After hours of public comment, Durham council approves Sagebrook townhouse annexation and rezoning 4–3
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Following extended public testimony raising environmental, traffic and EMS concerns, Durham City Council narrowly approved annexation and rezoning for a planned 120‑unit townhouse development (Sagebrook) on roughly 17.38 acres; the council accepted additional buffer commitments but opponents said the project will strain local infrastructure.
Durham City Council approved annexation and a zoning change Jan. 5 for a proposed townhouse community the applicant described as "infill," despite extensive opposition from Southeast Durham residents and a split 4–3 final vote.
Staff presented the proposal for four parcels totaling 17.381 acres to be annexed and rezoned from county residential designations to Planned Development Residential (PDR 6.905), which would allow up to 120 townhomes. Andy Lester of Planning & Development told the council the application is generally consistent with the city’s place-type map; the applicant promised several proffers.
Attorney Neil Ghosh (Morningstar Law Group) said the development would limit impervious cover to 38 percent (below what the UDO could allow), commit to 20.5 percent tree save, avoid mass grading and handle 100‑year stormwater events with permanent measures. He said the project includes a $60,000 contribution to Durham Public Schools and 10 deed-restricted for‑sale affordable units at 80 percent of area median income (AMI), which the applicant said equates to a little over 8 percent of units at full buildout.
More than two hours of public comment followed. Neighbors and farmers warned that the site includes wetlands and steep slopes, asked for a 30‑foot undisturbed buffer with 0.6 opacity, cautioned that blasting could damage private wells and faulted the plan as creating a noncontiguous "donut hole" annexation lacking nearby services. Speakers also noted recent crash counts on local roads, questioned EMS capacity in Southeast Durham, and asked the council to require stronger tree preservation and undisturbed stream buffers.
During deliberations, the applicant offered to add a 30‑foot buffer with 0.6 opacity along the northern and southern property lines and to show that commitment on the graphic development plan. Planning staff clarified that the UDO generally protects riparian buffers from buildings and parking but allows certain infrastructure intrusions (utilities/stormwater) under state law.
Councilmembers were divided. Supporters cited the site’s urban-growth-boundary location, the proffers for stormwater and affordable housing, and the city’s need for housing supply. Dissenting members emphasized the repeated planning‑commission rejections, ongoing environmental concerns, and neighborhood hardship. The council voted 4–3 to adopt an ordinance annexing the property and authorize a utility extension agreement with Capital City Homes LLC, and separately approved the UDO rezoning (both motions passed 4–3, with councilmembers Baker, Burris and Cook voting no). The required consistency statement was adopted unanimously.
Next steps: the applicant must submit and receive approval for a site plan and permits; staff and residents indicated they will monitor erosion-control measures, buffer protections and any county/city coordination related to EMS and emergency service coverage.