How Durham City Council voted on development in 2024
This year, 93% of development cases involving a zoning change or annexation were approved by City Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval in 76% of those cases.
This BCPI: Open Sources (BCPI.OS) article is written by Lucia Constantine. BCPI.OS stories focus on delivering data-driven discoveries from publicly-available datasets.
In a state where the General Assembly limits the power of local governments, regulating zoning and land use is one of the few areas where City Council can exercise unique control. Recently, that authority was limited by Senate Bill 382 enacted by the General Assembly (despite Governor Cooper’s earlier veto), which enshrouded additional restrictions on “down-zoning”—a municipal zoning practice that had been used to decrease the allowable density or reduce permitted uses for a given parcel.
“If I don't have the ability to truly proactively plan and mitigate growth and development in my city, I might as well pack my planning department up and send them home,” Durham Mayor Leonardo Williams told WRAL last month in response to the controversial bill.
Earlier this year, Williams expressed a different sentiment around the council's role in shaping development. “There seems to be this misperception that if the council says ‘no,’ then the [developer] can’t build. No. It just means that they’re going to build less,” he told Indy Week.
BCPI.OS investigated the development decisions Durham City Council has made and how they have leveraged their existing authority to guide development in Durham this past year. We reviewed all votes that took place in 2024 on zoning changes and consolidated annexations. Zoning changes allow a property to be used for a different purpose and/or density than previously planned for in existing zoning designations. Consolidated annexations allow a property to be incorporated into city limits to receive services like sewer and water. BCPI.OS tracked how each council member voted on all cases involving zoning changes and annexations and have made that record available here.
Zoning changes and annexation petitions are submitted through the Planning Department, where they are reviewed by staff. Once staff completes their review, the proposal goes before the Planning Commission which makes a recommendation to the City Council. Based on the comments of the Planning Commission, applicants may make changes to the project prior to appearing before City Council. Ultimately, the City Council decides whether to approve or deny a rezoning or annexation request. Council only gets to weigh in on projects that involve a zoning change or annexation; projects that already conform to the existing zoning do not require local legislative approval.
Overall, the City Council voted on 45 development cases in 2024, ranging from the creation of new subdivisions at the edges of city limits to a new zoning designation for parts of Duke campus. Of those 45 cases, all but three were approved, with 18 cases receiving unanimous approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval for 34 of the 45 cases and declined to recommend 11 cases. City Council concurred with the Planning Commission 78% of the time.
However, that concurrence rate flipped in the few instances where the Planning Commission unanimously declined recommendation of an application: of four cases unanimously failing at the Planning Commission, City Council voted for approval of three—overriding an unanimous Commission 75% of the time. (Note: development proposals are often amended—to various degrees and by the applicant’s discretion—following the Planning Commission’s recommendation vote but core project attributes often hold continuity throughout the proposal process.)
One of those cases was Virgil Road Assemblage, which proposed building 531 single-family homes and townhomes on 200 acres in southeast Durham. Within the proposal, there were several proffers—commitments volunteered by the developer that exceed requirements, including setting aside 3% of units as affordable and a one-time donation of $5,000 to Durham Public Schools. According to the zoning map change report prepared by the planning department, the project would have a $1.6 million impact in costs annually on the school system based on the number of projected students.
The case went before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2024. In their comments planning commissioners raised significant concerns about misalignment with the comprehensive plan, environmental impacts on Falls Lake, and infrastructure capacity. Several commissioners mentioned how the commitment to affordability and donations to Durham Public Schools were inadequate.
“The land consumptive pattern and auto dependency simply repeats much of what is occurring in this part of the county, as single-use residential, but extends development even further into the Rural-Residential lands. Cloaking sprawl in native landscaping is an unworthy tradeoff,” wrote Anthony Sease, a planning commissioner at the time.
By the time the project reached City Council on May 20, 2024, the developer had increased the proffers to 6% units as affordable for a longer time period and an increased donation to Durham Public Schools of $59,500 but had not made any other substantive changes to the development plan. The annexation was approved 4 to 3 with Council members Javiera Caballero, Mark-Anthony Middleton, Carl Rist and Mayor Williams voting in favor and Council members Nate Baker, Chelsea Cook and DeDreana Freeman voting against.
“This will not be the first time it’s uncomfortable and I guess each of us will have to determine what is the threshold for us as decision makers and leaders that will give us comfort that we’ll say, ‘OK, in this particular case, we can go past the future growth area.’ And that’s a question we're going to have to answer ourselves, but I like this project,” said Middleton prior to voting.
Shortly after that vote, Sease resigned from the planning commission citing this project in his resignation letter. He described Virgil Road and the surrounding area as “rampant suburban-style, disaggregated, environmentally degrading, almost exclusively residential, auto-dependent development,” and went on to say that these types of projects are “choices being endorsed favorably by Council.”
Tracking Council Votes on Development
Caballero, Middleton, Rist and Williams have been characterized as pro-development while Baker, Cook and Freeman are seen as more skeptical of development proposals. BCPI.OS looked to see whether their voting records reflect those reputations. Notably, Middleton and Williams voted in favor of all development cases that came before them this year. Caballero and Rist voted for all but two development cases and voted together 100% percent of the time. While Baker, Cook and Freeman’s records were more mixed, they still approved the majority of development cases. When all three were present they voted similarly 81% of the time but did not align in their voting as closely as other groupings. Meanwhile, Caballero, Middleton, Rist and Williams voted similarly 95% of the time when all four were present.
Of the three cases that did not pass this year, one project proposing 282 townhomes along Angier Ave at Cortez Drive was denied because Middleton was absent and the vote was tied 3 to 3. The other two cases relied on Caballero and Rist voting no. Wake Olive Apartments, which would have built up to 218 apartments in a rural-residential area along Wake Forest Highway, did not provide any affordable units and was determined to only meet 10 out of 23 policies applicable within the comprehensive plan. The other project, East Club Gateway, proposed a commercial development in a rural-residential area and had similar issues: no housing component and inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan.
During their campaigns for election, then-candidates were asked what they look for in a development plan. “We have many opportunities for win-wins with the development community but we must always hold development to a higher standard and live by the principle that whenever something new is built, that it makes our city better, not worse—greener, more equitable, and more sustainable,” wrote Baker.
Rist outlined seven principles that would guide his decision making including meeting the City’s affordable housing goals, increasing density in the urban core and protecting the natural environment.
“When evaluating development plans, I meticulously assess their impact on neighboring communities, as well as the level of resident engagement,” wrote Williams. “Density, affordability, and contributions toward the greater public good are also key factors I look for in a development plan.”
As we roll into 2025, Durhamites will have the chance—via local elections in October and November—to evaluate and vote on applications submitted for the seat of Mayor and all three Ward seats, which are presently occupied by Freeman (Ward 1), Middleton (Ward 2) and Cook (Ward 3). In the meantime, the Durham Planning Commission meets on the second Tuesday of each month, and City Council considers development projects (on an as-needed basis) at their regular business meetings on the first and third Monday of each month.