The King Charles NCOD was adopted to preserve Raleigh’s first planned subdivision east of downtown. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts are legislative commitments. They represent a balancing of growth and preservation through deliberate policy. Their credibility depends on predictability. If an overlay can be removed parcel-by-parcel when redevelopment pressure rises, its long-term stability becomes uncertain.
Mary-Ann Baldwin was successful in removing the public from the rezoning process with the elimination of the required meeting held at a relevant CAC. That meeting had a presentation with the applicant, a staff report by a staff member, and time to discuss all of the issues. And the applicant was not in charge. When that process was followed, the public had all of the information needed to make meaningful decisions. Now there is NO process for the public to hear what the staff report says until the Planning Commission meeting. How is the public supposed to participate?
At the October 7, 2025 public hearing at 7 PM there were a few comments made during the hearing on rezoning request Z-12-2025 to which I would like to respond, in addition to general comments on the overall procedure of the public hearing process.
The approval of Z-12-25 was a huge disappointment to many of the residents in Raleigh’s neighborhoods. What is most disappointing is that there was a workable compromise that would have respected all parties.
Are we just counting which policies are convenient for a project and ignoring the ones that aren’t? This isn’t about stopping growth. It’s about rejecting a project that ignores codified transition areas, disregards protections for historic neighborhoods, and offers no real public benefit for on-site affordable housing.
Amazingly City Staff identified no detriments from this rezoning case. This proposed development is very close to a historic neighborhood. Why is there no reference in this document to Section 12 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding Historic Preservation? The first comment reads “Lack of transitions around historic resources which can sometimes lead to jarring juxtapositions of scale and proximity that detract from the character of the historic resource’s setting.” Has anybody read this or is even aware of this section of the Comprehensive Plan?
Staff reports carry weight in Planning Commission and City Council deliberations. When they misclassify sites, turn a blind eye to policies, minimize area plans, and claim no adverse effects, they create the illusion of consistency where none exists and inflate the benefits while minimizing impacts. This clearly affected the Planning Commission deliberations and stunted debate necessary to make an informed decision.
The developer was claiming the site is in a Transit Station Area based on an outdated map, a false claim. Now, City Staff has joined with the applicant in making false claims. The Planning Commission did nothing to question this. City Council, it is left up to you to seek out the truth.
I attended the 2nd Neighborhood Meeting for the West Street Tower (Z-12-25). It was strictly limited to one hour and worse yet, the Planning Department’s full report including the Statement of Consistency with city policies was not available. It was a one-sided presentation of the developer’s opinions. The residents had no information from the city to challenge any claims made by the developer.
Minutes from the June 24 PC Meeting