The rezoning has three critical inconsistencies with the Midtown area plan and the Comprehensive plan that Raleigh is supposed to use for policy guidance that is intended to shape how the city grows and develops through the year 2030. However, recent approvals by Council indicate that they follow their own rules and create greater building heights without considering consequences.
On January 6 rezoning case Z-34-25, the rezoning of North Hills, was presented to Council for approval. Council chose to hold the hearing open for a vote at their January 20 meeting. This is not a new conversation for the city. A nearly identical rezoning request was submitted in 2021 but was ultimately withdrawn after City Council members and residents raised substantial concerns. Both elected officials and the public made it clear that the proposal did not adequately address inconsistencies with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, particularly around building heights, density transitions, and the absence of meaningful affordable housing commitments.
The Raleigh Citizen Advisory Council (RCAC) has received a request to restart the South CAC in Raleigh`s District C. Since 1974, the primary role of CACs is to provide a vital link between residents and local government. By participating in your CAC, you have a say in decisions affecting your community.
Work session on Triangle Bikeway initiative. Public comments focused on Rezonings, Noise Ordinance, Glenwood South, Greenways, Smoke free ordinance, and engagement
Poll results show that Raleigh is failing miserably in community engagement. Allotting an extra four minutes per side at the public hearing was insignificant compared to the potential impact of the proposal. Discussing Six Forks Road traffic issues on January 29, more than a week after the proposed January 20 vote on the rezoning proposal, is a real slap in the face to Raleigh residents. What good does it do to hold further discussion AFTER a decision has been made? The neighborhood meetings held by the developer did not meet the requirements of neighborhood meetings as outlined on the City’s website. An Open House style meeting does not allow the public to consider all input from all attendees. This case is just the most recent example of shutting the people out of the process in favor of developer/donor interests.
Ignoring the current Small Area Plan should not be an option under any circumstances. It’s very easy to say as some councilors have that it’s just a guide and has no real meaning. If you really believe that then why bother having a Comprehensive Plan?