Staff outlines riparian buffer rules and NPAA process; advocates and council push for more transparency

Planning staff delivered an informational presentation on riparian buffer protection standards, aiming to clarify how stream buffers are identified, measured and regulated under Durham's Unified Development Ordinance and applicable state rules.

Sarah Young (Planning & Development Director) introduced the item and Bill Haley (Development Infrastructure Division) walked council through buffer functions, accepted mapping sources (USGS topographic quadrangle and NRCS soils maps), stream classification scoring thresholds (ephemeral, intermittent, perennial), and the origins of Durham's buffer rules including Jordan Lake and Neuse River Basin requirements (UDO Sec. 8.5). Haley explained that buffer widths vary (typically 50–150 feet depending on stream type and watershed), how buffers are measured from the top of bank or normal waterline, and the four UDO use categories for buffer impacts: exempt, allowable, allowable with mitigation, and prohibited (allowable with exception/variance).

Haley then detailed the No Practical Alternatives Authorization (NPAA) process: applicants must document avoidance and minimization, provide mapping and engineering exhibits, commit to best management practices, and when required propose mitigation. He explained that reviews must be completed within 60 days or the authorization is approved by default if no action and no defined extenuating circumstances exist. He clarified the division of state and local authority: in the Neuse Basin the state reviews the first 0–50 feet while the city reviews the 50–100 foot zone (Zone 3); variance authority rests with the state.

Public commenters asked for greater transparency. Samantha Cropp (Neuse Riverkeeper, Sound Rivers) urged the city to make the NPAA/MPAA process more visible—ideally with notification and mapping tools like the state provides—and said 20 NPAAs approved last year equaled about 195,000 square feet of stream impacts. Residents Pam Andrews and Donna Steinbeck asked for clearer public notice of MPAA applications and better upfront display of development plans and stream mapping.

Council members pressed staff on whether data on NPAA frequency, timing and mitigation is tracked and whether the UDO changes are under consideration. Staff (Ken Carper, Flip Lane and others) said such data could be researched and that many NPAA requests arrive at the site-plan stage; they offered to explore improved interim transparency (web publication, staff-report clarifications and earlier daylighting) ahead of a new permitting system planned in the future.

What happens next: staff said they will research NPAA tracking data, consider interim public-facing options to make NPAA/MPAA applications and approvals more visible, and suggested clarifying staff reports to explicitly note commitments about buffer intrusions. No ordinance changes to NPAA findings were proposed at this meeting; staff noted state law constrains local authority in some areas.