Durham Task Force Meeting on SCAD Text Amendment - October 25, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Durham Task Force Meeting on SCAD Text Amendment - October 25, 2023
This task force meeting, held on October 25, 2023, was the second session dedicated to discussing the Simplified Codes for Affordable Development (SCAD) text amendment. The group aimed to identify points of agreement and disagreement on the proposal, which would modify Durham's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The meeting focused on specific issues including buffers, the PATH program, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and setback reductions.
Discussion Items
Buffers
The task force spent extensive time on buffer requirements. Tom Miller raised two primary concerns: (1) SCAD eliminates buffers between top-level use categories (e.g., residential-to-residential), even when intensity differs significantly (e.g., a single-family home next to a high-rise apartment); (2) SCAD exempts projects on lots 20,000 square feet or smaller from buffers, which in practice would remove buffer requirements for most commercial-residential interfaces in Durham. Proponents argued that buffers were tied to zoning districts rather than uses and that SCAD intended to align buffers with compatible uses. A negotiated examination of buffers was proposed, with a subgroup to work with planning staff to develop district-by-district recommendations. No final decision was reached; the group acknowledged that this issue could be addressed through the upcoming UDO rewrite or a dedicated working group.
PATH (Planned Affordable Housing Tools)
The PATH component of SCAD was discussed. It included a density bonus for projects with 25% affordable units (with short affordability periods) and special rules for 100% affordable projects. Tom Miller suggested setting aside the density bonus portion due to existing ineffective programs, but expressed interest in keeping provisions for 100% affordable housing. Proponents agreed to set PATH aside for separate consideration, except for the 100% affordable element, which would be explored further. The group indicated consensus to remove the full PATH proposal from SCAD, with possible standalone amendments for the 100% affordable component.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Discussion centered on two aspects: size and placement. Proponent Jim Anthony argued for increasing the maximum ADU size from 800 to 1,200 square feet to allow three-bedroom units. Tom Miller opposed the increase, stating it would make ADUs less affordable. Citizen Joseph Fleming raised concerns about placement, noting that current UDO requires ADUs behind the principal structure, but SCAD would allow them to be placed closer to the front lot line, potentially placing them beside neighboring houses. Tom Hennessy clarified that attached ADUs already must respect existing setbacks, but detached ADUs could see placement changes. The group decided to continue this discussion on Friday, with a focus on preserving quality of life and safety.
Setback Reductions
A citizen (Shirley? - unnamed) expressed opposition to reducing side yard setbacks for single-family homes from 10 feet to 5 feet (paragraph 7.1.2B), citing real-world nuisances like noise and fumes from neighbors. This item was noted for further discussion.
Public Comments & Testimony
Mimi Kessler provided a detailed list of concerns, including: protect buffers, keep ADUs small, maintain infill standards, remove the 25% affordable provision, keep parking requirements, and require public review of certain projects. Sherry's Ann Rosenthal criticized the process, stating it was impossible to properly evaluate SCAD outside of the full UDO rewrite, and highlighted ambiguities in the language. Both urged that SCAD not proceed independently.
Key Outcomes
- Buffers: Agreed to form a subgroup of task force members to work with planning staff on district-by-district buffer recommendations, or to fold the issue into the UDO rewrite process. No final decision.
- PATH: Set aside as a package, with interest in retaining the 100% affordable housing component for future standalone consideration.
- ADUs: Size and placement questions unresolved; will continue on Friday with a focus on clear placement rules (likely requiring ADUs behind the principal structure unless a specific process allows otherwise).
- General: The group will reconvene on Friday, October 27, to address remaining issues and attempt to reach consensus on specific recommendations for the city council. The task force acknowledged that SCAD is not expected to pass as written, and the goal is to produce actionable input.
Meeting Transcript
All right. Thank you everybody for being here. We're going to call this meeting to order. It is now five o'clock. And this is our second meeting. Tonight we do plan to get down and dirty with the details. But we're gonna um I'm gonna yield over to our illustrious mayor to share some opening remarks and we'll get started. Good evening, everybody. Good evening. I'm so pleased that we are in the midst of something that I think is gonna be a transformative process in more ways than one for Durham, right? And so um I welcome I'm gonna be interactive to tonight because I really want us to get some work done. Where we have disagreements or agreements, you need to have some recommendations that can be written to the city council as they begin their deliberations. So we're going to ask you all to do this. Please leave egos at the door. Please bring your knowledge and level Durham in. So that's our basic ground rule is we're gonna bring our knowledge in and our love in for Durham, and we got a lot of knowledge around this table about Durham. So we can do this, we're gonna get there, and um I'm gonna try to move this along when I see y'all getting hung up. I'm gonna move you along. But these these two people that I'm honored to work with, gonna facilitate the process. But I understand that you all have pretty much come to where you have points of disagreements. Would that be correct by the show of the hands where you have disagreements? You pretty kind of know those. Okay, so we're gonna start to open it up. We're gonna open it up. We're gonna and then so do you know what your points of agreements are? That's what we're going to tonight. All right, that's all I need to know. Oh, we have a cry. Introduce us now. Who volunteered? I'm Ajax Woolley. Uh with DCLT and volunteer. Yeah, only for the bear. Yes. All right. That's the right too. All right. So uh at City yesterday, uh, we got a lot of the generalities out of the way. Um, not necessarily out of the way. We were able to put them out there, and it sort of helped us uh understand the context which we'll be discussing. Tonight um we were to really bring uh some specific points out of the policy proposal uh to the table to discuss. Uh and there are um, I think it's probably I was gonna suggest identifying what we agree on and what we don't agree on, but the document is so big, I'm thinking that it may be best to just you know uh I it may be best to see which points each person wanted to discuss, and we will assume that the ones that we did not um we can actually assume that those are okay on both sides. Is that okay with everyone? Yes. Okay, all right. So what we can do, we can start around the table, and again, what we'll what we'll do is let me uh put my glasses on here because I just see white and black lines on the paper. All right, so in the uh in the SCAD document, there um which is TC22000 one. Uh on the on the uh on the far left column, affected UDO paragraphs. So these codes are um which part and what article. Um this the far left the far left column.
openpublica.com