The Durham City Council enacts a 60-day moratorium on hyperscale data centers and related uses while outlining a push for stronger, community-shaped regulations, then clashes over The Enclave at Little Creek annexation that pairs 20% income-restricted housing with concerns about natural heritage impacts. Council also backs reinvestment in legacy and small businesses on Fayetteville Street and in East Durham and approves several annexations that will shape where and how the city grows. 53mins
Original Meeting
Video Notes
Welcome to the City Council Meeting for May 4, 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.
Call to Order
Moment of Silent Meditation
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Ceremonial Item - Drinking Water Week Proclamation
Ceremonial Item - Taiwanese American Heritage Week Proclamation
Ceremonial Item - Firefighter Day 2026 Proclamation
Ceremonial Item - National Bike Month Proclamation
Announcements by Council
Priority Items by the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk
Consent Agenda (items 1, 5, 8 -18 & 26)
General Business Agenda
2. Children's Wealth Building Resolution
3. Endangered Species Day Resolution
General Business Agenda - Public Hearings
4. Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on Development Approvals for Data Centers, Cryptocurrency Mining, and Related High-Impact Data Processing Facilities within the City of Durham
19. Substantial Amendment to the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
20. Public Hearing and Economic Development Incentive Agreement with AMAC Property's Inc.
21. Public Hearing and Economic Development Incentive Agreement with Coco Fro LLC
22. Consolidated Annexation – Enclave at Little Creek
23. Consolidated Annexation – 1735 Fletchers Chapel Road
24. Consolidated Annexation – Experience Reality Glenn West
25. Consolidated Annexation – 1418 South Miami
Supplemental Item
27. Revision to the 2026 City Council Meeting Schedule
Other Matters
Adjournment
No Action Agenda Items for Informational Purposes Only:
6. North Carolina State Term Contract – Tandem-Axle Dump Trucks for Environmental and Street Services [This item was approved during the April 23, 2026 Work Session.]
7. North Carolina State Term Contract – Tandem-Axle Dump Trucks for Water Management [This item was approved during the April 23, 2026 Work Session.]
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
-
Council Member Nate Baker credited community advocacy for prompting action on hyperscale data centers, explained that the council would vote on a 60-day moratorium under the UDO while pursuing a longer-term pause, and outlined concerns about the facilities’ environmental, infrastructure, fiscal, and social justice impacts on Durham.
-
-
-
Mayor Leonardo Williams argued that Durham should maintain an indefinite moratorium on large data centers, citing parallel county and state efforts, limited land and housing needs, and Northern Virginia’s negative experience with noisy facilities near homes as reasons the community did not want such development locally.
-
Council Member Rist and staff clarified that the council was voting on a modified moratorium ordinance rather than a resolution, explained that local UDO rules and the need for alignment with Durham County limited the moratorium’s length despite calls for a longer pause, and emphasized that the official version was the one in the council’s packet.
-
Mayor Pro Tem Javiera Caballero emphasized that hyperscale data centers were fundamentally different from needed housing or essential local infrastructure, warned of real threats posed by big tech and defense projects, and expressed pride in the council’s unified stance against billionaire-driven development undermining the community’s future.
-
-
Chris Dickey outlined a city-backed renovation of the longtime Rosella's Professional Complex on Fayetteville Street, highlighting significant private investment, accessibility and security upgrades, and support for minority and women-owned legacy businesses as part of Durham’s shared economic prosperity goals.
-
A speaker behind Marzella's Professional Complex and a supporting consultant described the Fayetteville Street landmark’s decades-long community role, explained how city grant support would modernize the site while preserving its character, and highlighted its below-market rents as an informal business incubator and economic hub.
-
Council Member Burris and Mayor Williams framed city support for renovating 2919 Fayetteville Street as community-led reinvestment that would generate local tax benefits, help legacy owners avoid displacement, advance repair for past harms, and culminated in Mayor Pro Tem Caballero stating the motion to authorize an economic development agreement with AMAC Properties for up to $150,000. The motion passed unanimously.
-
Staff introduced a proposed economic development agreement with Coco Fro LLC to help rehabilitate an underused Morning Glory Avenue property into a production facility and tasting room, highlighting planned building upgrades, private investment leverage, and the project’s role in corridor revitalization and implementing the Neighborhood Assessment Plan.
-
Council Member Rist raised questions about whether the Coco Fro rehabilitation project complied with capacity constraints in the Goose Creek outfall area, and staff responded that they had not fully vetted it with water management yet but expected the rehab to fall below concern thresholds and recommended proceeding while making approval contingent on resolving any utility issues.
-
Speaker Pierce Freelon, representing Coco Fro, described plans to grow a freeze-dried ice cream business by converting an existing East Durham space into a commercial kitchen that would create living-wage jobs, and cited city Goose Creek sewer FAQs to argue the project was an existing-use rehabilitation rather than new development requiring additional capacity.
-
Mayor Williams voiced support for the small business assistance item despite incomplete paperwork, citing predatory commercial landlords, longstanding divestment, and the harsh climate for small—especially Black-owned—businesses as reasons entrepreneurs often needed to turn to the city for help even amid major new investments in Durham.
-
-
Mayor Pro Tem Caballero briefly reopened a public hearing to continue the Coco Fro case to a June 1 council meeting, after which planning staff introduced a non-contiguous annexation and utility extension request to connect a single-family home on Fletchers Chapel Road to city water and sewer as a new satellite area.
-
-
Council Member Baker questioned the precedent of creating small non-contiguous annexation ‘satellites’ in a mixed residential area, and planning staff responded that the largely undeveloped place type could be filled in through future annexations and that Policy 165 allowed council to consider such single-lot utility connections despite creating satellites.
-
The council approved annexing 1735 Fletchers Chapel Road into the city and authorizing a related utility extension agreement on a 5–1 vote with Council Member Baker opposed, then unanimously adopted a companion UDO amendment to shift the property into the city’s watershed protection overlay jurisdiction.
-
Planning staff presented a non-contiguous annexation and utility extension request for roughly 26 acres to connect to city water and sewer, explaining that while current residential rural zoning could allow up to 36 single-family homes, the agreement limited service to eight and involved a direct translational zoning with no development plan or proffered commitments.
-
Consultant Dan Jewell clarified that the annexation and utility extension request involved connecting eight existing lots already near city water and sewer and described plans for a small neighborhood where homes with accessory dwelling units would support adults with special needs in a nurturing community setting.
-
-
-
Mayor Pro Tem Caballero led the council through unanimously approving the Experience Reality Glenn West annexation and utility extension agreement, adopting parallel UDO watershed overlay changes to bring the property into the city’s jurisdiction, and passing the required land use consistency statement.
-
Planning staff introduced a contiguous annexation and initial zoning map change for two South Miami Boulevard parcels, explaining the translational zoning with no development plan or proffered commitments and outlining how the proposed city zoning generally aligned with the highway commercial place type despite one residential district being inconsistent.
-
A representative for the South Miami Boulevard annexation applicant explained that the owner planned to sell four related parcels, reported minimal neighborhood meeting attendance with no participants at the second meeting, and noted that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval.
-
-
-
Planning staff outlined The Enclave at Little Creek - a voluntary annexation and utility extension request for nearly 48 acres on George King Road, proposing PDR 5.006 zoning to allow up to 230 homes plus RS20 city zoning on the remaining parcel, and explained that the mixed residential neighborhood, transit opportunity area, and recreation/open space designations generally aligned with the requested districts despite the petition’s technical non-contiguous status at submission.
-
An applicant representative described The Enclave at Little Creek site as challenging, outlined a mixed LIHTC and market-rate housing concept with about $2.5 million in public infrastructure for new roads and utilities, and criticized the planned transit collector street network for cutting through natural heritage areas and causing significant environmental impacts.
-
An applicant representative argued that the city had already prioritized infrastructure over a lower‑value natural heritage area, urged approval of annexation and rezoning to enable about 230 units with 20% affordable housing and roughly $4 million in public infrastructure, and offered added commitments on school funding, stormwater, and natural buffers while warning that limited or denied approvals would yield fewer homes, no affordable units, or large estate lots on well and septic in the county.
-
A nearby resident adjacent to The Enclave at Little Creek site raised concerns about stormwater runoff, potential washouts and impacts to a sewer pump station from the planned connector road, and questioned the legality of the water and utility extension agreement before urging council to vote against the project.
-
-
A speaker representing the Oak Villas Homeowners Association reminded council that the Planning Commission had recommended against the project over environmental concerns and argued the applicant could not lawfully widen George King Road or extend utilities due to prescriptive easement issues and ongoing litigation over the related Lee Village Center road realignment.
-
A speaker outlined how a market-rate developer would donate land and infrastructure for an affordable housing component, described plans to finance it with non‑competitive 4% low‑income housing tax credits and tax abatement through a nonprofit partner, and argued that neighborhood opposition to siting was outweighed by the urgent need to replace substandard housing across the city.
-
Council Member Baker questioned how road right-of-way for George King Road would be secured, and the applicant’s representative explained that the realigned corridor could be shifted onto the project site where right-of-way could be dedicated, then continue through the adjacent Leigh Village Center where right-of-way had already been dedicated.
-
-
Council Member Rist questioned The Enclave at Little Creek’s affordability benefits by highlighting long walking distances to transit, schools, and groceries for residents without cars, and stated that environmental impacts and the way neighbors were treated left them unconvinced to support the project.
-
Council Member Matt Kopac supported The Enclave at Little Creek by arguing that adding 20% income‑restricted affordable homes in this area advanced the city’s polycentric plan, promoted equity by sharing growth with affluent neighborhoods, and required weighing environmental impacts against the displacement risks facing residents who needed housing.
-
Council Member Rist supported The Enclave at Little Creek by citing Durham’s rapid growth and large affordable housing gap, praising the project’s 20% income-restricted units and commitment to help relocate public housing residents during renovations, while acknowledging reservations about impacts to a nearby natural heritage area but concluding the overall tradeoffs favored approval.
-
-
Mayor Pro Tem Caballero explained support for The Enclave at Little Creek based on its sizable affordability component and lack of city subsidy while emphasizing broader approaches to environmentalism and urging continued state-level advocacy on natural heritage protections, then led the council in approving the annexation and utility extension agreement on a 4–2 vote with Council Members Baker and Burris opposed.
-
Mayor Pro Tem Caballero led the council in approving a Unified Development Ordinance amendment to rezone The Enclave at Little Creek property from county Residential Suburban-20 watershed overlay to city Planned Development Residential 5.006 with the same watershed overlay on a 4–2 vote, with Council Members Baker and Burris opposed.
-