seegov

[SeeGov Enhanced] Durham City Council Approves Comprehensive Plan Changes in 4-3 Vote

Council members also extended Durham’s affordable housing bond timeline and approved federal funding agreements for several South Durham transportation projects.

“The public should not have to guess what the voting bodies are being asked to consider and approve,” resident Melora McCall told the Durham City Council on Monday night.

Her warning captured the central disagreement before council voted 4-3 to revise parts of the Durham Comprehensive Plan: Were the changes routine technical cleanup, or could they alter how community concerns are weighed when development proposals come forward?

Council members Nate Baker, Shanetta Burris, and Chelsea Cook voted against the revisions. Mayor Leonardo Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Javiera Caballero, and council members Carl Rist and Matt Kopac voted in favor.

The changes affect policies that planning staff uses to review whether rezoning and annexation requests are consistent with Durham’s long-term vision. Some residents and council members worried that removing certain policies from those formal reviews could give less weight to concerns about rural character, infrastructure, and annexations that leave unincorporated properties surrounded by the city.

Before the vote, council directed the Planning and Development Department to remove disputed commentary involving those surrounded properties, commonly called “doughnut holes.” Staff also agreed to keep policies losing a development-related designation visible in future reviews.

During the meeting, council unanimously extended the timeline for issuing the remaining $41 million from Durham’s 2019 affordable housing general obligation bond. Without discussion, members also approved updated agreements for 12 federally supported transportation projects, including the N.C. 55 Sidewalk Project, Third Fork Creek Trail, Cornwallis Road bike lanes and sidewalks, and the Woodcroft Parkway extension.

What the Comprehensive Plan Changes Could Mean

At the heart of Monday’s debate was a letter.

Some Durham Comprehensive Plan policies carry a “D” designation, which means planning staff uses them when preparing consistency reviews for rezoning and annexation cases.

Removing that designation doesn’t delete a policy from the Comprehensive Plan. It does, however, mean that planning staff will no longer make a formal finding about whether a proposed development complies with that policy.

Some of the policies losing the designation address rural character and the availability of infrastructure in areas where Durham could grow. Residents argued that those subjects have real consequences for people living near proposed developments, particularly around the city’s edges.

Aaron Cain of the Planning and Development Department called the revisions “largely technical in nature.” He said staff wanted to eliminate redundancies, address ambiguities, and clarify how policies are applied during development reviews.

Cain said some policies, including language about protecting Durham’s rural character, were too subjective for planning staff to evaluate consistently. Removing the D designation would leave those broader judgments to City Council members and county commissioners.

The revisions are part of Durham’s first Evaluation and Assessment Report, commonly called the EAR, since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The Unified Development Ordinance requires the city and county to conduct an EAR every two years to monitor progress and consider adjustments.

The review began in summer 2025 and went through the Planning Commission, community groups, city and county departments, and the Joint City-County Planning Committee. The Durham County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the revisions Aug. 10.

Several residents, including representatives of Preserve Rural Durham, told council Monday that some of the changes went beyond technical cleanup.

They also objected to commentary accompanying Policy 165, which says annexations shouldn’t create new doughnut holes. The commentary said an annexation could still be considered consistent with the policy if the applicant invited the affected property owner to join the annexation petition, even if the owner declined.

Cain said staff began using that interpretation after receiving informal direction during a previous council discussion. Several council members said they didn’t remember taking a formal vote or clearly directing staff to adopt that interpretation as a general policy.

Mayor Williams paused the discussion as council members tried to determine whether the commentary should be included in the final motion.

“I don’t want us going down the same path of loosely making decisions,” Williams said.

Planning Director Sara Young clarified that the commentary isn’t formally part of the Comprehensive Plan and wasn’t included in the resolution before council. Staff nevertheless agreed, on the record, to remove the disputed language.

Staff also agreed to list policies that previously carried a D designation at the end of future consistency reviews. That would keep those policies in front of elected officials, even when planning staff isn’t making a formal recommendation about whether a project complies with them.

Cain sought to separate the revisions from several other concerns raised during the public hearing. He said the changes don’t move Durham’s urban growth boundary, alter the city and county’s data center moratorium, or change annexation procedures.

A majority of council ultimately accepted staff’s explanation, although Baker, Burris, and Cook remained opposed.

Durham Affordable Housing Bond Gets Three More Years

Council also discussed $41 million in affordable housing bond authority that Durham hasn’t yet used.

Voters approved a $95 million affordable housing bond referendum in November 2019. The city has issued $54 million so far, leaving $41 million authorized but not yet issued.

The original bond order would have expired Nov. 5, 2026. State law allows a one-time extension from seven years to 10 years, giving Durham until November 2029. City debt administrator John Rees said the Finance Department plans to issue the remaining $41 million in spring 2027.

Council unanimously approved the extension, but members pressed staff about why roughly $8 million from the first bond issuance remained unspent. They also questioned why Durham reached the end of the original authorization period with such a large share of the bond still unissued.

“We should extend the authority, but we shouldn’t treat this extension as a blank check,” Baker said.

He requested more information about the remaining projects and how the next round of bond money will be used.

Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Sarah Viñas said the city has plans for the full $95 million. Some projects are still being planned, some are underway, and others are preparing to come before council, she said.

Viñas pointed to the pandemic, the complexity of affordable housing partnerships, and the availability of federal pandemic relief money as reasons for the slower bond schedule.

The city used federal money first because those funds faced earlier spending deadlines, she said. That allowed Durham to preserve local bond money for projects that would take longer to develop.

Remaining commitments include Tribute Rising, a redevelopment project with the Durham Housing Authority, along with rental housing development, down payment assistance, and small-lot housing projects.

Council members asked staff to return with a clearer accounting of the projects, funding shifts, and remaining bond commitments.

0:00

/0:58

Sidewalk, Trail, and Road Projects Advance in South Durham

One of the night’s biggest decisions for South Durham happened without discussion.

As part of its unanimous consent agenda vote, council authorized updated municipal agreements with the N.C. Department of Transportation for 12 locally administered transportation projects.

For South Durham residents, the agreements move forward projects intended to add sidewalks, bike lanes, trail connections, and a long-planned road extension.

The federal share across all 12 projects is approximately $96.5 million. Updated cost estimates made about $46.9 million in additional federal funding available.

Most of the projects use an 80% federal and 20% local funding split. Durham must pay project expenses upfront and then seek federal reimbursement for eligible costs.

Among the projects most relevant to South Durham:

N.C. 55 Sidewalk Project: The agreement provides a total project budget of about $11.3 million, including $9.04 million in federal funding and a $2.26 million local match. The city faces a local match shortfall of about $1.33 million, which staff expects to cover through debt service.
Third Fork Creek Trail: The agreements provide about $7.57 million, including $6.05 million in federal funding and a $1.51 million local match.
Cornwallis Road bike lanes and sidewalks: The project agreements total about $15.66 million, with $12.52 million in federal funding and a $3.13 million local contribution.
Woodcroft Parkway extension: The updated funding package totals about $13.56 million, including $10.84 million in federal funding and a $2.71 million local match. The city still needs another $269,314 for its share and expects to use Zone 4 street impact fees.

Watch our reel captured with help from our partners at SeeGov: