King Charles neighborhood in Southeast Raleigh is dinged by City Council

On February 4, 2025, City Council voted unanimously to approve Z-34-24, which removed the King Charles (South) NCOD from 3 lots covering 1.76 acres.

Mr. Christian Anastasiadis made the following remarks during the public hearing:

The King Charles (NCOD) in Raleigh is a historically significant and character-rich neighborhood that deserves protection from aggressive developer landgrabs and the misguided push for so-called “Missing Middle” housing policies. Here are some compelling reasons why the neighborhood should not be chipped away by these forces:

1. Preservation of Neighborhood Character & Historical Integrity

• The King Charles NCOD was created in 2005/06 to maintain the historical fabric and architectural consistency of the neighborhood.
• It features well-established homes, mature tree canopies, and a cohesive streetscape that gives it a unique sense of place.
• Developer-driven upzoning threatens to disrupt this character, replacing thoughtfully planned homes with out-of-scale multi-unit structures that clash with the existing aesthetic.

2. Middle-Missing Hype = Overpromised, Under-Delivering

• The “Missing Middle” concept, as implemented in Raleigh, has not resulted in truly affordable housing but rather in expensive townhomes and duplexes that cater to wealthier buyers.
• Instead of creating equitable housing options, it encourages developer profiteering, displacing existing residents and exacerbating gentrification.
• The push for greater density in established neighborhoods has not included adequate infrastructure planning, leading to parking nightmares, traffic congestion, and stormwater issues.
• The FTA (Frequent Transit Area) map is arbitrary, put in place to create nothing but up-zoning, by allowing different dwellings. 
• A meaningful transit system does not exist in the City of Raleigh – it is modeled after an Airline Hub system – “you go west, before you can go east.” The New Bern BRT will not change this, as there are no interconnections. 

3. Infrastructure & Environmental Concerns

• Increased density without proportional investment in infrastructure strains the existing roads, water systems, and public services.
• Older neighborhoods like King Charles have mature tree canopies that help with stormwater absorption, air quality, and cooling. Large-scale redevelopment leads to tree loss, contributing to Raleigh’s urban heat island effect.
• Many Missing Middle developments feature cheap, low-quality construction, leading to short-term gains for developers but long-term problems for homeowners.

4. Loss of Community Cohesion

• King Charles/Longview community is a tight-knit community with long-standing residents who contribute to its stability and vibrancy.
• Disrupting this social fabric with an influx of transitory renters or absentee-investor-owned properties erodes the sense of community.
• Homeowners who have invested in the neighborhood based on the NCOD’s protections face challenges, quality of life due to poorly planned high-density development, and nobody in the neighborhood should wake up one day finding out that their neighbor put his/her home on the market, not knowing as what will be next. 

5. Raleigh’s Housing Solution Should Be Smarter, Not Just Denser

• The City Council’s pro-developer stance does not equitably distribute density across the city—certain neighborhoods (often with wealthier residents) remain untouched while historically stable middle-class areas like King Charles are targeted.
• Instead of sacrificing established neighborhoods, the city should focus on redeveloping vacant and underutilized commercial spaces.
• True affordability should be addressed through affordable housing mandates and true incentives, not penalties in lieu of — not by stripping neighborhood protections to benefit developers.
• City should engage serious talks with the State and County, latter is the largest landowner in the City.

6. Raleigh Needs Thoughtful Planning, Not a Free-for-All

• The removal of neighborhood protections in the name of density is a short-sighted approach that prioritizes developer profits over long-term urban planning.
• Other cities that have pursued similar approaches have seen negative consequences such as rising rents, more investor speculation, and declining quality of life.
• Minneapolis made national headlines by eliminating single-family zoning
• Met with rising rents as developers focused on market-rate rent
• Increased investor speculation and corporate ownership of rental properties
• Vancouver – skyrocketing housing costs 
• New York – Gentrification in areas like Williamsburg and Harlem, where new luxury developments displaced lower-income residents
• Raleigh can balance growth and preservation by enforcing responsible zoning policies, maintaining NCODs, and prioritizing sustainable development.

Final Thought: Don’t Let Raleigh’s Unique Neighborhoods Get Bulldozed

King Charles NCOD stands as an example of responsible urban planning, balancing growth with livability. Destroying it in favor of unchecked development will result in irreversible damage to its character, community, and environment. The city must seek smarter solutions that protect Raleigh’s legacy while ensuring sustainable growth.

Removing the NCOD is non-starter.

Fact: All of the 3 parcels up for re-zoning were purchased by 3 individuals and combined for a re-development: A Classic Land Grab

Parcel 122 was purchased in August 2022 by New Crescent Properties for $286k. New Owner filed an application to be added to the BRT and to change the zoning from R-4 NCOD to RX-3 TOD (newly adopted policy removes the NCOD automatically with a TOD). Request was denied

Parcel 118 was purchased in December 2023 for $297k

Parcel 126 was purchased by applicant in October of 2024 for $469k. New Owner filed a re-zoning request in November 2024 to re-zone all 3 parcels from R-4/NCOD to R-10 with no NCOD

By maintaining the King Charles NCOD, the City Council can demonstrate its commitment to thoughtful urban planning, respect for community input, and the preservation of Raleigh’s distinct neighborhood identities.

• Up-zoning alone does not guarantee affordability
• Investor speculation drives up prices
• Infrastructure must keep pace, and this is not happening in East Raleigh
• Displacement is a real risk
• The applicant has many options available to him to develop meaningfully under the NCOD

After the vote, Mr.Anastasiadis further commented:

It was disheartening that Corey Branch, representing our district made the motion to dissolve the King Charles NCOD for a speculative landgrab. Shame on him. I had hope for Mitch Silver, who supported the King Charles NCOD in 2005, but turned on a technicality that the lots bought by speculative buyers were not in conformity with the NCOD and seconded the motion. Shame on the city and their clandestine text changes and policy changes, targeting middle-class neighborhoods like Longview and King Charles, and handing them over to speculative cheap developers. Shame.

Mr. Branch, as a representative of our district to file the motion to chip away the Longview King Charles overlay, will not go unnoticed. Fact, shame on you. Anyone could have filed the motion but you. That is hard to swallow. Again, shame on you and the district you should represent.

Mr. Silver, having supported your campaign, with your wisdom and experience in planning, I too was surprised to see you supporting Corey’s motion although you made numerous comments that evening that you needed to get up with zoning codes and policies. During this evening you also noted not wanting to get the City into more legal issues. Your second hid behind the technicality stating that the parcels not being in conformity with the NCOD. Call it what you may. It was cheap second. Do note that these parcels were recorded in the 40s and 50s and the NCOD, as approved and implemented, was recorded in 2005, during a time you were planning director for the City.

Staff was not correct informing council, when pressed by Corey, if or if not, the parcels had been removed from the NCOD – the map attached will prove differently. The NCOD was part of the 2030 comprehensive plan. Staff was wrong.

So, what is it, the neighborhood should just roll over?

Well, I may take this up with our law firm and challenge your decision based upon the hearing, and as Marcellus in Act 1 of Hamlet states: “Something stinks in Denmark.”

Further Information

Livable Raleigh asked the following question in our 2024 election candidate questionnaires:

Q18: Raleigh’s Area Plan growth policies and zoning district regulations for neighborhood preservation (HODs) and conservation (NCODs) are the products of thoughtful public processes. Acknowledging that policies and regulations change over time, will you commit to abide by these plans and regulations unless they are changed as part of a city-sanctioned public process?

You can judge for yourself whether the councilors are honoring the pledges they made to the public in order to earn their votes. 

Their responses are listed here: 

Mayor Janet Cowell: “I got my start in city politics participating in the State Fair Small Area Plan back in 2000. I am a proponent of adhering to small area plans.”

At-Large Councilor Jonathan Lambert-Melton: “I evaluate each case on its own merits, sometimes a private entity will request a change to an NCOD or HOD, and also sometimes the residents of the district request changes. Committing to only making changes via a city-sanctioned process cuts off other avenues of change, including some resident-initiated requested changes too.”

District A Councilor Mitchell Silver: “Plans are provided for policy guidance, and I will evaluate those policies thoughtfully with feedback from constituents. Historic Overlay Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts are regulations that must be adhered to, and I will abide by the code.”

District B Councilor Megan Patton: “I have deep respect for the extensive public processes that neighbors and city staff engage in to create Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (NCODs) and Historic Overlay Districts (HODs). Their efforts reflect the values and priorities of our communities, and I’ve worked hard to ensure that our land use decisions honor the spirit of these plans whenever possible. For example, during the New Bern Avenue rezoning, we made it a priority to preserve the integrity of areas with NCODs, recognizing the importance of maintaining the provisions that the community fought hard to put in place. We must acknowledge, though, that neighborhoods evolve. People move in and out, homes are passed down through generations, and priorities shift. While one generation might prioritize the pitch of roofs, the next may be more concerned about setbacks or other aspects of their neighborhood’s character. That’s why I support developing a process to periodically review and update these documents so that they can evolve along with our city. I envision doing this in tandem with our comprehensive plan updates, allowing community leaders to reassess every decade or so whether the provisions of their NCOD or HOD still align with the needs and desires of their residents. This approach would ensure that our neighborhoods continue to reflect the values of the people who live in them, while also adapting to changing times.”

It is notable that Councilor Patton referred to the previous New Bern Ave BRT decision in her response to our question. That decision intentionally REMOVED all NCOD properties from the application of the TOD overlay and maintained those properties protections of the NCOD. This King Charles decision flies in the face of the New Bern BRT decision that Patton championed in March of 2024. You can read about that here: Council takes the right steps   

District C Councilor Corey Branch: “I am committed to respecting and abiding by our city’s growth policies and zoning regulations. Any changes should come through a transparent, city-sanctioned public process to ensure they reflect the community’s needs and values.”

District D Councilor Jane Harrison: “Yes”

NOTE – Neither Mayor Pro Tem Forte nor District E Councilor Jones responded to our candidate qustionnaire. 

If you appreciate the kind of reporting we bring to you