AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
The Durham City Council narrowly approved changes to the city’s master development playbook after a tense public hearing in which residents accused the city of destroying the rural landscape.
Read more Disney Sues Donald Trump’s FCC Over ‘Retaliatory Campaign’ Against ABC
The 4-3 vote updates the Comprehensive Plan, which acts as a rulebook for how the city and county should grow. Staff have been using the plan, which was adopted three years ago, when developers want to rezone land or annex properties into the city.
City Manager Bo Ferguson wrote in a memo the changes “provide clarity,” “reduce inconsistencies,” and were “technical in nature.”
Mayor Leo Williams and council members Javiera Caballero, Matt Kopac and Carl Rist voted for the changes. Council members Nate Baker, Shanetta Burris and Chelsea Cook voted against them.
When a developer wants to rezone land or have property annexed into the city limits, planning staff grade the application against a checklist called the “Comprehensive Plan Consistency Review.”
The main issue Monday night centered on the removal of the “D” (Development) designation from several policies on that checklist. If a policy loses its “D” designation, it remains in the broader Comprehensive Plan, but staff will no longer formally grade developers against it during case reviews.
Planning staff argued that policies losing their “D” status are either redundant, covered by existing ordinances, or too subjective for unelected staff to judge.
For example, staff recommended removing the “D” from Policy 120, which dictates the city must “protect the rural character of Durham outside the urban growth boundary.”
“That is very difficult for staff to analyze on a particular zoning or annexation case. What exactly is the rural character?” said Aaron Cain, the city’s senior planning manager. “Those are subjective assessments that you all take as elected officials. … It is just difficult for staff to make an objective assessment as to whether or not a rural character is being altered by any particular development.”
Over a dozen residents spoke during Monday’s public hearing, arguing that removing these policies from the checklist removes developer accountability.
Pam Andrews, the president of Preserve Rural Durham, said for the last six months, the group has studied the proposed changes. She said she thought there would be more community conversation.
“Rural parts of the county need to understand what is being done to impact their way of our way of life,” she told the City Council.
Read more Lewis Hamilton Embraces Bikini-Clad Kim Kardashian for Loved-Up Vacation Photo
Resident Christina Falcon Langley pushed back against removing the “D” designation from Policy 167, which requires an area has the necessary infrastructure for growth.
“Removing the ‘D’ designation turns requirements like demonstrating infrastructure capacity and clear community need into optional guidelines, ignoring years of extensive public engagement,” Langley said.
Residents pointed to recent large developments that have been approved in southeast Durham, such as the Perry Farm development, a 665-unit housing project on 280 acres along Kemp Road. The project was approved in a 4-3 vote in 2023 despite residents’ concerns about watershed impacts on Lick Creek and Falls Lake.
“Perry’s Farm still lacks critical infrastructure,” said Tina Motley Pearson, a southeast resident. “Instead of fixing the issue, which was lack of service, they changed the designation out of the future growth area. Fire Station Eight and 17 are both within a 10-minute drive from Perry’s Farm, the national standard for fire response is 6.9 minutes.”
The council’s 4-3 vote reflects an ongoing split over how to manage the city’s growth.
Cook expressed frustration that staff’s push for “objective” criteria ignored the subjective nature of the community’s needs and vision.
“I understand that the policies still exist, and so we can still apply them,” she said. “But it’s not what we’re going to be given in our packed to make our decisions. It counteracts the entire point of the guiding document, which is that we want to have more subjectivity.”
In January, the Durham Planning Commission, which advises the City Council on rezoning and annexation cases, also voted 7-4 on the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Sarah Chagaris later wrote that a “more transparent process,” including feedback from the community and advisory boards, would have been “beneficial.”
Council members who supported the changes noted the year-long public process and staff’s intent to separate objective planning data from political decisions.
“There’s a lot of work that’s gone into this, and I think, frankly, from my perspective, I think as applicants come before us at these hearings, these are like high pressure hearings. I think they want as much objectivity as possible, right? Not more subjective,” Rist said. “I know it’s hard getting seven people to agree on pretty much anything. This is probably one of those issues right here.”
Read more ‘Not going to settle’: UNC basketball won’t take backseat under Michael Malone
This story was originally published August 18, 2026 at 2:08 PM.