A stretch of wooded land along Pickett Road has become the latest battleground between the push for denser housing and the fight to preserve fragile green space.

“In our opinion, not everything in the urban growth boundary needs to be built up,” said Jennifer Maher, co-chair of the New Hope Bird Alliance’s conservation committee. “There needs to be space for the environment and for native flora and fauna to flourish, as well as more housing.”

The Durham City Council approved a zoning change on March 17 for a 140-unit apartment complex at 3119 Pickett Road, converting land originally designated for low-density, single-family homes and townhouses.

The decision reflects the city’s ongoing struggle to balance the need for multi-family housing  with the preservation of sensitive ecosystems.

The approval of this development offers a glimpse into how Durham, like many fast-growing cities, must weigh competing priorities – housing access, environmental protection and equitable urban planning – when shaping its future.

Even critics of the Pickett Road project acknowledged it wasn’t the worst proposal to come before the city, but that may be part of the problem.

“This case was probably on the better side of the cases that we usually see,” At-Large Councilman Nate Baker said. “That’s an indictment of how bad many of the cases that come before the city council are, of which the vast majority get approved.”

Mayor Leonardo Williams, Mayor Pro Tempore Mark-Anthony Middleton, Javiera Caballero and Carl Rist supported the development, while DeDreana Freeman, Chelsea Cook and Nate Baker opposed it.

_______________________________________________

Read more about housing:

How Zoning Affects Affordable Housing Options in Durham

_______________________________________________

Citizen Concerns

William Schlesinger, a retired ecologist and former dean of Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, raised several flooding concerns to the City Council at the March 17 hearing.

Impermeable surfaces – areas that do not allow water to easily pass through – prevent water absorption. He says the proposed development’s surfaces, such as building foundations and the paved parking lot, will “inevitably” lead to flooding.

“A development of that size with a lot of impervious area from the building itself, as well as the parking lot around the building, will produce a whole lot more runoff,” he said.

The land surrounding Sandy Creek Park is already vulnerable to flooding, specifically neighbors down slope of the park’s wetlands and creek.

Advocates called for green infrastructure to be incorporated into the project’s final site plan, such as permeable pavement or rain gardens, but those features were not included in the developer’s original commitment.

“That’s what their assessment was – there will be no watershed impact, there will be no flooding impact – which is just untrue,” said Durham resident Astrid Cook.

Bird species were another topic of concern expressed by various speakers at the March meeting. Jennifer Maher, co-chair of the conservation committee with New Hope Bird Alliance, works alongside her colleagues to ensure that park’s bird species are well-cared for.

According to ebird – a site that allows bird enthusiasts to self-report sighted bird species in specific locations – Sandy Creek Park has 185 bird species, with 100 reported this month alone, and a total of 8,000 submissions to date.

There are several issues that bird experts expressed concern about at both meetings: including light pollution, windows and flooding.

Runoff and flooding present bird-specific consequences, specifically to ground-nesting birds.

“What will happen to the wetland birds? We don’t know, but common sense and science tells you this is not going to be good,” she said.

The proposed unit’s windows will pose another threat, they said. Without bird-safe materials, windows can act like mirrors – deceiving birds and leading to crashes.

“Birds don’t see glass. What a bird sees in a window instead is a reflection of sky or trees, so they see it as additional habitat to fly into,” said Brooks Emanuel, co-founder of Durham’s Feminist Bird Club.

In the updated proffer, the developer incorporated a window film design. These films allow birds to interpret the windows as a barrier to their flight path.

Maher said the developer did not communicate this change with the New Hope Bird Alliance before sharing the updated proffer. She added that she’s hopeful, noting the city planning office has expressed a willingness to learn more about bird-friendly design.

Outdoor artificial lighting can confuse birds, specifically migrating species, causing them to circle above the source and sometimes collide with structures.

“They did promise to have down lighting. In other words, the lights will be shielded to go down to what needs to be lit,” Maher said.

Michael Ulku-Steiner serves as the Head of School at Durham Academy. With nearly 1,500 people using the nearby schools daily, he warned that increased traffic from the new development could heighten risks on an already dangerous stretch of Pickett Road.

The developer agreed to contribute $300,000 toward a path connecting to Sandy Creek Park, but Ulku-Steiner and other critics fear that will not cover construction costs.

“We hope it doesn’t take a pedestrian death to get the city’s attention,” he said.

Developer Argument

The developer, Ascension, framed the project as a responsible response to Durham’s growing housing needs. Land-use attorney Nil Ghosh, of MorningStar Law Group, served as legal counsel for the developer throughout the project.

“Ultimately, the project was approved, so I think we were able to at least satisfy a majority of the council that we had addressed those concerns to the best of our abilities,” he said.

The developer agreed to implement funds earmarked for sidewalks for connectivity to the park, but Ghosh says traffic is not a major concern.

“The city’s own data very clearly suggests that Pickett Road is under capacity by about 45%,” Ghosh said.

The project also includes a small affordable housing component—10% of the units—with tiers set at 60%, 80%, and 100% of the area median income.

“It’s near one of the nicer parks in the city of Durham, and I think that trying to have a density of housing near the city’s main amenities is a goal that the city wants,” Ghosh said.

Baker also pointed to class dynamics at play, suggesting that the project drew unusual attention because of the demographics of the surrounding neighborhood.

“It’s sort of a wealthier part of our community, and so they were able to send in a lot of emails and get a lot of attention. They reached out to the media for their framing of the issue, and that’s ultimately why this one got so much attention” 

Final Thoughts

“I understand the argument,” Ulku-Steiner said. “From homelessness in Durham to rising rents and barriers for first-time homebuyers, we have to do something to expand housing and keep pace with the city’s growth.”

Emanuel emphasized the importance of approaching rare urban green spaces with care and humility.

“We don’t know every reason the birds love that place,” he said. “And when you start messing around with it in such profound ways, you can mess that up.”

Jennifer Maher also said that while she is pro-development, not everything within the urban growth boundary is suitable for development.

“I look forward to a large project that’s going to be built around the corner from me,” she said. “I will welcome its residents in my local park, but my local park does not have wetlands.”

For many opponents, the issue wasn’t whether to build, but where. Cook, like Maher, said this is not a “Not in My Backyard” situation.

“The narrative that anyone who questions development is just a NIMBY is false,” Cook said. “There are serious environmental, safety and community impacts here.”