Durham Honors DCABP; Trespass Debate, Downtown Plan Passes

The Durham City Council celebrated the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People’s 90th anniversary, then sparred over a trespass decision tied to a disruptive swearing‑in night. The council unanimously adopted the Downtown Durham Blueprint: 2035, approved a small Page Road townhouse rezoning, and unanimously rejected a noncontiguous Hamlin Road annexation outside the urban growth boundary; the Leigh Village Center hearing was continued to February amid traffic study and process concerns. 38mins

Economic Development Planning & Zoning Sustainability Transportation & Mobility
Was this helpful?

Original Meeting

Monday, December 15th, 2025
20540.0
Durham City Council December 15, 2025
Full Meeting on YouTube
Video Notes

Welcome to the City Council Meeting for December 15, 2025.

Agenda: https://www.durhamnc.gov/AgendaCenter/City-Council-4

How to participate: https://www.durhamnc.gov/1345

Contact the City Council: https://www.durhamnc.gov/1323

NOTE: Comments left on this livestream will not be read or entered into the meeting record.

avatar
Wes Platt
Durham, NC
Neighborhood news guy for Southpoint Access in Durham.
View full bio
In This Video
  • Mayor Williams issued a proclamation recognizing the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People’s 90th anniversary and highlighted its long-standing advocacy for civil rights, voter education, and community advancement.
  • Floyd B. McKissick Jr. reflected on the historical barriers African Americans faced in Durham and credited the Durham Committee’s leadership and local coalitions with helping dismantle many of those obstacles.
  • Cook condemned the decision to trespass a resident from a public meeting without warning, emphasized that no threats occurred, and urged the Council to avoid using such measures to silence dissent.
  • Council Member Burris opposed banning a resident from Council chambers, called for transparent discussion by all members, questioned unequal rule enforcement, and warned against political retribution.
  • Mayor Pro Tem Caballero defended enforcing meeting rules during the swearing-in, emphasizing respect for democratic outcomes and ensuring speakers and honorees could participate without disruption.
  • Mayor Williams condemned disruptive behavior during the December 1 swearing-in, affirmed support for trespass actions taken by the city manager to uphold meeting order, and emphasized respect and decorum in Council chambers.
  • Kopac promoted small area planning, highlighting priorities like parking, services for unhoused residents, bike and walk infrastructure, public art, climate resilience, and urged community participation to shape a comprehensive vision rather than leaving decisions to powerful landowners.
  • The Council unanimously adopted a resolution amending the Durham Comprehensive Plan to include the Downtown Durham Blueprint 2035.
  • Andy Lester presented a request to amend a planned development’s graphic plan to add an external access point on the eastern side of the site while keeping the existing zoning unchanged.
  • Pam Porter requested a simple amendment to allow a break in the buffer to extend a road, noting that no changes to density or other zoning commitments were proposed.
  • Pam Porter explained that the requested zoning amendment would allow a road extension necessary to support a subsequent annexation and zoning case for up to 15 townhomes without connecting through to Page Road.
  • The Council unanimously approved an ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance to adjust a Planned Development Residential designation as described.
  • Andy Lester presented a request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning to rezone a 1.82-acre parcel on Page Road from Residential Rural to Planned Development Residential 8.876 to allow up to 15 townhomes.
  • Pam Porter detailed the rezoning to enable up to 15 townhomes connected via Oak Mill Drive rather than Page Road, and highlighted commitments including tree coverage, impervious limits, native plantings, a multi-use path, and monetary contributions to schools and the housing fund, noting consistency with planning policies and unanimous Planning Commission support.
  • The Council unanimously adopted an ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance to rezone property from county Residential Rural to city Planned Development Residential 8.876.
  • Andy Lester outlined a request from Long Leaf Partners for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning to enable a 42.61-acre conservation subdivision with up to 81 single-family homes on Hamlin Road.
  • Andy Lester explained that the Hamlin Road annexation and rezoning would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan since the parcels lie outside the urban growth boundary, and noted that approval would extend the boundary and change the place type to Mixed Residential Neighborhood.
  • Worth Mills described an annexation to access city water and sewer via a pump station for a conservation subdivision of up to 81 single-family homes, noted it would slightly extend the urban growth boundary without changing the Residential Rural zoning, and estimated home prices starting in the mid-$300,000s.
  • Worth Mills recounted the properties’ history in the former suburban tier, noted prior expectations for urbanization and city utilities, and argued the annexation would mirror past Council exceptions by extending utilities at no public cost despite the 2023 urban growth boundary exclusion.
  • Worth Mills described a concept plan for a conservation subdivision that would cluster homes on already cleared areas while preserving mature forest, a thick eastern buffer, and at least 50% open space.
  • Worth Mills proposed one-time contributions of $25,000 each to Durham Public Schools, the housing fund, and fire and emergency services, and argued that approving the annexation would set a desirable precedent for future urban growth boundary extensions.
  • A speaker from the Gorman community opposed the Hamlin Road project, citing existing traffic concerns and predicted increases from commuter routes to I-85.
  • Mayor Williams opposed the Hamlin Road annexation, warning it did not meet the threshold to alter the urban growth boundary, conflicted with the Comprehensive Plan, should remain rural reserve, and would set a bad precedent given environmental, community, and infrastructure concerns.
  • A speaker urged voting against the Hamlin Road annexation, arguing it would require expanding the urban growth boundary, promote sprawl, weaken the boundary countywide, and encourage noncontiguous annexations that contradict the Comprehensive Plan.
  • A speaker opposed the Hamlin Road development, citing unsafe road conditions including high-speed traffic, semitrucks, school buses, and lack of shoulders, and warned the area’s infrastructure could not support the added growth.
  • A speaker opposed the annexation and rezoning, citing the Planning Commission’s unanimous rejection, Durham County Commissioners’ criticism, the site’s location outside the urban growth boundary and within a critical watershed, inadequate infrastructure, and inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
  • Mayor Williams opposed expanding the urban growth boundary, citing insufficient infrastructure within the existing boundary and announced a vote against the rezoning.
  • Council Member Rist announced a no vote, distinguishing private open space from public parks and citing significant inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan despite acknowledging merits of the project.
  • Council Member Matt Kopac announced a no vote, citing the site’s location in a critical watershed outside the urban growth boundary, noncontiguity, lack of clear community benefit, and failure to meet criteria for changing the place type map and boundary.
  • Council Member Nate Baker declared an easy no vote, acknowledging some positive aspects but concluding there were far more reasons to oppose the proposal than to support it.
  • The Council voted and the annexation motion failed unanimously, leaving the property unannexed.
  • Andy Lester presented a contiguous annexation and rezoning request for 10 parcels totaling 81.75 acres, proposing a utility extension agreement and a shift from Residential Suburban 20 to Compact Suburban Design core and support place types to allow mixed residential and nonresidential uses under a textual development plan.
  • Patrick Byker emphasized that the Leigh Village Center proposal was led by longtime family landowners, highlighting the Booker and Harris families’ historic ownership and past community contributions.
  • Patrick Byker endorsed compact suburban design to advance a 15‑minute community vision consistent with the area’s transit opportunity designation in the 2023 Comprehensive Plan.
  • Patrick Byker outlined that Leigh Village Center would include between 1,667 and 2,294 dwelling units and explained that, due to the absence of a specific development program, traffic impact analyses would be conducted for each phase at site plan approval rather than for the overall project.
  • A speaker urged requiring a full traffic analysis before Leigh Village Center moved forward and called for school capacity solutions, including land set-asides and funding for new elementary and high schools given overcrowding at nearby schools.
  • A speaker opposed the Leigh Village Center rezoning, warning that rerouting and paving George King Road would funnel speeding cut‑through traffic through neighborhood streets not designed to safely handle the increased volume.
  • Ryan Stewart submitted a petition with about 185 signatures opposing the rezoning, noting door‑to‑door outreach yielded no positive feedback on the proposal.
  • Talmage Layton argued that aggressive rezoning since the halt of the light rail had undermined integrated transit planning and created extreme multifamily density near Leigh Village, shifting the area from a residential community to a transient housing hub.
  • A speaker urged thoughtful, well‑planned development for Leigh Village Center, citing the absence of a comprehensive traffic analysis and warning that rapid upzoning could harm environmental quality, resident safety, and neighborhood character.
  • A speaker opposed moving forward without a comprehensive transportation plan, warning that dense development without light rail would worsen traffic and lacked regard for how vehicles would be accommodated.
  • A speaker argued that, without the previously envisioned light rail, the Leigh Village proposal became unsustainable—citing concerns about traffic, quality of life, environmental impacts, taxpayer burden, and an imbalance of rental to single‑family housing.
  • A speaker supported the Leigh Village annexation and rezoning, arguing it aligned with the Comprehensive Plan and Council goals for denser, 15‑minute, mixed‑use development and matched proposed UDO zoning.
  • Council Member Cook moved to send the Leigh Village Center case back to Planning, arguing a traffic impact analysis was legally required and that staff’s inconsistent guidance on the textual development plan made the proposal not ready for a vote. She could not get a second at the time.
  • Deputy City Attorney Hernandez explained that disputes over UDO interpretations should follow the official interpretation and appeals process, and supported the planning director’s approach to require phase-by-phase traffic impact analyses at site plan due to outdated TIA provisions and the project’s form-based, multi-phase nature.
  • Patrick Byker estimated that full buildout of the 81-acre Leigh Village Center would take at least 10 years and more likely 15 to 20 years based on experience.
  • Council Member Cook argued that the UDO’s traffic impact analysis requirement used mandatory “shall” language, noted no formal interpretation had been issued to justify discretion, renewed a motion to send the case back, and stated they would vote no if the motion failed.
  • Council Member Baker suggested continuing the public hearing to find a middle ground and ensure the Council retained leverage to address outstanding concerns before making a final decision.
  • A speaker noted the late hour, apologized to the applicant, and expressed reluctance to continue the case while concluding that no productive action would occur that night.
  • Aaron Cain relayed staff’s recommendation to continue the Leigh Village case to Feb. 16 to allow time for materials and commitments, and Council Member Baker moved to continue the hearing to that date.
  • The Council voted 6–1, with Council Member Cook opposed, to leave the public hearing open and continue the Leigh Village case to Feb. 16.
Your Governments
Your governments list is empty.
Manage Your List
More from this government
Council Sets Decorum Rules, Debates Dark-Sky Lighting, Considers Future of 505 W. Chapel Hill
Dec 4, 2025
Farewells, New Oaths, And A Historic First
Dec 1, 2025
Durham Unites on Immigrant Safety, Hayti Street Closure Denied
Nov 17, 2025
Durham City Council
Nearby governments
Durham Public Schools Board of Education
Durham County Board of Commissioners
Chapel Hill Town Council
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Hillsborough Board of Commissioners
Orange County Board of Education
Carrboro Town Council
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education
Wake County Public School System Board of Education
Pittsboro Board of Commissioners
Chatham County Board of Commissioners
Graham City Council
Alamance-Burlington School System Board of Education
Alamance County Board of Commissioners
Mebane City Council
Greensboro City Council
Guilford County Schools Board of Education
Guilford County Board of Commissioners
High Point City Council
Moore County Schools Board of Education
Southern Pines Town Council
Aberdeen Town Board
Moore County Board of Commissioners
Pinehurst Village Council
Spring Lake Board of Commissioners