Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Durham commissioners approve UDO change to ease development requirements for some affordable housing projects in 3–2 vote
Summary
The Board adopted a privately initiated amendment (TC2400003) to Section 3.26 of the Unified Development Ordinance to allow limited flexibility from certain environmental requirements for projects that commit to affordable housing; the ordinance and required consistency statement passed 3–2 after residents raised environmental and tree-canopy concerns.
The Durham Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 on May 12 to adopt a privately initiated amendment to Section 3.26 of the Unified Development Ordinance (TC2400003) that allows limited flexibility from some environmental requirements for developments that make explicit affordable-housing commitments.
Applicant counsel Nil Ghosh, representing Lincoln Avenue Communities, told the board the proposed change would ease regulatory burdens on small-lot affordable housing projects and help make such projects feasible without changing core environmental protections in other UDO articles.
Several residents spoke against the amendment during the public hearing, citing frequent development in southeast Durham, potential loss of tree canopy and impacts to waterways. The transcript records opposition from Donna Stainback, Pam Andrews and Tammie Sawaya.
Commissioner Michelle Burton moved to adopt an ordinance amending the UDO; the motion passed with Ayes from Chair Nida Allam, Commissioner Burton and Commissioner Wendy Jacobs, and Nays from Vice Chair Dr. Mike Lee and Commissioner Stephen Valentine. A second motion to adopt the statutory consistency statement required by N.C.G.S. Sec. 160‑D‑605 passed on the same 3–2 vote.
What the actions mean: The adopted amendment changes how statutory development agreements are applied in specific, limited situations tied to affordable housing commitments. Supporters said it would unblock small-scale affordable projects; opponents warned it could erode environmental safeguards in already stressed areas.
The board’s vote directs staff to implement the ordinance as adopted; no additional funding or specific development approvals were granted at the meeting.
