[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6611901,"mediaKeyId","2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562","parentId",2892838,"title","Durham council rejects Sheffield Farms annexation after hourslong hearing","audioSeconds",7887,"startMs",2918000,"endMs",10805000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562&start=2918&end=10805","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562/thumbnail_2918000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6611901/Durham-City/Durham-County/North-Carolina/Durham-council-rejects-Sheffield-Farms-annexation-after-hourslong-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611901-715ac4ce7d537c90902ff4c33d91ec9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770433908&Signature=nR6-v3tvyVJGmo5WO9feise8Kn99qRCo1d0A9u1sekl954U6A-MATUrAoFe5cUTUPxpeTc7FjyEzId89pB2lGQslTs6UwgU2tStjWbEtwsI5QrDUwqj~omdITVyDs8du1aexIceGO3OGyifwvvA4q3midHk5YCMosPZ8iklbjxpjTuu2ieDguBOEJgD9pW6wDt6qFm8GynX5xK2kiAOKGIxBL04LXqraMhKzV9OzpU4FVcVM4lMbJqDLrPjszoooBN82DMqfMyWMZjCDy8MHDXdrR6olm-8dvy2uPkvYpLJHhahynRb-4WQAzczhUNVZiFPCALgrmjSAhCMU7fgnAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Durham","date","2025-04-08T04:08:43.177Z","article","Durham — The City Council on Monday refused a developer’s request to annex and rezone a 218.5-acre tract along Farrington Mill Road, rejecting an ordinance that would have allowed up to 702 homes and a three‑mile developer‑funded sewer extension.

The council voted 5–2 after a public hearing that ran more than four hours and included detailed testimony from planning staff, the developer’s representatives and more than two dozen residents. Mayor Leonardo Williams and Mayor Pro Tem Middleton voted yes; five council members voted no.

The proposal from MI Homes would have annexed the property known locally as Sheffield Farms, rezoned it to a Planned Development Residential district permitting up to 702 dwelling units (a mix of single‑family, townhouses and optional apartments), and authorized a utility extension agreement to install a pump station and roughly three miles of force main to the South Durham water reclamation facility. Developers pledged to finance the public sewer work, which they estimated at about $10 million, and to provide a minimum of 5% of units as for‑sale homes restricted at 80% of area median income for 30 years.

Planning staff told the council the site is partly mapped as Recreation and Open Space on the place‑type map because of Natural Heritage Program inventories and floodplain; staff recommended changes to the place‑type mapping if the zoning were approved. The staff report also found the rezoning did not fully meet the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) compliance tests because one off‑site traffic improvement the Traffic Impact Analysis recommended — the Farrington Mill Road & NC‑751/Stagecoach Road intersection — was not committed as part of the development plan.

Attorney Neil Ghosh, speaking for MI Homes, said the project would extend water and sewer to an area the city has long designated for future growth, pay for the sewer main and pump station on private dollars, and preserve historic structures. \"This is over $10,000,000 in public infrastructure paid for and installed by a private developer,\" he said. Ghosh also said the developer arranged to donate the two historic structures on the property to Preservation Durham for preservation; Preservation Durham confirmed it would accept a parcel containing the two buildings and seek long‑term protection.

The Nunn family, whose property is adjacent to the site and who had urged support, told council the lack of sewer and the age of individual septic systems has limited how family land can be used. Andrea Quinn of the Nunn family said, \"All we're asking is for the city to finally allow water and sewer to come down our road so we can join the prosperity other communities are enjoying.\" She described multiple on‑site septic tanks, sand filters and spray fields that she said were aging and expensive to maintain.

Residents and environmental advocates urged denial. Speakers raised concerns about traffic on two‑lane rural roads, the proposed sewer alignment through or adjacent to Army Corps of Engineers land and Jordan Lake watershed areas, potential impacts to wetlands and steep slopes, and the site’s designation in the Natural Heritage Program. Multiple speakers, many from neighborhoods along Farrington Mill Road, described heavy current traffic and said required road improvements would be difficult to construct without Army Corps encroachment approvals. Several engineers and traffic specialists told council the TIA undercounted likely congestion and that off‑site mitigations were uncertain.

Staff and the developer said most road and utility improvements were feasible and that the project team had worked with Army Corps staff on encroachment mitigation for many of the improvements; they said the specific difficulty was the 751/Stagecoach intersection about three miles from the site. The developer said it had committed to 13 of 16 TIA improvements; the single omitted improvement was the 751‑Stagecoach intersection because Army Corps right‑of‑way and mitigations were unresolved.

Other commitments on the table included: a minimum of 350 townhouses (the development plan requires at least half the units be townhouses), a cap on single‑family units, on‑site tree preservation and the donation of the two historic structures to Preservation Durham. Late in the hearing the developer offered two additional commitments: a tax‑commitment to avoid disturbance of steep slopes at the site’s western edge and to increase the project’s protected/open space from roughly 16% to approximately 21% if the council approved the rezoning. Staff said those commitments could be documented in the development plan if the council sought them.

After more than four hours of presentations and public comment, council members weighed competing policy aims. Supporters of the project pointed to the developer‑funded sewer infrastructure, the historic preservation donation and the housing mix. Opponents urged fidelity to the portions of the comprehensive plan and place‑type map that call for conservation and raised the practical risk that required off‑site mitigations could be blocked by federal or state permissions.

Council defeated the annexation and utility extension ordinance adoption 5–2. The developer retains the option to revise the submission and seek approval at a future meeting. The council also recorded in the meeting minutes several formal commitments from the developer that will inform any future refiled application, including the newly offered tax commitment not to disturb steep slopes and the open‑space increase.

The proposal and the full staff report, traffic studies, Natural Heritage Program materials and the public comments are part of the public record for the April 7 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Durham City Council April 7, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Durham’s City Council voted 5–2 on April 7 to deny a developer’s annexation and rezoning request for the 218.5‑acre Sheffield Farms property on Farrington Mill Road, rejecting an ordinance that would have allowed up to 702 homes and a developer‑funded three‑mile sewer extension.","taxTitle","Durham City, Durham County, North Carolina","taxId",5766,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6611888,"Votes at a glance: Durham City Council, April 7, 2025",206,2281000,2487000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562&start=2281&end=2487","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562/thumbnail_2281000.jpg","/articles/6611888/Durham-City/Durham-County/North-Carolina/Votes-at-a-glance-Durham-City-Council-April-7-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611888-996b7345dd82184733a81463e030dd05/orig.mp4?Expires=1770433908&Signature=mN8jhjDYpeLe8QfBS4r-eRwcrvENMU7cSaaY0-ifbWg6bYJrUJ3TX3wipFar1CKVV~brLXhSPsrxGS6IkR6hmwxy~~1UoqPniqvqYNRQsda2Qfi8og2ZOdjx4RYbdXM1ndJ7Dhgp2X~U6N1MVV8y7EPYQtQ2MZQqyB6SpcuzWdQRuFbhqJFdkguGwBJDtK1pCqQMQuTctO~OZM7am5uKjtoabWpoAv4j8e~wYaBeeGiztsR358lIrOYkHwjKyewE0aVkBqI3cuwJdtYg19nDtk4PJs1FPbU40xsN87~27Zi~KKupr8jB1xfhC51MRcbOCe~HKW5IReHE4lCK7cQ-Fg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Durham — The following key votes and formal actions were recorded at the Durham City Council meeting on April 7, 2025. This rundown lists each item taken by vote, the motion outcome and notable details recorded in the meeting.

• Consent agenda (items 1–21, except items 5 and 13 referred back and items 14 and 16 pulled): Passed unanimously. Items on the consent agenda included appointments to boards and commissions, budget guidelines, two multifamily housing bond resolutions (Sandy Ridge Station — up to $22,000,000; Sandy Ridge Villas — up to $11,000,000), software and equipment purchases, artist/public art agreements, a contract for solid waste storage building construction, and professional services contract amendments for water and wastewater projects. The council adopted the consent agenda by unanimous roll call (motion passed).

• Item 14 — Street and utility acceptances (Southpointe phases 1A/1B/2; Creekside at Bethpage phases 3A–5B; Fifths Crossing portions; Wentzford at the Park; Durham Centennial waterline replacement): Approved 7–0. The item had been pulled for public comment; Public Works confirmed inspections and acceptance criteria were met. A resident urged the council to consider equity between densely urban private alleys and suburban streets the city accepts for maintenance.

• Item 16 — Vision Zero Action Plan presentation and approval: Approved 7–0. The council discussed timing language; transportation staff said targeted speed management work is already occurring case‑by‑case and the plan will establish a citywide, data‑driven speed management strategy focused on the high‑injury network. Staff will post a public dashboard and clarify materials.

• Annexation and zoning — Sheffield Farms (8422 Farrington Mill Road): Motion to adopt an ordinance annexing Sheffield Farms and authorize a utility extension agreement with MI Homes of Raleigh LLC: Failed, 5–2. Mayor Leonardo Williams and Mayor Pro Tem Middleton voted yes; five council members voted no. The developer had proposed a planned development up to 702 units, a pump station and roughly three miles of force main (developer‑funded sewer work estimated at about $10 million), 5% for‑sale units restricted at 80% AMI for 30 years, and a donation of two historic structures to Preservation Durham. Planning staff noted UDO compliance concerns tied to a TIA‑recommended off‑site improvement (NC‑751/Stagecoach intersection) that the applicant did not commit to; the council heard extensive resident and technical testimony about traffic, Army Corps jurisdiction, watershed protections and wildlife connectivity.

Votes recorded in the meeting minutes and announced by the clerk are reflected above. For full vote records, staff reports, traffic impact analyses and public comments, see the City Clerk’s official meeting packet for April 7, 2025.","Key formal actions recorded at the April 7 Durham City Council meeting: the council approved the Vision Zero Action Plan and multiple consent items, accepted new streets and utilities, but rejected the Sheffield Farms annexation and utility extension.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6611893,"Council accepts multiple new streets and infrastructure for city maintenance; residents ask about long‑term costs",123,2584000,2707000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562&start=2584&end=2707","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562/thumbnail_2584000.jpg","/articles/6611893/Durham-City/Durham-County/North-Carolina/Council-accepts-multiple-new-streets-and-infrastructure-for-city-maintenance-residents-ask-about-longterm-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611893-061fd3904e7698861b276157a79b49ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1770433908&Signature=btZdO5lVHbmU-IUchc9hMFvf1S-7O-q6BFyMRUJnLKnUo7nkul2vntVt2SySB1DErUjvSIQXdfFx2UFXrjTjqSwIGRbJ8ukMaEYOITQPwC2YTinGn9T2mGj8WYU9oJyK4FzBMuq4doIaJDHvX8HOAWcZZ1kYlLctnV5E8dr8CRpw5n3M11yjNNS8R9KuQlW84ZM2XiC85SHNOUjuVQ0AJ3oe85E0Y2AzHdUSjkrhD9YL-d56yHeR82EP4Hn1-Dd3sbkdom0wF0evPt2jqpIY4CF5b-Q6wzDY6bj54-CO8v~Zp365-K31jOTmpGl1yqw5MGLvkMmC0gWfKyzXRhouVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Durham — The City Council voted unanimously to accept several newly constructed streets, utilities and courtyards into city maintenance, including portions of Southpointe phases 1A/1B/2, Creekside at Bethpage phases, Fifths Crossing and other subdivisions.

The item, pulled from the consent agenda for public comment, drew a resident from a downtown townhouse community who said her homeowners association already pays to maintain a narrow alley used by neighbors and called out the disparity between that private maintenance and the city’s acceptance of wide suburban streets that serve only a handful of homes.

\"My townhouse community has 21.5 feet of street per house that we pay for on our own,\" the resident said, citing a comparison submitted to council staff. \"The streets you're going to accept are about 53.4 feet of street per home that only benefits that neighborhood… That's more heat‑island effect and more runoff.\"

Public Works staff responded that the resident’s frontage calculation compared different parcel and lot types and that the city evaluates street acceptances using established engineering and maintenance criteria. Robert Joyner of Public Works clarified specific measurement questions raised during the hearing.

Council debated feasibility and maintenance questions briefly; accepting streets into the city’s inventory transfers maintenance responsibility to the city and is typically done after construction and inspection. After discussion, the council approved acceptance 7–0.

The accepted streets and infrastructure were listed in the agenda as: Southpointe (phases 1A, 1B, 2), Creekside at Bethpage (multiple phases), Fifths Crossing (portions), Wentzford at the Park, and a Durham Centennial waterline replacement. The staff report and agenda packet include engineering review notes and the city’s standard acceptance checklist for street and utility maintenance.

Councilmembers said the item underscored continuing policy questions about equity between dense, urban infill and suburban development patterns and about the long‑term maintenance costs the city assumes when it accepts new infrastructure. Staff said the city follows a formal acceptance process and that questions about broader policy on development pattern and maintenance should be raised in planning or capital budget forums.

The transfer of maintenance responsibilities moves the accepted infrastructure into the city’s operations schedule; any questions about long‑term fiscal impact are tracked by Public Works for budget planning.","The council voted 7–0 to accept streets and utilities in multiple newly developed subdivisions for city maintenance, drawing public comment about fairness and the cost of taking over suburban street segments while denser urban alleyways remain privately maintained.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6611896,"Durham council adopts Vision Zero action plan; staff says speed work already underway",176,2715000,2891000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562&start=2715&end=2891","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2892838-248d69ffeac512563ea91f2e57971562/thumbnail_2715000.jpg","/articles/6611896/Durham-City/Durham-County/North-Carolina/Durham-council-adopts-Vision-Zero-action-plan-staff-says-speed-work-already-underway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6611896-67d831729bf055e2569609e5b63fd6ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770433908&Signature=IG4PLy0xuGGH7hIgsYARRACPXW~ioB-yo8YZ4tSyci-XPU7D-LiAkifdYZzl-yc44cWYsN0LRL8omTKE9bcn1xdURXpTHptkr2CJ9~q2ZH6Q6xwgx3g0ztJecYzVe7Ao6fpoSZpqjrlBFgEb47ADpf2Vz9pHxz73hIvoDRjrRKJJezr5KwBiZW1xK5sVXF1oW64g3qS8OQ97WG6qz9WuPiIfqBXcxRNgY3S4vx1qMKYYWur3zzSMIX8ZJiy4ZRJqYuM-soBb-U70fG-i2j2igeyni96MfehZXpa2zRi-5LqZKupL~7eonkP7xASaHwdot5BAgF5BQ-A8bqgAxTL~UA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Durham — The City Council unanimously approved the city’s Vision Zero Action Plan on April 7, endorsing a strategy aimed at eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries.

Transportation Director Sean Egan told the council the plan sets a schedule of actions, some of which must align with other ongoing projects such as the Unified Development Ordinance update. Egan said the plan calls for more comprehensive data collection and the creation of a citywide speed‑management strategy focused on Durham’s high‑injury network, but that staff is also doing case‑by‑case speed management work now.

“Right now, we are doing speed management on a case‑by‑case basis,” Egan said. “What the action plan calls for is a comprehensive strategy for speed management across our city with a focus on the high‑injury network.” He told council the plan’s public materials and dashboard will demonstrate existing case work and explain how community requests and crash data will inform future, citywide priorities.

Council members raised concerns about the plan language that could suggest the city would not begin broader speed strategies until 2027. Egan said staff would clarify public materials to stress that targeted work is already under way at specific locations and that the 2027 date reflects a longer‑range schedule for a comprehensive program that requires additional data collection and coordination.

The item had been pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. With the clarifications from transportation staff, the council moved and passed the plan without opposition.

The approved Vision Zero Action Plan sets immediate and longer‑term actions including expanded data collection, adoption of speed management policies keyed to a high‑injury network, and public engagement and reporting commitments. Staff will publish a dashboard that shows current interventions and planned steps and will return with implementation details as actions are scheduled.","The City Council approved the Vision Zero Action Plan unanimously. Staff told council some speed management work is already happening case‑by‑case and the plan will create a citywide, data‑driven speed management strategy focused on the high‑injury network.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Durham council rejects Sheffield Farms annexation after hourslong hearing

Votes at a glance: Durham City Council, April 7, 2025

Council accepts multiple new streets and infrastructure for city maintenance; residents ask about long‑term costs

Durham council adopts Vision Zero action plan; staff says speed work already underway