Durham City Council 2/2/26: RV Rules, Kerley Annexation and Police Tech Exit
The Durham City Council pulls a proposed police technology contract, loosens RV parking rules after neighborhood testimony, and approves annexing the Kerley Gardens apartments for city water following a detailed debate over affordability, transparency, and the urban growth boundary. Residents also press the council on equitable infrastructure investments and fairness in bond‑funded street work. 40mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Monday, February 2nd, 2026
10611.0
Durham City Council Meeting February 2, 2026 (Virtual)
Video Notes
Welcome to the City Council Meeting for February 2, 2026.
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.
Subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/cityofdurhamnc
Like: http://www.facebook.com/cityofdurhamnc
Like: https://www.instagram.com/cityofdurhamnc/
Follow: https://www.threads.com/@cityofdurhamnc
Follow: https://bsky.app/profile/cityofdurhamnc.bsky.social
Listen: https://www.spreaker.com/user/city-of-durham-nc--10123646
Wes Platt
Durham, NC
In This Video
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mayor Williams introduced privately initiated text amendment TC-250001 to create a new UC-3 university and college zoning district to better include large research parks, noted prior approvals from the Planning Commission and County Commissioners, and clarified that the change was intended to keep the development ordinance consistent across city and county without measurable impacts on city properties.
-
-
Planning staff presented a minor text amendment to relax RV parking rules in residential districts by allowing recreational vehicles to be parked on any driveway at least 25 feet from the public right-of-way, explaining this aligned with the forthcoming UDO update and would avoid citing numerous existing violations.
-
Council Member Shanetta Burris asked how the new 25‑foot RV parking standard would be enforced, and planning staff explained that while violations were widespread, staff still planned to enforce the rule and had chosen the 25‑foot distance to protect sight lines and sidewalks while giving residents a more practical parking option.
-
-
-
-
-
Planning staff outlined a voluntary annexation request for a 1.678‑acre parcel on Curley Road to connect to city water, explaining that the apartment-designated property would keep its Residential Suburban Multifamily zoning without a development plan, allowing a range of residential, limited commercial, and civic uses but prohibiting industrial development.
-
Property owner Leah Bergman requested approval of the Curley Road annexation so family-owned entities could extend city water to a 36‑unit apartment community currently reliant on a vulnerable well system, emphasizing long-term local investment and noting prior unanimous Planning Commission support.
-
A speaker living near Kerley Road cautioned that the annexation and utility extension for the Kerley Gardens apartments did not include proof or guarantees of ongoing affordability, warning that added utility costs could erode the naturally occurring affordable housing and risk displacement of current tenants.
-
Catherine Oliver, a nearby resident, opposed immediate approval of the Kerley Gardens annexation, citing public records indicating a larger 84‑unit regional project and urging the council to defer action until there was full, transparent disclosure of the broader plan and its cross‑county utility impacts.
-
Resident Ken Pugh, a former engineer, urged the council to modify the Kerley Gardens annexation to exclude the Orange County laundry building to avoid extending city utilities beyond the urban growth boundary, suggesting an alternative boundary line that would keep the laundry on well water while still allowing annexation of the apartments.
-
-
Applicant representative Patrick Byker responded to transparency concerns by emphasizing prior meetings with city staff about running water to the laundry building, noting that similar public comments preceded a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation for annexation approval, and acknowledging discussions with Orange County officials about potential development while stressing that no formal plans had been submitted or advanced.
-
Council Member Burris confirmed with the applicant’s representative that only a non-binding concept plan—not a formal site plan—had been submitted for potential future development, while property owner Leah Bergman emphasized accepting housing choice vouchers and cited the high cost and vulnerability of the existing community well as key reasons for seeking city water service.
-
Planning staff member Aaron Cain explained the technical water line design for the Kerley Gardens annexation and clarified that any future effort to serve Orange County buildings with Durham utilities would require amending a consent decree, annexation and rezoning through a public process, while also noting that no residents of the apartment community had contacted staff to provide input.
-
Council Member Chelsea Cook explored whether the annexation approval could both limit future utility service to the laundry facility and require ongoing acceptance of housing vouchers, and planning staff explained that such utility limits could be added to the utility extension agreement but that affordability commitments could not be enforced through annexation, noting that expedited review had been based on oral confirmation of voucher acceptance and rent levels, while property owner Leah Bergman emphasized being willing to provide documentation if asked.
-
A council member asked about the purpose of extending utilities to the laundry building and whether the applicant would accept limits on that service, and applicant representative Patrick Byker responded that annexation would end the double sewer rate for Kerley Gardens’ 36 families and noted prior meetings where staff confirmed the laundry connection met city policy because the meter and service line were located in Durham County.
-
A council member and planning staff member Aaron Cain reiterated that any future development beyond the existing building would require multiple public processes—including amending a consent decree, securing votes from both Durham and Chapel Hill, and pursuing annexation and rezoning—and cited a prior case where such a decree was amended but annexation was ultimately denied.
-
More from this government
Nearby governments