Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell county commissioners proposed Cheek Road annexation would spur sprawl and harm waterways
Summary
Two residents told commissioners the project at 4802 Cheek Road is outside the urban growth boundary, non‑contiguous under state law, and will worsen flooding, wetlands loss and traffic; commissioners asked staff to confirm UGB status and include EMS capacity in future reports.
Two residents spoke during the public‑comment period urging the Durham County Board of Commissioners to reconsider approvals related to a proposed development near Cheek Road.
"Good morning, county commissioners and county manager. My name is Donna Steinback. I'm concerned," Donna Steinback said, arguing the proposal does not meet the county's urban‑growth‑boundary requirements, is non‑contiguous under state law (GS 160A‑51.1), and was not listed in the draft 2025 evaluation and assessment review as a possible annexation. She said the comprehensive‑plan consistency report incorrectly called the site contiguous and asked the board to re‑examine earlier approvals.
Carrie Steinback, who said she lives within about a mile of the proposed project, told the board the area is rural and agricultural and raised environmental concerns, including impacts to more than six streams that feed into Lake Creek and Falls Lake. She said the neighborhood lacks sidewalks, transit access and nearby services and that adding more housing would increase traffic on Cheek Road.
Commissioners responded with follow‑up requests rather than decisions. Commissioner Wendy Jacobs asked staff to confirm whether 4802 Cheek Road will come before the board for input if it lies outside the urban growth boundary and to make sure EMS service capacity is included in staff reports for such projects. Manager Hager and staff agreed to follow up.
The speakers asked the board to weigh previously approved developments such as Sage Brook against cumulative impacts on infrastructure, safety and water quality. The board did not take a formal action during the work session; commissioners directed staff to report back with the requested information.
