Durham council annexes Howard property, approves planned residential development after close 4-3 vote

The Durham City Council voted 4-3 on Wednesday evening to annex 86.41 acres known as the Howard property into the city, grant initial Planned Development Residential (PDR 5.783) zoning and authorize a utility extension agreement with Highway 98 East Durham LLC, clearing the way for up to 499 residential units and up to 12,000 square feet of nonresidential space.

The annexation ordinance and the zoning ordinance passed after lengthy public comment from nearby residents, environmental groups and the project team. Mayor Leonardo Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Middleton, Council member Caballero and Council member Rist voted in favor. Council member Baker, Council member Cook and Council member Freeman voted against the measures.

Supporters, including the property family and the applicant’s design team, said the proposal responds to the Durham Comprehensive Plan’s place-type guidance for a mixed-use neighborhood and includes commitments intended to reduce environmental and traffic impacts. Dan Jewell of Thomas & Hutton, the applicant’s representative, told council the team had reduced the project from an earlier 650-unit concept to 499 units after neighborhood input and committed to off-site intersection improvements. "We are going to commit to a higher level of stormwater management — we're gonna manage to the 25‑year storm rather than the 10," Jewell said, adding the developer would construct the greenway shown in the city's plan and provide tree-preservation buffers along the stream corridor.

Opponents, many of whom live along Wake Forest Highway, urged the council to deny the rezoning. Speakers cited what they said is an ongoing pattern of clearing and sediment runoff in the Lick Creek watershed, possible harm to Falls Lake water quality, limited emergency-service capacity and already-overburdened roadways. Samantha Cropp, Neuse Riverkeeper at Sound Rivers, said monthly sampling in Lick Creek showed "over 75% of turbidity samples" failing state standards and said the project, as proposed, did not offer sufficient mitigation for existing siltation problems.

The applicant added five proffers during the public hearing in response to concerns raised by staff, the planning commission and residents. Those commitments include: raising the stormwater design standard to the 25‑year event (from the standard 10‑year), constructing at least two playgrounds and an open play field on-site, limiting maximum impervious surface to 50% instead of a typical 70% UDO allowance, increasing the affordability proffer from 5% to 6% of units, and a commitment to use native plant materials for required plantings "if available in the size required by the ordinance at the time of planting," with staff to work with the applicant on documentation.

City planning staff noted that a formal stream determination and detailed site-plan review — including exact stream buffers, flood‑plain delineation and stormwater designs — will occur later in the permitting process. Planning Director Sarah Young told council that floodplain and stream-buffer protections are enforced at site plan review and that the applicant has stated it will not build within the identified floodplain. Young also acknowledged an error in the staff report that earlier indicated no on-site streams; she said a stream determination would be required and reviewed at site plan stage.

Traffic and public-safety concerns were central to many opponents’ remarks. Speakers said NC 98 already exceeds capacity during peak hours and that adding traffic from this project, plus dozens of other approved developments in the same corridor, will worsen delays and emergency-response times. The developer’s traffic study models future conditions and shows that, with the applicant’s off-site intersection improvements and three new traffic signals proposed within the corridor, intersection levels of service would improve relative to a build‑without‑mitigations scenario. City transportation staff said the City’s adopted threshold for signalized intersections is level‑of‑service D or better; the project’s mitigation package is intended to meet that standard in the modeled 2034 build year.

Council members split on the project’s balance of benefits and costs. Council member Baker said the applicant had made a number of concessions and that the rezoning "is the right rezoning in the right place at the right time." Council member Cook and Council member Freeman both said the cumulative impacts across southeast Durham — including approved but not yet built projects — raised too many infrastructure and environmental risks to support approval.

The council also separately adopted the statutory consistency statement required by North Carolina General Statute Section 160D‑605. That statement accompanies the zoning ordinance approval and concludes that, in the council’s view, the rezoning request is consistent with adopted plans and ordinances as amended by the applicant’s commitments.

Council members, staff and the applicant said several detailed technical actions remain: the applicant must complete the stream delineation, finalize stormwater designs to the city’s standards at the site‑plan stage, and produce the required documentation to verify native-plant availability if the plant-material commitment language is finalized with staff.

The project now moves to the site-plan and permitting phase, where staff reviews for floodplain, stream buffers, stormwater controls and construction sequencing will be required before any clearing or building permits are issued. Opponents and advocates said they plan to continue watching the project during those reviews.

Votes at a glance: the annexation and the rezonings passed 4‑3. The council adopted the required North Carolina General Statute Section 160D‑605 consistency statement following the zoning vote. The minutes record the no votes from Council member Baker, Council member Cook and Council member Freeman.

The council meeting closed shortly after the votes and adjourned at 10:54 p.m.