Durham Council Approves Curley Gardens Annexation After Residents Raise Transparency, Affordability Concerns

Durham City Council voted to annex Curley Gardens and authorize a utility extension agreement that will allow the owner to connect the 36-unit Curley Gardens apartment complex to city water. The motion passed 5-1, with Council member Baker casting the lone no vote.

Applicant Leah Bergman, representing her family’s legal entities, told the council the community’s existing well makes residents vulnerable to outages and that connecting to city water would increase reliability. "It is insanely expensive to maintain a community well," Bergman said, adding that her ownership accepts Housing Choice Vouchers and that she has sought to work with neighbors and staff.

Opponents and nearby residents said the annexation lacked supporting documentation that would guarantee long-term affordability and warned the action could be a first step toward a larger build-out into adjacent Orange County parcels. "There is no community benefit demonstrated here that is distinguishable from what exists today," resident Christina Falcone Langley said, noting staff had requested but not received certain documentation about ongoing affordability. Another opponent, Catherine Olive, pointed to public records and emails she said showed concept plans for an 84‑unit expansion beyond the official annexation materials.

Engineer and neighbor Ken Pugh urged the council to exclude the laundry building from the annexation boundary to avoid extending city water into Orange County parcels and thereby preserve the city’s urban growth boundary. Planning staff replied that the proposed six‑inch connection under Curley Road is required for the crossing and that serving any additional Orange County buildings with Durham utilities would require annexation and amendment of a consent decree involving other jurisdictions and a judge’s concurrence.

Planning staff reported the proposal was recommended unanimously by the Durham Planning Commission. Council members pressed staff and the applicant on whether written guarantees about voucher acceptance or affordability could be carried forward; staff said oral confirmation existed that the owner accepts housing choice vouchers but that annexation does not provide a mechanism for permanent affordability covenants absent a rezoning or development plan.

The council’s action authorizes city staff to enter a utility extension agreement with the owner and to translate the underlying county zoning to city residential suburban multifamily as part of the annexation. The council adopted the required consistency statement as part of the approval. The next procedural step for any new development outside the approved scope would require separate public processes, including potential consent‑decree actions and annexation votes.

Council member Baker, who voted no, said he was not satisfied that the annexation established adequate safeguards or fully answered neighborhood concerns. The annexation passed and the utility extension agreement was authorized; the applicant said the primary immediate goal is restoring reliable water service to the existing residents.