think Calvin A. Faisen, it should be Bernie's Faisen and then Faisen Home Repair on the deed. Okay. All right, so it's all three of you. It's you, your wife, and the business. Okay. And you are, there's material that is stored in the location and that material is, or is not part of Faisen Home Repair. No, like I said, this is my rental property materials. Uh-huh. So you have Faisen Home Repair and Faisen Home Repair doesn't operate rental homes. Faisen Home Repair does something else. That's correct. Okay. I have a question for staff. I don't know if that's appropriate or not. Is that an appropriate question to, is it an appropriate time to ask staff a question, Mr. Wardell? I think my follow-up is which staff? I think it's the Plasmon Road Planning Department staff, because there are two roles of staff here. So, okay. If you, Chad, if it's something you can put opinion in. And- If I can. Okay. Because I'd like for the board to ask whatever questions they may have, then the city representative to ask whatever cross-examination they have, examination they have, and then you can ask staff- Thank you. If I will. No problem. That sounds great. Thank you. Okay. I have no further questions. Anybody else questions? Mr. Tarrant has his hand raised. Please, sir. I guess this is Tarrant. I guess I'm still not clear is what the use of the property is other than to store materials. Do you elaborate on what you use the property for please? Could you repeat that one more time? I'm not clear on how the property is being used. It sounds like you just use it to store materials for your rental. And this is it. This nothing helps man down with it. Other questions for the applicant? All that's one last clarifying question for myself. The house is vacant now. Yes? Yes, it is. How long has it been vacant? Ever since I owned it. So, and you purchased the home in 95? Just a minute. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I guess it's appropriate for the city's representative if they have questions. Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Faison. I guess we've been here a long time since we started at 830. I just wanna clarify some things for the board about the property ownership.  I believe her initials are VR, Faison. She's an owner as well, is that right? That's correct. Okay. And then the other entity that's listed on the property records is a company called Faison Home Repair Company. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And it's also my understanding from looking at some of the records with the North Carolina Secretary of State's office that you changed the name of Faison Home Repair Company in 2001 to new All-Star Builders, LLC. Is, does that ring a bell? Yes. Okay. And then I guess in 2005, you decided to change the name of your general contractor's business again to new All-Star Builders Incorporated. Does that sound familiar to you? That's correct. Okay. So your current general contracting business goes by the name new All-Star Builders Incorporated, right? That's correct. Okay. And then I also looked up your general contractor's license and you individually are a general contractor, right? Okay, say that again then. You individually are a licensed general contractor in North Carolina, right? That's cool. And I guess you also include the name of your company on your general contractor's license. Is that correct? Okay. Say that one more time now. Sure. I looked up, I did a general contractor's license lookup on the North Carolina general contractor's website and your license number is 44-857. And it identifies you as an individual licensee but it also identifies your company All-Star Builders Inc as a corporate licensee. Is it your understanding that you're licensed both ways individually and as the corporate entity? Yes. Okay.  And there's two, so I wanna make sure we get the correct one. So I just, Eliza Monroe staff here. So I just shared something on screen as a business corporation annual report. The next document was... The first one is the one that I wanted, Eliza. That's perfect. Okay. Mr. Fason, I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that your business is registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State's office. Are you aware of that? That's correct. Okay. And you file annual reports which are part of the requirement to be registered with the Secretary of State's website. Is that correct? Right. Okay. And as we just discussed, your business has gone through several different names but this is a report that was filed and it's the latest report. It's my understanding that the next report is not due till April, but that it's in the name of All-Star Builders Incorporated. Is that your company's name? That's correct. Okay. And the other thing just so the board knows that this is an official public record, if you look at the box over in the upper right-hand side of the document, you can see that this was electronically filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State. So I would contend that this is an official public record of the state and that it should be admissible before the board. And then in section A, Mr. Fasen, do you see that you're identified as the registered agent of this corporation, Mr. Fasen? You say that again now? Yeah, I was just saying, if you look at section A of this document, do you see where it identifies you as the registered agent for All-Star Builders Inc? Yes. Okay. And then the other thing that I just wanted to point out to the board is if you look at section B, which deals with the principal office information, number one under B indicates that it's a general contractor's business. And then just read for me if you would, what it says in response to question four, which is the principal office street address. What was your response there? Mr. Fasen? Okay, say the 1828 James Street. Correct. So you had identified 1828 James Street as the principal office address of your business. Is that correct? Yes, on the corporation, yes, I did. Okay. And then in section D, this is who submitted the report. Did you as president of All-Star Builders Inc submit this report to the state? Yes, I did. Okay. Then as far as the truck, the box truck that's on the property, do you own that truck or does your business own it? I own it. So you own it individually? Yes. Okay. And it is operational. I think you indicated that already. Is that right? Yes. What do you use it for? Pretty much just storage right now. And what is stored in the truck? Some of my materials from the rental. So materials for your rental business are stored in the box truck? Yes, it is. Okay. And I think as far as the dwelling on the property, you indicated that it's been vacant since you purchased it. Is that right? That's correct. Do you use the structure for anything? Do you use it for storage? Do you ever do that? The reason I bought it, the reason it was purchased because I was gonna rent a storage unit. And I looked at the price of the storage unit versus the building. And I thought I would be paying basically the same amount of money to store with a storage unit other than a building. So I actually purchased the building. Got it. That was the better deal. Do you use the structure on the property to store materials for your rental business? That's correct. Okay. Do you store anything else in the building? That's pretty much it. Okay. And what about, you know, the staff report or the NOV, both of them strike that. Ms. Monroe showed some photographs of material in the backyard of the property. Basically, there was some material lying against the rear of the building. And then there were also materials in the far back of the property behind the box truck. Are those construction materials? This recycled materials I took off the house is that I just keep the materials shipped on it away for usable materials. And do you plan to reuse those materials in your contracting business? Well, I mean, it's done brought up a lot of issues. I was gonna go through it and look at what I could use and pretty much try to condense it. So it wouldn't be as much there? Are there still materials in the backyard of the property that you made on some of your construction projects? Like I said, I use them for my rental houses. Okay. I think that's all the questions I have for Mr. Faisen. Thank you very much. Mr. Wardell. Yes. Is it appropriate for us to, where do we go from here? The board can follow up with questions. If there are additional questions that his attorney wants to ask him for clarification, they can do that at this point. And then we'll go to the city's presentation. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. O'Toole? No, the questions would not be for Mr. O'Toole. They would be Mr. Faisen if they would follow up questions. Yeah, I have a follow up questions. Please sir, go right ahead. All right, thank you. Mr. Faisen, can you hear me? Yes. I wish the volume could be turned up a little bit because it's real hard to hear. I don't have no control on this end to turn it up. All right, well, I'll speak loudly so you can hear me. Now, I'm looking at the annual report dated in 2019. Since 2019, or since you filed this report, have you conducted any business activity at the location of 1828 James Street? No sir, I do not translate any business there. All my mail, all my mail go to my P.O. box. All right. Is that P.O. box 11643 Durham, North Carolina 27703? That's right. All of all saw Bill mill go exactly there. It doesn't come to 1828 James Street. All right. And that's the same address that you also have listed as the principal office mailing address on the annual report. Well, they told me I could not use a P.O. box. I had to use a street address while I put the 1828 James Street there. All right. Was there a particular reason why you didn't just use your home address as opposed to 1828 James Street? I didn't think at the time it was the issue. I mean, that needs to be changed. It can be. All right. But the fact remains, you still have not conducted any business there. Physical, actual business at that location. No business. If you look at section C, I do have my personal address there on that 41 here, Grove Ridge. All right. And have you filed another annual report for 2020? No. All right. Is that report due? I think it's coming due. Okay. I understand. Is it your intention to use the 1828 James Street for your new filing and for the 2020 annual report? No. It's just an issue. I will change the address on that. All right. No further questions for me. Mr. Tarrant, you have your hand. Yes, this is Tarrant. Mr. Faysen, you had indicated that you use the property to store recycled materials for your rental properties. And looking at the imagery that's been provided, it would appear that there are at least two other vehicles being stored behind the white truck. Is that accurate? Okay. I heard part of the statement. You had indicated that you use the property to store recycled materials for your rental properties, but it appears based on the images provided to us that there are at least two vehicles being stored within the fence behind the white truck. Is that an accurate statement? It's two old trucks. They don't run and I'm gonna be getting rid of them. So they won't be there as long. The other question I had is who owns the rental properties? Are those listed under all start builders? No, they're not there. My wife's name is my name. Oh, I have, thank you. Other questions for Mr. Faysen? Okay, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's time to hear from the city. Right, you had a question that you wanted to get clarified by staff. I did. You could do that and then go to the city's presentation. Okay, okay, thank you. And so does the storage of material for use in a separate location, is that considered a business use or a home use? Is the first question. Okay, say that again now. This is a question for staff. Okay. Eliza Monroe from the planning department chiming in here. It would be considered a commercial use. And I would like to clarify in terms of what is permitted within the city of Durham in regards to commercial uses within residential structures. You can have a home occupation permit, which you do have to apply through the development services center for. And that would allow for minor work to be done, like bookkeeping, maybe answering phone calls on that site. That being said, there's not a home occupation permit for this location. So the uses that you're referring to chat to answer your question is considered a commercial use, not a residential or office use. We would call it commercial, which is not permitted within a residential zoning district. And then there are certain parameters to permit work to be done for a business within a residential structure. But that's through a home occupation permit, which the site does not have. Right. So it's a... One more time, Chad, you went out just a little bit. It's a vacant home. There is storage. I'm sorry, I'm getting a note that my internet connection is unstable. Has it squared itself away? Yeah, you're better now. You're better now, yes. Apologies, technology again. Goodness. So vacant home, storage of material for a rental activity. And that storage could be permitted if there was a home occupation. Am I interpreting that correctly? No. So lies in our staff, minor work for a business can be done with a home occupation permit, like bookkeeping, possibly receiving mail, those minor things, more like clerical work can be done through a home occupation permit. The storage of materials, no, sir. No, so that wouldn't be allowed even if there was a home occupation permit, but there is not a home occupation permit. That is correct. There is not an existing home occupation permit for 1828 James Street. Okay. Thank you. That's my question. You're welcome. I, Eliza Moreau staff here, I will unshare my screen just so we can see everyone. I see Mr. Wardale wants to speak probably about some presiding matters, but I just wanna unshare so we can see each other. Now, I was just going to say to Chad that now it's appropriate to have the city to present their evidence in support of the notice of violation. Thank you, sir. And I appreciate your patience as you deal with us. So let's hear from the city. Thanks again, board. I appreciate your patience.  Just one question before I completely turn it over to Ms. Swope. Ms. Swope, I wanted to ask you a question on the record. How did you learn of the potential violation at 1828 James Street? Was that city initiated or did that come in from some other source? Yes, this is Karen Swope. I am a senior planner, zoning enforcement officer with the Durham City County Planning Department. On September 24th, I received a complaint, an email complaint through our Mojo Complaint System, which is the system the city has set up to receive complaints, concerns through our Development Services Center. So I did receive a complaint. Thanks, Karen. And I'll turn it over to you. I think it would be helpful for the board just to understand you received the complaint and then what did you do in order to decide that an NOV was warranted? And after the complaint, you would explain about the photographs that you've taken for that property. After the complaint, I went to the site and witnessed that it did appear to be storage, some type of storage for a building or building business back there behind the fence. It has since been read, well, I went out and I did an investigation, I came back and I issued the notice of violation. I Googled that address and FaZe and Home Builders came up. If you Google that address now, All-Star Builders comes up. So there is definitely a business being advertised at that address. And Karen, it's my understanding that you took photographs on your initial visit and then I believe you went out last week just to confirm what the current state of the property is. Could you just explain that to the board? Yes, I originally took pictures on September 28th and that's what I used to base my notice of violation on. Then I went out on January 20th to recertify that it is still in violation and it is still in violation. The truck's still out there and it is still being used for storage. And Karen, just to close the loop, the pictures that are part of the agenda, catch to the agenda. You took all of those photographs, right? Yes, I took all the photographs. I don't have any other questions for Ms. Swole. All right, Mr. Wardell, I assume it's appropriate to allow the applicant to ask some questions. Yes, the applicant can do cross-examination and the board can ask questions if they need clarification. Okay, let's let the applicant ask the questions and then we'll see if the board has any questions. I'm Ms. Swole, I'm Darren Satterfield, Mr. Fasen's attorney. I just got a couple of questions. You mentioned in your testimony that the property is being advertised. I wanna make sure I'm clear on that. You didn't see a sign indicating that there was a business being operated at the location, did you? No, sir. All right. And as far as you could tell, you never saw any actual people or business being operated at the location you just received that information online as far as who the owner of the business is. That is correct. All right, no further questions. Does anyone on the board have any questions for Officer Swole? I do, Bo-Shane, this may not be an appropriate question, but have there been complaints from the neighbors about this residence? And that may not be an appropriate question, but I don't know about it. The original email was a complaint. That's how I went out to do the investigation based on a complaint. But after all these years of him being there, there's only been one complaint. Is that correct? I can't answer that. That I'm aware of, I don't know. Okay. I'd like to ask a question if I may. The complaint that you received, was that about operation of a business or was that about outdoor storage that may or may not be permissible?  And is it permissible to have a large truck in the backyard of a property, of a residential structure? The property is zoned residential. That is considered heavy equipment. Heavy equipment is prohibited in a residential zoning district. Okay. So there's a big truck in the backyard and it's not allowed in the district? Correct. Okay. And there's storage in the backyard and that might be allowed as a commercial activity if it was permitted, but there is no permit for that kind of commercial activity. Is that right? No, sir. You cannot have that outdoor storage. Okay. If somebody lived in that house and it was a resident, you could have residential outdoor storage based on a resident. If you wanna have junk in your backyard, I can't control that. Right. But nobody lives there and once you have outdoor storage in the house that nobody's living in, that's where this kicks this in. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Wardell, what do we do now? All right, at this point, the applicant should be given the opportunity to do a brief summary and then of course the city would be able to give a brief summary as well. Thank you. Mr. Satterfield or Mr. Faisen, would you like to give a summary? I'll summarize. First of all, thank you all for hearing this matter, giving it your consideration. I know everybody probably has other things that they could be doing right now, but I appreciate your due diligence and your service. Thank you. With regard to my summation, I will be brief. This has been a long day. I did not anticipate being on this call this long. The violation itself, and I wanna stick with that, says that Mr. Faisen was operating a business from Residential Zoning District and a storage vehicle on white truck, which meets the definition of heavy equipment. Part A of that simply deals with the business. Now, we understand that there has been testimony, that there has been equipment on the property. Yeah, junk from Ms. Swope. She testified that there's junk on the property, which I'm sure some people may identify or characterize those items as junk. Question rather in the violation itself was whether that meets the definition of a commercial business, whether it meets the definition of Mr. Faisen operating a business at that location. The testimony from Mr. Faisen is that there has not been any activity, commercial activity, no receipts, no work performed at that location, no customers met at that location, no work being performed. The city's testimony from Ms. Swope even testified that there's no advertisement on that location for the business repair company or the contracting company. There's no advertisement. Yes, that may be indicative that there may be some property there, but the question is whether there is a business being operated there and I do not believe the city has met or shown any evidence that there's an actual business at that location. With regard to the heavy equipment, what I pulled the general statute definition of general equipment in- Based on the general statute- I mean, it may be some discrepancy here with regard to the city's definition of, and I see Mr. O'Toole shaking his head. So I may be totally off base here. So it seems as if, well, I'll just say it. And you've got to- I'd just like to object to that because as the UDO itself says, definitions and terms are the definition that's included in the UDO. There is a definition of heavy equipment in Chapter 17 of the UDO. I agree. I don't find that the statutory definition is particularly relevant as it pertains to the Durham UDO. I agree with that. Very well. I'll stand on my argument for regard to the business. Do not believe the city has shown through their evidence presented that there was a business being operated. And with regard to the annual report, which was submitted by the city, that annual report was in 2019. Mr. Faison has again testified that although that annual report was submitted, the address that he used in conjunction with his PO box is not the actual address where business was being conducted. Moreover, it is his intent this year, obviously, since this has created an issue not to use that address with regard to the annual report. I believe the city must show more evidence than an annual report from 2019 is 2021. Has any activity, has any work been performed at that location recently? The answer is no, based on the evidence from Mr. Faison. Thank you. Nothing further. Thank you. Mr. Atul. Thank you. I think the board has heard everything it needs to hear to uphold this NOV for Mr. Faison himself. It is clear based on everything that Mr. Faison has testified to, that he bought this property to be used for storage for his business. He bought the house so that he could store materials for his business. The box car is used to store materials for his business and he's acknowledged that the materials lying against the back of the house and in the far back of the yard that those are all materials that he uses to conduct his business. I think it's clear based on his testimony and what Ms. Monroe told you that this is a clear case in which residential property is inappropriately being used for a commercial use. It's not being used for a residential use. So there were two sided violations. The first was use of residential property for a commercial use. I think it's an open and shut case. You've heard everything you need to hear. In addition, there's the definition of heavy equipment in the UDO itself and a box truck like this, I believe clearly falls within the city's definition of heavy equipment, which is not permitted on residential use own property. I believe the board should uphold the notice of violation. Thank you. Mr. Wardell, I believe we would now have discussion. Discussion and then a motion. I asked a question about what happens when the violation is upheld, what are the consequences of repercussions or actions thereafter? Or is that not relevant to me? Great question. That's an appropriate question. Okay. The notice of violation has I haven't seen this particular one, but typically there's a time to remedy the violation. And then if you don't remedy the violation by that time, then you can be assessed penalties. So you can either remedy the situation. If you don't, you have to pay the penalties. And then there are other options that you have that typically are spelled out in the notice of violation or you can appeal to superior court as well. And so his appellate rights don't end here. If it's upheld, and if it's not upheld, well, then it's not upheld. Then the notice of violation is basically moot and he can continue to operate as he was operating and lessen until he gets another notice of violation. And so we can assume or we can find or figure out or conclude that the opportunity for him to rectify the situation has not been set yet because we're currently in this process or it's been set and then he appealed it. So he had like, where are we on that? Right. So when there's an appeal pending, the interest or penalties or anything related to the notice of violation has stayed until there's a decision. Then once there's a decision, then the clock starts to run. Okay, thank you. Mr. O'Toole. I just, I completely agree with everything that Mr. Wardell said. I do want to confirm though that the city's goal is not to get penalties. We have no interest in penalizing someone. As stated on the face of the NOV, there's two simple things that the city wants. And that's for the residential property to not be put to a commercial use and for the heavy equipment to not be stored on the residentially zoned property. So it could easily be brought into compliance. Other discussion, comments from the board? I'm gonna weigh it in. Try to make sense of this. It seems that there was a complaint and the complaint wasn't filed about whether or not a business was operating out of this structure. Rather, it seemed to me the complaint was filed because there was a bunch of storage of vehicles and material on the site. And that the storage of the vehicle is a violation of the ordinance. I don't think that's even remotely in dispute. Then the question was, if the house is vacant, can you have storage there with no one living in the home? And the answer is no, you can't. So nobody lives at the house and there's stuff in the backyard. There's photographs, it's all there. So can you have stuff in the backyard of a vacant house? No, so to my way of thinking, you've got a truck there that shouldn't be there because it's not allowed in the residential district and you've got storage there that shouldn't be there because there's nobody in the house. So from my viewpoint, there seem to be violations that exist. And I don't wanna get wrapped around the axle of, well, there's a business operating there, there's not a business operating there. I don't know that that was the source of the violation or the source of the complaint. The source of the complaint was, hey, there's a bunch of junk in the backyard. Why is it there? So that's my standpoint. I'm going to uphold the violation or at least I'm gonna vote to uphold it because I think it's clear that that truck's not supposed to be there and that material's not supposed to be there. If Mr. Faysen was living in the house, could that stuff be in the backyard? Maybe, but he's not living there. So it should not be there. And that's my point of view. So Lacey, I agree. No, I agree. He put it succinctly. That's it. You can mute me again. Mr. Tarrant. Thank you, Mr. Tarrant. Mr. Meadows, I agree with everything you said. As it relates to the actual NIV and the other part of operating the business, I understand that Mr. Faysen has made some efforts since the NIV was issued to change a few things. But for me, at the time the NIV was issued, the current documents on record with the Secretary of State clearly listed that there is a business associated with this address. So I also support the NIV as it was issued. Other board members? I agree as well. I think that, like you said, the truck shouldn't be there, the stuff in the yard shouldn't be there. And then the paperwork states that that's his business or business address. So I have to agree. Anybody else? If not, I will entertain a motion. Why is my role with the playing department here? I do remember Ms. Jeter did try and speak a little bit. So if you have anything to add, please feel free. And then I also wanted to mention that there is a motion at the end of the staff report. However, I'm unsure as to whether or not Mr. Wardell thinks there used to be any changes with the language that's at the bottom of the staff report. If so, we can do that as well. Can you send me that language quickly? Yep, I will do that right now. Micah, did you have more? Did you want it to come in? No, I think you all summed it up just fine. Thanks. I would just say ditto at this point. So we're good. Micah, you've got your hand up.  Sorry, I'll lower it. Mr. Wardell, I'm copying that language over and I am putting it in the chat to all panelists. So everyone also will have it easily accessible. And we can go from there. So give me a moment to make sure I select everybody. And OK, that is in the chat for panelists. So all the motions have to be in the affirmative. So I would say that the motion would need to essentially say that make a motion that the Notice of Violation be upheld. You would have to vote yeah, that it is upheld or nay, that it should not be upheld or affirmed. I don't want to take a stab at it. I'll try it. So I hear by motion that the application number B2005052, an application for the appeal of an administrative decision to administer a Notice of Violation on property located at 1828 James Street be upheld. OK, I think you just made a motion that the Notice of Violation should be denied. Upheld. No, I said upheld. I said upheld. Right, but application B2005052 is an application appealing the Notice of Violation. OK, let me try again. I hear by motion that the application of number B2005052, an application for appeal of the administrative decision to administer the Notice of Violation. No, I don't have it. No, it ain't in there. I would recommend, and this is just a recommendation because I don't make motions right, that he moves that the Notice of Violation, that is the subject of the appeal denied. No, the approved, the upheld. Be denied. That is the subject of the appeal be affirmed. Is it possible for the chair to make a motion? No. Is that appropriate? Absolutely. OK. All right, I hereby make a motion that the Notice of Violation issued in this case be upheld. In this case, B000 whatever it might be. 000052 be upheld. I hereby make a motion that the Notice of Violation, the subject of B200005052 be upheld for property located at 1828 James Street. I second. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Waimour. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Ms. DeLacy. Yes. Ms. Boshane. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. By a vote of seven. DeLacy, I have to leave right now. Thank you. I'm sorry. Oh, yep, I did call you. Thanks. You called me, but I have to leave now. OK. The meeting. By a motion of seven to zero, the Notice of Violation for B2000052 has been upheld. Thank you. So one thing we do need to add is to let Mr. Faison know if he chooses to appeal that to the Superior Court. I believe he has 30 days to do so. But that's obviously his choice. That's right. So Mr. Faison, you have the ability to appeal our order within, I guess, 30 days from the date that it's delivered. I'll let the attorneys clarify if that's not the case. You have the right to appeal that order to the Superior Court for Durham County. That's it. All right. Thank you very much. Is there any old business that we need to attend to? Nope. Is there any new business we need to attend to? Hey, guys, I have to judge three. I don't know if you still. We'll rush through these. We've got some orders that we need to deal with. First one is B2000042 from December 15th. Neither I nor Mr. Retchless can vote on that one since we voted no. And Ms. Major was also out on that one. OK. So I will entertain a motion for approval of order B2000042. One more second. Chad was not saying a motion. He couldn't because he voted no. So someone else needs to actually make the motion. So Tisha, if you want to make it, and then someone else second it. Tisha is in front of me. I can't. Oh, so no, Tisha. We're just making a motion to approve the order. OK, so I'll make a motion to approve the order for it. You have to tell me the number. Brian wants to chime in real quick. So I think I might have a question. How many people are present that voted for that particular permit? I might have to ask Susan for the exact list. The following one. It looks like Regina was here who's not. So OK, actually, let's see. Let's see. December 5th. There are three people. Ms. Major was out on that day at that meeting. So it was Delacy Meadows, Rogers, Retchless, Weymour, Kip, and Bo Shane who were seated. Of those only, Kip, Weymour, and Bo Shane are available. So Brian, are you saying that that's not in the persons to proceed forward with voting for approval? That's the question. Well, yes, I'm actually asking the question. So I'm assuming that's the answer. It was five to two was correct. That's right. Of those five, three are here. Of those five, three. OK, so if the three of them vote for it, then you can do it. So Tisha, Ian, and Natalie, one of you will have to make the motion and then the second. And then the three of you will need to vote in the affirmative. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Did we have a motion? Someone has to make the motion. That wasn't. Yeah, those yeses didn't count for anything. OK. What property address are we talking about? I'm sorry, I'm a little bit fried here. What property addresses is Pine View or another? That's correct. Pine View 3600, Pine View Circle. Yeah, this was the site that, I guess, was inside the flood plain. That's correct. Where there was a neighbor that came and had some concerns. So is there any of those three individuals that's willing to make a motion? We're getting closer to 3 o'clock and Micah does have to leave. So I want to make sure we do everything before she has to leave. So Ian, T-shirt and Natalie, anyone need to, anyone feel the urge to move second and then vote? I will.  OK, well, I mean, I'll try to make a motion. I'm sure I'm not sure if I have it right here, but. You're just moving to approve the order. OK, so just moving to approve the order B2000042 for 3600, Pine View. Yeah, right? Yes, and one more second. Yes. OK, so I'm going to call roll for that. Miss Weymour. Yes, Miss Boshane. Yes, Mr. Kib. Yes. Awesome. OK, we've got a couple to do from today. So I'm sorry. Only the one from today, the very first one, given the deliberation for the other ones, we are not doing those today. Those will be drafted at a later time. So we're just going to do the first one. So 4851 to 52, we are not doing today, but 46 we are doing. And Mr. Kib is not voting on this one. So I will entertain a motion for the order for B2000046. Karen, so moved. Is there a second? You don't have to read this. No. Kip, second. Susan. OK, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows. Yes. Miss Weymour. Yes. Miss Jeter. Yes. Mr. Taren. Yes. Awesome. And so that's the only order we're going to do today. Is that right? OK, very good. Thank you guys for sticking in. I know it's been a long day and a tough one, especially for the attorneys. Anyway, I will entertain a motion for adjournment. Chair Meadows. Yes. Would you please let the clerk finish the vote? She has to tell us how it was approved, please. I'm sorry. I apologize. That's OK. I know you're excited.  That motion was approved five to zero. I didn't vote. But I approved. So Jessica, we need to ask if you. Jessica was not called Susan in that time. So that might be another. So Jessica and Ian need to be called. Need to vote whether or not they approve it. And then we need to go from there. I'm sorry. My internet, Eliza, you were cutting in and out. Yeah, so Jessica Major and Ian Kip, they were not called when you called the roll just then for that vote, which is why we might have gotten the five zero as opposed to seven zero that we need. So we need to on record ask Jessica and Ian whether or not they would approve the order for a number B20 plus zero's 46 and then read out the approval amount. The seven or five of. OK, Miss Major. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Miss Jeter. Yes. Miss Weymour. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Motion carries six to zero or a delay seeds vote. Does that. She's not here, but we don't need her. We still have the majority. Yep. Selected six to zero. Yep. Awesome. Thank you. Is that it? Staff. Attorneys. All I've got. Thanks, y'all. Thank you. Is there a motion for adjournment? Yes, motion for adjournment. Best of all, in favor, aye. Aye. Thanks. Bye, guys. Thanks everybody. Have a great rest of your day. Thank you. Bye.