Durham council rejects Sheffield Farms annexation after hourslong hearing

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.