Hello Durham, neighbors and friends of Sandy Creek Park,

This petition was written after consultation with attorneys, engineers, and experts in traffic safety and environmental protections regarding the City Council's decision to allow rezoning for this Pickett Road property. Many of you were present at the City Council meetings last year and are familiar with the disappointing 4-3 vote to rezone the property adjacent to Sandy Creek Park to allow for apartments to be built by a developer based in Maryland. For those of you who want to learn more about the decision and why we feel it is critical that the voices of Durham citizens, those who support Sandy Creek Park, birders, environmentalists, clean drinking water, as well as those who care about traffic safety are heard again on this matter, please read the petition below and sign to support the safety, health, and well-being of Sandy Creek Park and the neighborhoods, schools, and retirement communities that surround it. 

Once signed, please share this petition via social media and email to help us get the word out!

Also take the time to watch this linked video to learn more about Sandy Creek Park. 

Stunning video of Sandy Creek Park made by Phil Vignola

Thank you!

photo credit: Phil Vignola

 

PETITION TO THE DURHAM CITY COUNCIL 

Citizens demand that Council rescind and revoke rezoning Zoning of Z2400001-Pickett Apartments next to Sandy Creek Environmental Park and Wetlands Based on the fact that 1) the developer failed to meet the graphic plan requirements by failing to include adopted plans information, 2) that The Staff Report failed to include that the site is part of the New Hope Open Space Plan, and 3) because the decision was arbitrary because it does not support the health, welfare and safety of its citizens.

We, the undersigned citizens of Durham, North Carolina—including adjacent property owners, residents, and concerned stakeholders and parkgoers as aggrieved parties—hereby petition the Durham City Council to place on its agenda and vote to rescind the zoning map change approval granted on March 17, 2025, for Case       Z2400001- Pickett Apartments. 

This rezoning—from Residential Suburban-20 (RS-20) to Planned Development Residential 36.176 (PDR 36.176)—was approved despite significant procedural flaws, public opposition, and disregard for environmental and traffic safety facts. 

Considering the impact this will have upon the community, the citizens hereby petition for a rescission is in the public’s interest.

MEANINGFUL FLOOD ASSESSMENT

1. Citizens and experts have repeatedly asked for a meaningful study to be conducted which would be based upon 100 year floods. The Sandy Creek Environmental Park and Wetlands has already seen many 100 year floods, therefore the 10 year flood study is inadequate, inappropriate, and severely outdated. Based upon experience and knowledge, the developer’s current site plan encroaches upon the floodplain, and therefore should not be allowed.

FLOODING & WIDENING 15-501

2. John Goebel, founder of Friends of Sandy Creek, an unwavering steward of Sandy Creek Environmental Park and Wetlands for over 40 years, and considered the local expert on Sandy Creek, informed the City Council’s attention that the majority of flooding of Sandy Creek at this site comes from Hwy 15-501. Therefore, the upcoming widening of 15-501 will increase the flooding and cause the floodplain to widen in this area. This is more evidence that the development will encroach upon the floodplain. Knowledge of the upcoming widening of 15-501 and the flooding it will cause will widen the floodplain in this area. This is additional evidence that the development will be built into the wetlands and floodplain.

IGNORING & DISMISSING EXISTING CITY OF DURHAM PRIORITIES & TRANSFERRING THE COST BURDEN TO THE CITY 

3. Scientist, Dr. Brigid Hogan testified that “Keystone riparians [buffers] are the highest priority parcels identified by The City of Durham for protection.” “This proposal is sited between 2 keystone properties and contains an additional riparian.” “Just 18 months ago, a recombination merged an additional riparian parcel, #138784.” “In fact, #138784 is the highest scoring riparian [for protection] in the whole New Hope Creek Watershed! It seems that the significance of this fact was not recognized in the merger associated with the project proposal”.

REQUIRING EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS TO BEAR AN UNDUE COST OF DEVELOPMENT BY DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY CAUSING THE FLOODING OF DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES

 4. Homeowner Bryan Feger testified that within 9 years of purchase, his property has gone from not being in a floodplain to being in a floodplain. He, along with 40 homeowners that he represented, now require flood insurance. Standing water has become so severe that now that water appears as a pond. Jason Elliot testified in more detail about the significant physical damage requiring costly repairs, the environmental damage of erosion, soil degradation, polluted floodwaters; more financial damage in the form of expensive flood insurance, loss of property value and undo stress and mental burden. He pointed out that any gains made by this development would be at great cost and burden to 40 existing homeowners. The issue of existing flooding problems experienced by the residents of Durham was not addressed by the majority of the City Council.

STORMWATER RUNOFF

5. The Mayor has stated that no more stormwater runoff will be allowed than happens currently. The developer has acted in bad faith in only proposing to build a retaining wall and not proposing adequate retention to handle stormwater runoff from 3.87 acres of impervious surface running 100’ downhill.

INCREASED CITY LIABILITY AND COST TO CITIZENS

6. In approving this rezoning, the City Council has exposed the City to possible lawsuits from neighbors who will see greatly increased flooding on their properties. 

Furthermore, we do not believe that a cost/benefit analysis was ever done. The juxtaposition of the benefit of 10-14 affordable housing units to the cost to flood victims downstream is not an equitable equation for existing homeowners.

 

PUBLIC SAFETY

7. Dr Catherine Wolff, MD, Duke, PhD, UNC-CH in Injury Epidemiology and is the Director of Research Core of HIPRC, one of 11 of the CDC’s Injury prevention and research centers in the US testified to the City Council that this location on Pickett Road “matches the profile of the most dangerous types of roads in the US-roads that account for ½ of all fatal crashes, those with only two lanes, no shoulders, limited sidewalks” resulting in the “worst possible setup for safe pedestrian and bicycle traffic.” She stated that NC’s pedestrian deaths are up 28% while the rest of the nation is down 3%. 

If one is traveling west on Pickett Road at the 35mph speed limit, without braking, the rate of speed increases downhill until one is going 48mph at the Sandy Creek Trailhead Crossing.

 Dr Wolff stated that one in four  pedestrians will be killed if struck by a car moving 35mph. At 40mph, one in two will be killed. 

More than twenty residents pointed out that this especially dangerous section of Pickett Road is on a blind hill with no shoulders at an intersection across from two schools and an assisted living and retirement facility. Twenty years ago, this section of the road did have limited shoulders present but they have eroded over the years by hundred-year floods that have increasingly occurred in the North Carolina Piedmont. We have seen as many as three hundred-year floods in one year–often not even in the rainy season. One takes their lives into their hands if they walk this stretch of Pickett Road. 

Allowing a large development at this particular location will put more pedestrian lives in danger. In fact, when new residents and their guests walk to alternative parking, they will put themselves in danger, often in the dark, which will exacerbate their risk. Note that there is NO extra alternative parking within safe walking distance.

8. The City Council and the developer’s legal counsel only referred to the “traffic issue” as being a problem with increased traffic during school drop-off and pick-up times at the two schools. Not only does this misleadingly downplay the ever-present danger at this spot, it is a devious distraction from the real safety issue and an intentional disregard for the citizens and experts who pointed out their concerns clearly and repeatedly.

 

LAND USAGE MISREPRESENTATION/BUILDING

9. The legal representative for the developer states that the site was already zoned for apartments and townhouses, that is devious and irrelevant in that the number of townhouses or apartments was very limited–significantly different than 140 apartments.

IGNORED LAND CONSERVATION PLANS 

10. The Council majority voted to rezone on the basis of a Staff Report that failed to include this property as part of the New Hope Open Space Plan or that the site is a NC Conservation Protected Area and part of the City of Durham Critical Areas Protection Plan Area for Sandy Creek, all of which current council member, Matt Kopac, pointed out during the Planning Commission meeting.

11. This property has been flagged for permanent protected status as New Hope Open Space, Component B, Part 3.

12. The Durham Inventory of Natural Areas listed the New Hope Open Space Corridor as one of the highest priorities for conservation, “which restricts development of specific parcels.”

WATER QUALITY & FUTURE NEED

13. Water quality samples have been taken and monitored along the New Hope Creek Corridor’s length, by citizens trained by the NC Stream Watch Coordinator for over 30 years and has shown degradation of water quality of Sandy Creek, “consequently, the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee recommends that any future planning undertaken for the areas drained by New Hope Creek carefully consider the cumulative impact of development.” This “is necessary if we are to avoid the unacceptable loss of [water] quality and habitat” of plant and animal species throughout the important wetlands and creek.

POLLUTES DRINKING WATER

14. The NC Department of Environmental Quality has stated that this large development with acres of impervious surface above Sandy Creek will be detrimental to the quality of our drinking water derived from the Jordan Lake Reservoir.

15. There was an outcry of over 1,000 citizens demanding their basic rights of clean water and clean air, it must be put on record that the Durham City Council ignored these concerns in favor of development. The pollution which will enter our water system that supplies Jordan Lake Reservoir was not addressed by the majority of our Durham City Council.

16. During the Planning Commission meeting, council member Matt Kopac highlighted that Engage Durham covered this site and recommended 8 units for this site.

WILDLIFE

17. Experts such as Dr William Schlesinger, former Dean of Duke’s The Nicholas School of the Environment; Haw River Assembly, New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee, New Hope Bird Alliance, Feminist Birders, and the Climate Reality Project testified to the fact that polluted stormwater runoff, light, and noise pollution will be detrimental to the health of Sandy Creek Environmental Park and Wetlands, and its wildlife and native plants, the City Council dismissed this as if it is not important.

18. This is a protected wildlife corridor. This was not addressed; and

19. Staff referenced that the area did not have NC Natural Heritage listings, we spoke with NC Natural Heritage who told us that they had not performed an environmental impact study there, but that it certainly needs a study. Omission of a study does not mean that there is not anything of merit there, it only means that it has not been conducted yet, so therefore, is irrelevant. The City Council and developer have ignored public pleas to wait for the NC Natural Heritage Study, an Environmental Impact and a Biodiversity study.

20. A 5-story building east of Emerald Pond, located within 30’, will shadow the pond to the great detriment to the wildlife who inhabit and feed at Emerald Pond. Those include, but are not limited to Great Blue Herons, Green Herons, Night Herons, Kingfishers and Hooded Mergansers and the fish and insects they feed upon. The many residents of Solista, Cogir’s retirement and assisted living community enjoy this wildlife daily adding greatly to the quality of their lives. A 5-story building to the east and towering over their pond will tremendously diminish the residents’ quality of life. 

Part 1- DEVELOPER’S LACK OF GOOD FAITH

21. Stakeholders informed the City Council that the developer and their legal representation did not act in good faith in that they did not address the proffers for a continuous sidewalk and flashing beacon crosswalk or bird-friendly design, the council wrongly insisted that they did, completely dismissing residents' concerns over an out-of-town developer and their legal representatives.

22. The developer has acted in bad faith by disregarding the public outcry for Green Building Practices, including green roof, and innovative stormwater practices, including permeable parking lots and/or a parking deck to limit the acres of impervious surfaces.

23. The developer and the City has acted in bad faith by disregarding many pleas by citizens and surrounding schools for a current and more in-depth traffic study.

24. The developer has acted in bad faith in dismissing the pleas for a current environmental impact study to be conducted in lieu of the devastation caused by recent hurricanes and storms like Fran, Chantal and Helene, that it is public knowledge that 10 year flood studies are irrelevant. 100 year storms are happening frequently in Durham, recently having seen three 100 year floods in the course of only one year’s time.

25. The legal counsel and developer has acted in bad faith in that it did not sufficiently honor proffers for bird-friendly design. They were unavailable, although denied this at the city council meeting. By the time New Hope Bird Alliance and Feminist Birders were able to connect with the legal representative, he had already given the text commitments. The commitment was watered down to “one” and that was TBD. They also ignored the very important lower story protections that were brought to their attention. Sandy Creek Environmental Park and Wetlands is the #1 best bird hotspot in Durham and an established migratory route in which the 5-story building at this particular site is indeed concerning for bird strikes of migrating and year-round birds.

26. The developer acted in bad faith to recombine the parcels to avoid an absolute responsibility for a continuous sidewalk to the trailhead of Sandy Creek Environmental Park and Wetlands and to reap a greater percentage of buildable land in an area that abuts a floodplain.

SITE DESIGN

27. When the City Council speaks of Density, Diversity and Design, an important component of that is connectivity. However, connectivity at this development, at this site, is underwhelming. There is a park, but there is no planned or safe connectivity. There are no amenities that are walkable from this site, there are no sidewalks, no grocery stores, no shopping, no public schools, no extra parking. There are no amenities that are a safe bike ride from this site.

28. Since this development was proposed, the 208 luxury Vintage Apartments have been built 1250’ from this site. They do have amenities within safe walking distance, including public transportation. Chandler apartments at University Tower are across the street. 900 apartments are under construction less than a mile away on 15-501, also with many amenities close by. Garrett West apartments are ½ mile away from this site. Lancaster Apartments for Duke grad students are ½ mile away from this site. Apartment complexes are at 50% occupancy, so we don’t feel there is a great need for these apartments at a site that has no connectivity, will create even more than current traffic safety hazards, be a detriment to safe drinking water and to wildlife, and will cause flooding to neighbors’ properties.

 

WATER QUALITY, WETLANDS DEGRADATION & SEWER INADEQUACY

29. The sewer lines will cross the wetlands and impair the high-quality riparian buffer that stores floodwater, and will cause damaging disturbances to the wetlands and negatively impact how Sandy Creek and New Hope Creek watershed function.

30. The City of Durham is old. Evidenced by the inadequate sewer system halting development in Durham. Westglen neighbors just across the street from the site have noted problems. On July 23, 2025 and January 22, 2026, they reported “very brown muddy water” and “brown again and seems to be getting worse.” The City “flushed the hydrants which flowed brown water.” In 2023 and 2024, manhole covers in the adjacent neighborhood were removed and flushed of brown water. Sewer adequacy needs to be tested and improved before more large developments are added to the already stressed system.

 Part 2 - DEVELOPER’S LACK OF GOOD FAITH

31. The developer’s legal counsel stated to the Planning Commission that 15 of the 23 applicable policies were met. Subsequently, they stated to the City Council that 22 out of 25 policies were met. Clarification is needed here. The developer has acted in bad faith in not addressing a public outcry for pleas for environmental standards to be met. Energy Star HVAC system and Energy Star appliances system and elevators do not ameliorate the negative environmental impact that this will cause.

32. The developer’s legal representative stated that very little of the tree canopy will be eliminated here. That is incorrect. The aerial photograph that he showed was a winter aerial photo. It is almost impossible to distinguish a tree canopy in winter. At least 14 mature hardwoods will be eliminated including oaks, pecans, hickories and very old and stately magnolias, as well as large stands of pine trees.

33. Within a month of approval, the Applicant listed the property for sale through CBRE for $4,900,000 as a “Zoned Multi-family Development Site,” suggesting the rezoning may have been pursued in bad faith for speculative gain rather than genuine development.

 

CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONABLE PROCEDURES 

34. NC Statute 160-A 385(a),(c) SL 2019-111,s2,3 as amended by 2020=3,s 4.33(a) and SL 2020-25,s 51(a),(b),(d) effective June 18,2020 states that if a petition is presented to the City Council addressing a proposed rezoning, a super-majority is required to pass a rezoning. (One SL states that ⅘ of a majority, in which 5.6 votes would be required, one SL states that ⅔ of a majority, in which 4.6 of a majority would be required.) With a 4-3 vote, we did not have that; and

35. The Durham City-County Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning by an 8-2 vote on November 12, 2024, citing inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, overwhelming public opposition, environmental threats to the New Hope Creek corridor (as highlighted by the City-recognized New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee), increased flooding risks from impervious surfaces into the Sandy Creek floodplain, impacts on endangered bird species under state (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-331 et seq.) and federal laws (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act), heightened traffic and public safety hazards on Pickett Road, inadequate parking leading to overflow issues, and existing apartment vacancies in the area.

36. NC Statute 160D required 3 minutes for residents and 3 minutes for council members. During the City Council public hearing on February 3, 2025, 89 citizens who signed up to oppose the rezoning—each having prepared three-minute testimonies with evidence such as photographs, maps, traffic data, and expert analyses—were arbitrarily limited to one minute of speaking time without a Council vote or prior notice, while council members rebuttal ran over their 3 minutes with council member Middleton with 6 minutes 46 seconds with much irrelevant discussion and with Mayor Williams, acting as a council member in this situation, with 8 minutes 22 seconds. Whereas, this was done because there was so much opposition to this rezoning, that is more reason for those concerned to be heard. Furthermore, it would have been important to re-schedule this rezoning case for a meeting not paired with another much opposed case. During Mayor Williams’ campaign, he stated that one minute of speaking time was not enough to get any points across or to be heard. We know that the City Council would argue that 2 minutes were granted in the second meeting but the continuation was called only to address the bird-friendly designs and the dangerous crosswalk at the bottom of the hill. For that meeting, we had no prior notice that we would be allowed 2 minutes, therefore, considering the events of the prior meeting, we prepared for one minute each. Mayor Williams was correct in his statement that one minute is not enough for coherent thoughts. The City Council has recently changed its policy regarding speaking times indicating that there were timing problems inherent during our case. In case the 15 minutes per side was applicable at the time, Mayor Williams and Council Member Middleton gave rebuttals totaling 14 minutes and 68 seconds with Middleton giving a dressing down to citizens who were pressed to get their points across in one minute and doing the best they could with very little time to express their concerns adequately.

MAYOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF RESIDENTS

37. Residents were not granted their due process. At the February 3, Mayor Williams dismissed residents'very serious concerns and gaslighted them stating “When we are talking about something that is in your backyard, that is affecting you directly, you have your perspectives and you’re going to share those.” “Diversifying our housing stock can be painful for some”. The very heartfelt issues we were there to address were environmental and traffic safety related. At the March 17, 2024 meeting, every single citizen stated that it was obvious that the City Council members’ minds were already made up. Citizens did not feel heard and did not have adequate due process.

WHEREAS, rescission would restore the property to RS-20 zoning, prevent irreversible harm to Durham's environmental resources and traffic safety, and ensure future proposals receive transparent review consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and

NOW, THEREFORE, we petition the Durham City Council to:

Place this matter on the agenda for the next available regular meeting;
Introduce and vote on a motion to rescind the Z2400001- Pickett Apartments zoning map change approval;
Direct the City Attorney and Planning Department to prepare the necessary ordinance to restore RS-20 zoning;
Conduct any required public hearing with equal speaking time for all participants; and
Take all actions necessary to protect the public good and uphold constitutional principles.
We would like to thank the Durham City Council for understanding the priorities and very serious concerns of residents, environmental experts, traffic safety experts and parkgoers in this case. If this petition is not addressed, we reserve the right to pursue judicial remedies, for the sake of the public good.