Durham’s New UDO: How We Encourage Sprawl Without Meaning To
How layering too many good ideas leads to one big bad one.
Durham is in the process of rewriting its entire Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the rules that govern zoning in our city. This post is part of a series examining specific aspects of the proposed code and how we can make small changes that have meaningful positive impacts in the real world.
Other Posts in the Series
Small Details Have Big Impacts (Coming Soon)
So much of life is tradeoffs and zoning codes are no exception. Whenever a policy is proposed, it is important to:
Think about what tradeoffs there might be.
Think about the policy holistically – how does it affect the rest of the system?
In both the current and proposed UDOs, there are a lot of requirements that seek to create a better city. However, it is important to look at both sides of the coin. Let’s examine these “obviously good” requirements:
Open Space – Green spaces in our cities are not just lovely, they are essential.
Recreational Space – Kids and adults alike should have outdoor recreational spaces near where they live.
Buffers Between Uses – The “good” in this one is a little less obvious to me. Requiring separation between single family homes and “those people” that live in apartments seems problematic. Historically, it was good to set housing apart from industrial uses (noise, noxious air, etc), but those truly horrible industrial uses are pretty rare these days. There may still be cases where buffers between uses makes sense, though.
Storm ponds – Obviously stormwater is an important issue for cities. Runoff can be a huge problem.
Tree Save Areas – Not only are trees an important part of the environment, but there have also been countless studies on the positive effects of trees on city residents.
So, what’s the problem? These all seem like important requirements for a healthy, thriving city.
Let’s think about how these requirements affect a hypothetical project. When you have open space AND recreational space AND buffers AND storm ponds AND tree save areas required, all on one site, you face a tradeoff. If each one of those requirements takes up 5% - 10% of a site. All of a sudden, you have 25% - 50% of your site dedicated to these requirements. Add in front, rear, and side setbacks along with driveways and parking (no longer required by the UDO, but often needed) and you end up with a small remaining portion of the site that can actually be used for houses, apartments, retail, restaurants, etc. In other words…
Sprawl!
A building, next to a parking lot, next to a cluster of trees*, next to a field, next to a dog run, next to a wall, next to the dog run of the project next door, next to the field of the project next door, next to the cluster of trees* of the project next door, next to the parking lot of the project next door, next to the next-door project’s building is not good urbanism. It is not good environmentalism. It is not efficient use of land. It is sprawl.
Additionally, The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein outlines how minimum lot sizes were used to purposefully exclude people that couldn’t afford to buy a house on that much land. Minimum lot size requirements don’t have to be explicit. Adding too many of these requirements is a form of de facto minimum lot size.
Now, I am not advocating for a blanket deletion of the requirements above. I outlined all the positive attributes of those individual requirements. I just want the tradeoffs to be recognized. From there, we can have a productive debate on the appropriate solutions. In my opinion, the solutions are much more nuanced than an all-or-nothing approach. Here are some ideas:
Instead of taking up land that could house people, allow projects to plant really nice trees in the Right-of-Way (by right), where they can positively impact the lives of the entire neighborhood, not just the residents of that particular project.
Waive recreational space requirements within a mile of a public park. This is a win-win. One great benefit to allowing more density (as opposed to sprawl) is that Durham would collect more tax per acre. For instance, five townhouses with lower tax bills each still collectively pays way more than one single family home with a higher tax bill on the same lot. With this increased revenue, we can afford to create amazing public parks, which benefits the whole neighborhood.
Limit buffers. Really examine why buffers are proposed at all. In cases where they do make sense, give options to create visual screening as opposed to requiring 15 or 30 feet of unusable land at the edges.
Allow for areas to fulfill multiple requirements. A path, through the trees, in a buffered area could be lovely and create all the benefits for each of those requirements, while still leaving plenty of land for others.
Create better district stormwater solutions. Storm drains and storm pipes are expensive, but so is sprawl. By offloading stormwater responsibilities on to project sites, we have promoted sprawl, which again, is bad for tax revenue, but also bad for services. Sprawl creates higher costs as streets have to extend farther. Water and sewer infrastructure has to extend farther. Emergency services have to travel farther (and have more stations to be able to serve a bigger area). Those all have set and, more importantly, ongoing maintenance costs. In parts of the city that are not already too sprawling, creating good public stormwater infrastructure could end up being a net positive for the city’s budget.
As we re-imagine our UDO, it is important to think about the consequences, both intended and unintended and make the best choices we can, recognizing that every requirement is subject to tradeoffs.
* I use the term “cluster of trees” to distinguish what a tree save area actually is. It is not a large forest, with a complete and thriving ecosystem. Clusters of trees can be lovely, but dense new development, along with sprawl prevention and correction, are crucial components of saving the larger forest ecosystems.
📢 Advocacy Alert 📢
Because Durham is currently rewriting its zoning code, you can help shape it!
The City of Durham and Code Studio are actively working on the new UDO, which will decide what kinds of homes, businesses, and community spaces are allowed in every neighborhood. This is your chance to say yes to the kind of future you want to see.
There are upcoming Durham Planning Open Office Hours each month. In July you can attend these office house on Thursday July 3rd from 3PM - 6PM AND Thursday July 17th from 10AM - 1PM.
Details at EngageDurham.com: https://engagedurham.com/211/Upcoming-Engagement
Dave Olverson is an incremental developer and zoning advocate in Durham, NC. He has an econ undergrad degree from Duke and a planning degree from the University of North Carolina. In 2021, he got his GC license and works specifically on infill projects in Durham.