Durham OKs Pickett Road apartments near Sandy Creek, Durham Academy in close vote
After nearly three hours of public comments against it, the Durham City Council approved a plan to build apartments on Pickett Road by a 4-3 vote.
The council heard from over a dozen people who urged it not to change an ordinance to allow a 140-unit apartment building at 3117 Picket Road in southwest Durham.
Monday’s vote came after a month’s delay so Baltimore-based Ascension Construction and Development could address community concerns.
Many residents and bird watchers who spoke raised concerns about the environment, parking infrastructure, and flooding. The site is next to the 102-acre Sandy Creek Park, where people watch birds. Others worried about traffic affecting students attending Durham Academy across the street.
“We will bear the financial cost of repairs, loss of property value, added insurance costs and the mental stress and burden associated with this,” said Jason Elliot, who said had to get flood insurance on his home after Hurricane Matthew. “We will have to bear the consequences of erosion, soil degradation and pollution of our flood waters as well.”
As proposed, the apartment building will be no taller than five stories and:
A quarter of the property will remain wooded
14 apartments will be designated for people making less than the area’s median income for 30 years
Mayor Leonardo Williams, and council members Mark-Anthony Middleton, Javiera Caballero and Carl Rist voted to change the site’s zoning for the development. Members DeDreana Freeman, Chelsea Cook and Nate Baker opposed it.
Residents and advocates speak out
Speakers told the council that building a project next to Sandy Creek Park would damage fish and wildlife habitat and disrupt the neighborhood’s established residents.
William Schlesinger, a resident of Stone Ridge Road and former dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University, said preserving the park “benefits all of the residents of Durham.”
“This rich biodiversity gives a richness of experience for visitors from all parts of Durham,” he said, “which will significantly be affected by the construction of the apartment complex and its damage to wetland habitats from pollution and changes in runoff and flooding.”
Lisa Ramsen, a Durham resident, said that because the city’s rules require multi-family units to have lights on all night the proposed apartments’ parking lot will create light pollution.
“Plants and animals depend on natural light cycles to govern reproduction, nourishment, sleep and protection from predators,” Ramsen said. “Artificial light at night contributes to the decline of biodiversity worldwide. … Please vote no.”
One resident said the new development’s increased congestion poses more accident risks because there is no public transit option to accompany it.
“Pickett Road matches the profile of the most dangerous types of roads in the United States, roads that account for up to half of all fatal crashes,” said Catherine Wolff. “It’s reasonable to expect there would be more vulnerable road users than on average near this development.”
Developer agrees to a bird-friendly design
Nil Ghosh, the developer’s attorney, said the project won’t hurt wetlands or floodplains. He said after hearing concerns at a Feb. 3 meeting, the developer agreed to include:
- At least one elevator in the multi-story building
- An easement along the south side of Pickett Road to the eastern edge of the Sandy Creek Trail
- A one-time $300,000 contribution to the Durham Sidewalk Payment in-Lieu fund
- Full cut-off lighting fixtures for outdoor walkways, the parking lot, canopy and building lights
- Windows treated for American Bird Conservancy material threat factor
“For what it’s worth, there already are three homes that are developed on the parcels where we are proposing to develop,” Ghosh said. “This development is not going to require us to take out many, if any, trees.”
Before the Monday meeting, the Durham Planning Commission voted 8-2 to oppose the Pickett Road development.
“I did not believe the developer sufficiently addressed concerns highlighted by failures to comply with [Comprehensive] Plan policies to protect highly sensitive environmental area and promote creative green infrastructure to address runoff and flooding,” Commissioner Matt Kopac said in written comments. “The development would also put pressure on schools.”
Caballero said she voted for the project because the developer made a “good faith effort in responding to the things there was community concern about.”
Freeman, who opposed the project, said the city’s waterways needed to be better cared for to prevent further environmental damage.
“Where there are areas that you can protect, I want to protect and where there are areas that you know are environmentally sensitive … it’s incredibly important to be good stewards of that area,” she said. “We’re not getting any more land.”
Rist said the city needs affordable housing and the project offers an opportunity for “abundance.”
“We don’t know whether the federal government is still going to provide Housing Choice vouchers for our residents,” he said. “I think we can have housing, rental housing, affordable housing near parks but also have first-class design and buildings that are what we want exactly for bird-friendly design.”
Mayor Williams said he agreed with residents but still voted for the project because of the future benefits to the city.
“Cities that don’t grow, die,” Williams said. “If we aren’t generating the revenue to build these things then no transit ever is going to come out there.”
This story was originally published March 18, 2025 at 6:12 PM.