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 allowing tree-coverage adjustments in development agreements, 3-2
Summary
The board voted 3-2 to adopt a text amendment that would allow tree-coverage and tree-protection adjustments to be requested as part of statutory development agreements; supporters said it enables some affordable housing designs, opponents warned it would set a damaging precedent for tree loss and runoff in Southeast Durham.
Durham County commissioners on May 12 adopted a privately initiated text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (TC-24-00003) by a 3-2 vote, changing rules so that applicants may request adjustments to tree-coverage and tree-protection standards as part of statutory development agreements. Planning staff and the applicant said the change provides a case-by-case tool for flexibility; residents and environmental advocates said it could weaken tree protections and worsen construction runoff.
"Our proposed text amendment would allow the ability for the governing bodies to consider changes to tree protection and tree coverage standards on a project-by-project basis through development agreements," attorney Neil Ghosh told the board as he described past development-agreement uses and the applicant's rationale. Ghosh said development agreements are relatively rare in Durham and have been used to support affordable housing in three prior projects, and that the county would still review each development agreement before approving any modifications.
Public commenters from Southeast Durham criticized the amendment. Donna Steinback, speaking for neighborhood residents, presented local buildout statistics and said the area already faces intense construction: "Southeast Durham has over 18,886 dwelling units with 4,978 acres approved to provide new housing for 41,597 people," she said, and warned that reduced tree coverage will worsen heat-island effects and sediment runoff. Pamela Andrews and other speakers described stream sediment problems and argued the amendment would create loopholes that undermine the comprehensive plan's equity and environmental goals.
In board questions, planning staff and the applicant said development agreements require staff time, are case-by-case and are not an automatic waiver of city or county UDO standards; commissioners voting for the change said it is a narrowly targeted tool to enable some affordable housing deliveries where strict application of standards might make projects infeasible. The ordinance and the statutory consistency statement both passed on 3-2 votes.
