Herald-Sun editorial: Growth debate remains in flux

This week, Durham County Planning Commission members voted their approval of a development called Montclair in south Durham. The project’s developers sought zoning approval for up to 53 homes on nearly 20 acres of land between Barbee Chapel and Farrington Mill roads.

That approval is nonbinding, and it came against the advice of City-County Planning Department staff members. They expressed concern about population density in the area. Planning policy calls for tapering off of density between the city limits, Jordan Lake and Durham County’s southern boundary, as The Herald-Sun’s Ray Gronberg reported this week.

At issue is not only the idea of limiting density in that area, but also the validity of the comprehensive plan that calls for those limits. “The comprehensive plan is out there and I’m not a big advocate, as it’s set up, for the comprehensive plan in so many ways,” said Rickey Padgett, a county appointee who joined the board over the summer after losing a bid for a County Commissioners seat.

“My concern is what some call the domino theory,” said David Harris, a city delegate to the Planning Commission who opposes the change. “You allow this one, and the next one comes. Pretty soon you may as well not have a comprehensive plan if you continue to allow people to just override” that plan.

The current planning policy would call for capping the density of the Montclair project at two housing units per acre. The Montclair developers are asking for density of 2.87 units per acre, with the higher density providing for coverage of costs associated with installing a sewage pump station and making road improvements.

Nearby residents have expressed support for the development, with the potential addition of sewer service an enticement. One of those residents said that the proposal is not much different in density than existing neighborhood developments.

This is a tough call, and it will be up to our elected officials to sort it out. One does have to wonder whether bending the planning imperatives in this case will lead to another increase in density, and another, and another, and then the comprehensive plan will be nothing more than paper.

There are traffic issues, environmental issues, and quality-of-life issues to consider here. Hopefully, the officials who will be making these important decisions will take into account the present and future concerns of all residents who stand to be affected.