Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council OKs South Alston rezoning for 200 apartments with 40% income‑restricted units
Summary
Council approved rezoning for a 4.83‑acre South Alston Avenue site to allow 200 apartments; the proposal includes 40% of units income‑restricted at 60% AMI, a payment to Durham Public Schools, and a proffered sidewalk construction commitment.
Durham City Council voted to rezone four parcels on South Alston Avenue to permit a 200‑unit planned-development residential project that includes a substantial affordability commitment.
Planner Peyton Burgess told the council the rezoning petition proposes Planned Development Residential (PDR 41.408) for about 4.83 acres; staff described the proposed zoning as generally inconsistent with the current place-type map (which designates the site as general industrial) but recommended a place-type change if the rezoning is approved.
Dan Jewell of Thomas & Hutton, representing developer Durhamite Holdings, said the project would deliver up to 200 apartment units with 40% income-restricted at 60% of area median income. Jewell said the developer intends to rely on conventional financing (4% LIHTC model was discussed in the hearing for similar projects) and said the applicant would not pursue city funding. He also stated the developer would make a $15,000 payment to Durham Public Schools before the first certificate of compliance, committed to planting 80% native trees required for the site, and proffered a construction-cost commitment to build a multiuse sidewalk connecting to existing segments — the exact construction amount will be determined with a contractor and the city.
Several neighbors and community members spoke in opposition, raising concerns about traffic congestion on Alston Avenue and Carpenter‑Fletcher Road, lack of sidewalks and pedestrian connectivity to transit, impacts on neighborhood character adjacent to historic homes and emergency vehicle access in congested periods. Opponents included Sarah Mosier and Dr. Jim Eaker, who said the corridor is often gridlocked and expressed concerns about safety, school capacity and emergency access.
Jewell and the applicant team said two neighborhood meetings were held and that they had been in contact with Durham Public Schools because the site abuts Hillside High School. Council members pressed the applicant and staff for additional specifics about sidewalk timelines and CIP coordination; staff said Carpenter‑Fletcher improvements are part of a city project but clarified project timelines require coordination with transportation programming.
Council members emphasized the project’s strength on affordability: the 40% income‑restricted commitment drew praise and was a key factor in support. Council members also requested follow‑up on sidewalk construction and coordination with transportation and schools for implementation. The council adopted the rezoning ordinance and the required statutory consistency statement; both votes were unanimous.
