Tag: development in east durham

After a nearly two-hour public hearing, the Durham City Council narrowly approved a rezoning for a townhome development late Monday night.

Sagebrook Townhomes, a 120-unit development on over 17 acres in southeast Durham was approved 4-3. Mayor Leo Williams and council members Javiera Caballero, Matt Kopac and Carl Rist voted yes. Council members Nate Baker, Shanetta Burris and Chelsea Cook voted no.

The split highlighted the divide between the council members over the city’s housing strategy and preservation of its rural areas.

“I think this is a well-thought-out project with an unfortunately tortured past,” attorney Nil Ghosh said at the Monday meeting. “But the applicant here has been responsive to council concerns, community input and policy direction.”

The townhome project consists of four parcels of land between Chadwick Place and Burton Road, a wooded area surrounded by active farms and two streams.

The opposing council members joined over a dozen residents who said approval would threaten the area’s rural character. They cited increased traffic, density, and blasting affecting residents and the environment.

The “infill” argument

The project required both the rezoning and a “satellite” annexation since the area doesn’t touch the city limits and is surrounded by county land.

Ghosh, representing the applicant Capital City Homes, LLC, based in Raleigh, argued that the project also functioned as an “infill” development. This refers to building on vacant or underused land in communities that are already served by public utilities.

The city’s water and sewer lines already border the site at Sagebrook Townhomes, which will eliminate the risk of “leapfrogging” development into areas without the utilities, Ghosh said.

“This is really efficient use of land,” he said.

Critics told the council that infill projects typically blend into the existing urban fabric of the community. Some examples of infill development include converting old industrial sites, such as the former Ford dealership (now the Durham Housing Authority), into mixed-use projects and building smaller-scale housing in neighborhoods.

The Sagebrook project differs because it will sit among active farms and low-density single-family homes. City staff said that the definition of infill can be subjective.

Opponents also argued that the project created a “donut hole,” which refers to county-owned land that become surrounded by city-annexed land. Cook said calling the proposal an “infill” project went “against our comprehensive plan.”

“It doesn’t feel to me like it is the right project,” Cook said. “It’s like we’ve tried to take this project and rework it and rework it over two years, and it just doesn’t feel like it has ever gotten there.”

Community resistance

In September, the Durham Planning Commission voted 8-3 to recommend the City Council reject the project, with one commissioner calling it “inconsistent with neighborhood design.”

Kopac, who was a planning commissioner at that time, was one of the opposing votes. On Monday he questioned how the developer would protect neighboring properties and said the project was a “challenging one.”

Local farming residents argued that high-density residential development is incompatible with active agriculture. Many residents in the area get their water from wells, they added, and blasting could threaten the cleanliness of water and pollute the streams.

“My mowing machine is about (14-feet) wide,” said Talmage Layton, who began farming in the area in 1965. “I can see people backed up behind me for quite a while [on a two lane road] …. I would ask that you consider the cost you’re putting on agriculture.”

Wanda Allen said the project threatens the long-term “survival of the farms,” by introducing urban density.

“My family actively farms this area,” she said. “There is concern about traffic, entry and exit, particularly on how this development would affect the neighbors, emergency access and overall public safety.”

Becky Freeman, a resident, said the project was in an environmentally sensitive area.

“There are 1.1 acres of wetlands and four acres impacted by this project,” she said. “We’d like for (developers) to maintain a 100-foot undisturbed stream buffers to project and provide habitat for our wildlife and erosion impact.”

Developer commitments, council decision

Capital City Homes has agreed to several commitments for the project.

• A commitment of 10 affordable units, about 8% of the project, for 30 years at 80% of the area median income. For a family of four, that’s about $92,500 a year.
• No mass grading, or reshaping the ground on a large scale, a 38% cap on impervious surfaces (roofs, concrete driveways, or compacted dirt) and a 20.5% tree save.
• A $60,000 contribution to Durham Public Schools and the inclusion of a strip of land to connect the road at Chadwick Place.

Williams said the project was necessary for the city’s economic future and housing demand.

“Are we going to house people and invite them into our tax base … or are we going to pay for it ourselves and complain that things are getting more expensive?” he said.

Like the rezoning vote, the vote to annex Sagebrook Townhomes passed 4-3 with Baker, Burris and Cook opposing.