Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Pickett Road apartments over objections about sandy‑creek habitat and safety
Summary
Durham City Council voted 4–3 to rezone five Pickett Road parcels for a 140‑unit apartment project after the applicant added design and environmental commitments; opponents raised concerns about wetlands, flooding, bird habitat and pedestrian safety near Sandy Creek Park and Durham Academy.
Durham City Council on March 17 approved a rezoning to allow development of up to 140 apartment units at five parcels on Pickett Road, a site adjacent to Sandy Creek Park and the Sandy Creek Trail.
The applicant, represented by attorney Neil Ghosh of Morningstar Law Group, described changes made after an earlier hearing and a council continuance. New commitments include meeting Energy Star multifamily certification standards, providing elevators in multistory buildings, using full cut‑off outdoor lighting fixtures, treating windows to meet an American Bird Conservancy material threat factor rating measure, dedicating an easement for the right of way to connect to the Sandy Creek Trail, and a one‑time $300,000 payment toward a sidewalk/connection fund. Ghosh told council the developer would now direct the $300,000 to the Durham Parks Foundation to be earmarked for Pickett Road–Sandy Creek connectivity.
Many residents, environmental groups and nearby landowners testified in opposition at length. Speakers cited the site’s proximity to floodplains, high‑quality riparian buffers and wetlands identified in local open‑space plans; they warned that added impervious surface and parking could worsen downstream flooding and degrade the Sandy Creek ecosystem. Bird conservation groups and local naturalists emphasized risks from nighttime lighting and reflective glass for migrating and resident birds in the park. Durham Academy representatives urged stronger, binding commitments for safe pedestrian crossings and clearer plans for the trail connection and crosswalk adjacent to the school.
Applicant testimony acknowledged constraints under the current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) — for example, lighting levels required by the UDO and the timing of any future UDO updates — and stated the developer would adopt the highest practicable bird‑friendly window standard and make the listed connectivity payment. Applicant counsel said the project avoids construction within the mapped floodplain and that the building and parking envelopes are outside the most environmentally sensitive areas identified on the place‑type map.
Council members split on the project. In roll call, the motion to approve the rezoning passed 4–3; Councilmembers Baker, Cook and Freeman voted no. Council later adopted the required statutory consistency statement 6–1 (Councilmember Freeman voted no on that item).
Supporters of the rezoning said it helps add housing supply, includes modest affordable housing commitments and fits the city’s comprehensive plan place‑type designation for apartments and townhouses. Opponents said the site’s environmental sensitivity, limited transit and sidewalk connectivity, and school‑area safety risks made the location inappropriate for mid‑rise apartment development without firmer off‑site infrastructure guarantees.
The approval allows the applicant to proceed to later site‑plan review, where city staff will evaluate technical engineering, stormwater and building plans required before construction.
