Read this as a call to more involvement. While what is described below is sadly typical, I have witnessed exceptions. There have been meaningful victories. The more citizens who participate in public hearings, the more influence we have over time. So, we will fight on.
The public hearing on Enclave at Little Creek (“Enclave”) was not particularly unusual. That’s why I am writing about it. For people who are not familiar with how Durham’s government operates regarding land development, this exemplifies a typical public hearing; citizens most affected by a proposed development are ignored and disrespected, developers are catered to, and the council majority votes to replace forests with townhouses and impervious surfaces. In addition, this case is a great example of how developers simultaneously stigmatize lower income housing and use it as leverage to build whatever they want on environmentally sensitive land.
Read it, weep and prepare to change the majority next year, just in case there is anything left of Durham to save.
Remember, we’ve already exceeded, in just six years, Durham’s thirty year need for new housing units. The only housing crisis in Durham is the glut of unnecessary condos and apartments replacing every beautiful forest or open space. See:
https://savedurham.com/2026/03/06/housing-crisis-beyond-solved
Enclave.
Waste the Trees: On May 4, 2026, the Durham City Council approved Enclave at Little Creek, 230 townhouses to be built on 47 acres including an environmentally sensitive natural heritage site within the Falls/Jordan Watershed Overlay District B. The site is one of the few remaining natural forests in southeast Durham. BuhBye trees, animals, and birds. Hello tomato soup streams and traffic jams. As an egregious insult to environmental concerns, this development is placing 46 units on three acres entirely within the natural heritage boundaries. More on this below.
It was the usual four members, Williams, Caballero, Rist and Kopac voting for the project. Williams and Caballero are openly anti-environment – they are always chasing more tax revenue at any cost to the environment. Rist and Kopac tout environmental credentials but almost always, hypocritically, choose impervious surfaces over woods. Baker and Burris voted “no.” Cook was absent. Baker stuck to his anti-sprawl guns. Burris is the environmental conscience of the council. She seems to be the only one who understands the crucial role of forests to our environment. Burris speaks for the upcoming generation who will suffer the most as developers relentlessly denude the land, removing forests which are their heritage and our best natural defense to climate change.
Raise the townhomes. Eighty percent of this project will be for sale at market rate. 184 luxury townhomes will be built on the 44 acres outside the natural heritage boundary but still on environmentally sensitive land. These luxury units will meet varied design standards, have small “yards,” and be detached from other units. Although the combined development is committed to no more than 60% impervious surface (and that’s a lot), these townhomes may create a greater percentage of impervious surface in the part of the site where they are built because the affordable apartment complex will be more condensed, causing less impervious surface, and the natural heritage area that is not covered with the affordable appartment building will count towards the market rate development’s preserved open space.
Mark the Poor: The primary reason given by the Williams, Caballero, Rist and Kopac, for supporting this environmental disaster waiting to happen was the developer’s commitment to allot 20 percent of units to segregated “affordable” housing units. By “segregated” I mean the lower income units will be located on lots entirely separate from the market rate units and will not be subject to the same design standards. The 46 affordable units will be built on just three acres of the total 47 acres, while market rate units will enjoy the remaining 44 acres. The affordable units will be in an apartment complex built entirely within the natural heritage area.
Physical isolation: The developer did not provide a graphic development plan or a site plan but it is highly likely that the affordable apartments will be visually blocked from the luxury town houses by trees. Perhaps this is the true reason the affordable apartments are being located within the natural heritage area – they can be hidden from sight by what remains of the forest. The affordable apartments will be in one of the two spots indicated within the natural heritage area (shaded brown on the map). My guess is the spot in the far upper corner of the map, farthest from the market rate townhouses, will hide the apartments. Please note the words “poor” and “rich” and the arrows were added by me. The developer’s attorney shared this graphic, which I wrote on to indicate where the rich will live and where the poor will live.
Rich own, Poor rent: While the market rate townhouses will be owned by their wealthy residents, the affordable apartments will be for rent, not sale. There will be no generational wealth building here.
Eyes will not deceive: After destructive grading of the site within the natural heritage area, the affordable, site will be turned over to a developer specialized in low income housing. The apartment buildings will almost certainly resemble other low income housing in the area, not the high end townhomes.
It is likely a stigma will attach to residents, especially kids, who live in the lower income housing. Will they be labeled? The “townhouse kids” and the “apartment kids”? What could go wrong?
Magic words. Developers have learned that including a block of “affordable units” in any development application, is the way to get what they want. As this case illustrates, no matter how separate, how different, how inferior the lower income units may be, a majority of the city council will approve any project, regardless of its destruction of the environment, if the developer promises that a percentage of the units will be “affordable.”
How developers have used the promise of affordability to have their way with Durham is a big topic. For future discussion, stay tuned.
Squeeze the Public: At the beginning of every rezoning hearing, a planning department staffer reads a report on the project to the council. Most often these reports are favorable to the developer. I’ve never heard a planners report stress negative impacts of a project. I am unaware of any time limit on the reading of the staff report. After the staff report, the applicant or their lawyer, or both, presents the project in the most favorable light. The applicant is always asked how much time they need. They are not time limited. When the applicant and lawyer are done with their initial presentation people who are present in person and signed up no later than the start of the meeting at 7 p.m. and people who signed up no later than 2 p.m. to participate by phone are called to speak. Normally, each citizen is allowed to speak for up to three minutes. Sometimes, when a very large number of citizens sign up to speak, the time is reduced to two minutes per speaker. Following public comment, the developer and/or their lawyer are again allowed to speak.
The public hearing for Enclave at Little Creek was led by vice Mayor Caballero. Caballero is not a fan of public comment. In fact, she wants to abolish public comment from all individual rezoning cases. See: https://savedurham.com/2025/09/30/hey-city-council-dont-shut-us-out/
On this night Caballero took advantage of her temporary power to reduce the time for each citizen speaker to ONE minute from the normal three minutes. That wasn’t the only way she sabotaged neighborhood opponents of Enclave. On a night that included several very lengthy budget hearings, the Enclave hearing was suddenly switched from the first rezoning case to be heard, as it was scheduled on the agenda, to the last of four rezoning cases. Because of this skullduggery, the Enclave hearing did not start until 10:40 p.m. It was not concluded until well after midnight. Many of the neighbors who had hoped to speak could not stay as they had kids at home, work in the morning, or were seniors cautious of driving so late at night. Twenty-one neighbors remained through three hours and forty minutes of ceremony and budget matters. Neighbors who had carefully planned to make their points in three minutes were told only after the hearing began, after the staff report was given, just when speakers were to be called up, that they would have only one minute. People who spent a lot of time preparing their remarks, remarks based on their lived experience in the area proposed to be ruined by mass grading, blasting, and insane traffic, were given back of hand by a vice mayor who could not care less about their concerns. Caballero cannot supress her contempt for the public which was on full display here.
It should be said that the council could have over-ridden Caballero’s robbery of the neighbor’s speaking time. It’s on the other five who were present that none of them sought to restore these citizens’ time. Even if a motion on behalf of fairness to the residents failed, the vote would have put the position of each council member on the record for future elections.
After the neighbors so briefly spoke, the applicant’s lawyer was again allowed to speak along with the two developers. They were allowed to be at the podium and defend the project for an additional 25 minutes, which was longer than the combined time for all the neighbors. When a citizen in the audience spoke up to contradict a statement made by the lawyer, Mayor Williams chastised the citizen and prohibited any further comment from the audience. The developers and lawyers could say whatever they wanted knowing no one would be allowed to contradict them.
And then the council voted with the pre-ordained outcome.
Now you know how city council hearings usually go.