Key Takeaways

Council opened its last meeting of the year with holiday gestures, then spent the night on zoning decisions that set up next year’s fights over traffic, schools, and displacement.
A rezoning tied to mobile home displacement drew the most explicit statements about limits under North Carolina law and what council can and cannot prevent.
Council overrode staff hesitation on a Brookhill petition, then negotiated an added infrastructure condition live, including a three quarter vote to avoid sending the revised plan back to the zoning committee.
A petition was denied on grounds that included policy inconsistency and public health, safety, and welfare, with council members warning about concentrated poverty and missing support infrastructure.
Hearings signaled a widening gap between growth approvals and state controlled road timelines, especially along Mount Holly Huntersville Road and in Mallard Creek.

The Setup: A Festive Room, a Procedural Machine

Ed Driggs, the District 7 council member chairing the evening, opened by calling it the last meeting of the year and noting the holiday mood in the room. The roll call and introductions ran through the dais and key staff, including Deputy City Manager Allison Craig, City Attorney Andrea Leslie, and senior assistant city attorney Harry Hagler Gray.

Mayor Pro Tem James Mitchell delivered the invocation, then the council recited the pledge.

Driggs followed with a plain language explanation of the zoning process. Decisions would cover cases with hearings already held. Hearings would include speaker sign up rules, strict timing, and a sequence that routes petitions to the zoning committee after the public hearing.

Zoning Committee Chair Douglas C. Welton introduced committee members and set the next zoning committee meeting for Tuesday, January 6 at 5 p.m., emphasizing that committee meetings are open to the public but are not a continuation of the public hearing.

The One Non Zoning Vote: Council Locks In Its 2026 Calendar

Before zoning, the council approved a modified 2026 city council regular and budget meeting schedule. The vote was unanimous in the excerpt.

Deferrals: A Long List Pushed to January 20

Staff read a list of deferrals, many moved to January 20. Council approved the deferral package unanimously.

Deferrals included petitions identified in the excerpt as:

2025-076
2025-021
2025-027
2025-031
2025-098
2025-025
2025-063
2025-091
2025-102
2025-088
2025-094
2025-085
2025-004

The practical reminder of these deferrals is that Charlotte’s zoning pipeline does not stop for the holidays. It stacks.

Council moved through consent agenda decisions, describing the consent items as cases with no public opposition at hearing, staff approval, zoning committee approval, and no changes after committee recommendation.

Luana Mayfield pulled Items 5, 8, and 10 for separate votes. Item 7 had already been removed from the consent package because it was deferred.

Items 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12 passed in a single motion.

Item 5: Mayfield’s Question About Tracking Past Approvals

On Item 5, Mayfield asked staff if the city is tracking whether previously approved rezonings in the area have actually been built, referencing a rezoning history map. Staff said a follow up report would be provided and noted a new staff analysis format expected to include updates tied to rezoning history.

Item 8: A “Partially Inconsistent” Case and Two No Votes

On Item 8, Mayfield asked staff to justify a recommendation given an added 113 multifamily units and partial inconsistency. Staff described why it met certain criteria, including adjacency to a community activity center, proximity to bus routes, a greenway easement, and a future Red Line commuter rail station area described as within three quarters of a mile.

A procedural correction followed. Council member “Jakes” flagged that the motion needed to include adoption of the zoning committee statement of consistency. The vote passed with two votes opposed, according to the excerpt.

Item 10: A Workforce Commitment Question That Did Not Change the Vote

On Item 10, Mayfield pressed the petitioner and staff for an update on commitments negotiated in 2017 related to workforce housing, including both multifamily and for sale housing. She said the for sale portion had not been clearly identified to date. The item passed unanimously in the excerpt.

Petition 2024-127: The Displacement Vote and the Limits of Council Power

A rezoning petition identified as 2024-127 by Wood Partners became the emotional center of the decisions portion.

Renee Johnson spoke at length about families who would be displaced, emphasizing the investment residents made in their mobile homes and the disruption that follows when land changes hands. She then delivered the legal frame that defined the debate: under North Carolina law, city council does not have authority to prevent a private land sale or deny a rezoning solely to stop displacement. In the excerpt, she also referenced a notice to vacate by June 21, 2026.

As she began to describe what the developer had offered, the city attorney intervened, saying arrangements between developer and residents could not be discussed in that setting, and noting prior conversation with Johnson about what could be addressed on the record.

JD Masueta Arias spoke next, describing the moment as painful and addressing community members in Spanish, telling them council members would help connect them to resources and information.

Driggs said the case was difficult and unusual in his time on council, then the petition passed in the excerpt.

What mattered was not only the vote, but the pattern the vote reveals: council members describing a real human cost, then describing the legal boundary that prevents the cost from being the deciding factor.

Petition 2024-129: Brookhill Overlay, Staff Opposition, and a Live Negotiation

Next came petition 2024-129 by Brook Hill Investments LLC, described as a Brookhill Village Overlay. Staff did not recommend approval “in its current form,” citing concerns including infrastructure timing and responsibility.

Multiple members framed the petition as an attempt to bring activity and investment to a site that has carried a long reputation as blight. Dante Anderson described the area’s history and the opportunity for economic vibrancy. Mayfield described years of attempts to make a challenging long term lease situation work, emphasizing the desire for vibrancy without further displacement.

Driggs acknowledged staff’s concerns and explicitly stated that approving the petition in spite of staff recommendation did not reflect poorly on staff’s work.

The meeting then turned into a live edit. Staff described a compromise focused on clarifying which types of projects would trigger infrastructure improvements and which would not, drawing a line between temporary events and development that requires land development approvals and a certificate of occupancy.

Council member “Jakes” raised the materiality issue. The result was a procedural two step:

a three quarter vote not to send the revised condition back to the zoning committee
an on the record consent statement from the petitioner’s side, with Colin Brown and petitioner Mike Griffin confirming agreement

The petition then passed in the excerpt. The key fact is that council did not just vote. It changed the petition’s condition set in the room, in public, to bridge the gap between staff concerns and council intent.

Petition 2025-031: A Late Change to Affordability, a Three Quarter Vote, and Approval

Council then took up petition 2025-031 by James Scruggs. Staff described a change made after zoning committee: an earlier commitment that referenced 80 to 110 percent of area median income was revised to cap affordability at households earning up to 80 percent AMI. Staff described the commitment as 30 percent of multifamily attached units reserved at 80 percent AMI for 15 years.

Because the change came after zoning committee review, council first voted, by three quarters, not to send the petition back to zoning committee. The petition then passed. Johnson praised the project and highlighted the for sale affordability claim described in the excerpt.

Petition 2025-042: Denial, Citing Policy and Public Welfare

Council member Dante Anderson made a motion to deny petition 2025-042, citing inconsistency with the policy map and concerns about public health, safety, and welfare.

Anderson described months of work with community members, a deferral period intended to find a better answer, and what she characterized as unresolved concerns. She said the corridor is designated a corridor of opportunity and warned against overconcentration of a housing type that comes with higher service needs without the support infrastructure to match. She referenced a study she called the Chetty study and the “Leading On Opportunity” effort, arguing the city should avoid economic segregation.

Mayfield supported Anderson and echoed the warning about reconcentrating poverty. Watlington praised community organizing. The motion to deny passed in the excerpt.

Other Decisions: Approvals Continue

Other decisions moved quickly:

Petition 2025-057 by Tribeck Properties in District 7 passed.
Petition 2025-095 by Gus Levy passed.
Petition 2025-097 by JBJH Investments drew debate because staff did not recommend approval, citing TOD policy conflicts, but council members said the community supported the petition and it passed in the excerpt.
Petition 2025-101 by Jordan’s Pawn Holding Company passed in the excerpt.

Hearings: Where the Growth Fights Move to the Front Row

Petition 2025-030: Mount Holly Huntersville Road, 47 Opponents, and the State Road Problem

Petition 2025-030 by Tryon Advisors LLC covered 8.65 acres along Mount Holly Huntersville Road.

Staff described a proposal for up to 70 townhomes and an 18,000 square foot childcare center, with an option to swap the childcare center for an additional 25 townhomes, for a maximum of 95 units. Staff described a $50,000 contribution toward future intersection improvements at Rozzelles Ferry Road and Mount Holly Huntersville Road and a 12 foot multiuse path along the frontage, plus architectural standards.

Petitioner representative Bridget Grant said the land was part of Cook’s Presbyterian Church, described the church’s history dating to 1891, and said the congregation sought a development partner that would provide residential and daycare. She later told council the daycare component had been removed and the plan would be 95 townhomes. She described access limitations tied to private property and the church cemetery.

Opposition speakers focused on the Outer West area plan not being finalized, traffic already backing up daily, and the lack of a funded or scheduled widening plan. They urged denial or deferral until the area plan is complete. One speaker cited a comparison between by right development and the rezoning proposal, describing 24 single family homes and 272 daily trips as compared with 95 townhomes and 624 daily trips.

During questions, Mayfield pressed staff and CDOT about existing roadway crash conditions and the lack of street connectivity options. CDOT said staff could not require additional connectivity without the frontage conditions that would trigger it. CDOT also said there was no information indicating a timeline for widening from NCDOT.

Johnson emphasized cumulative impact and said residents were showing up in numbers because conditions are already difficult and likely to worsen as pending projects build out. Graham, the district representative, described the petition as problematic and signaled additional work ahead, describing the reality that state maintained roads limit local control and that council would have to make hard choices.

The hearing closed without a decision in the excerpt.

Petition 2025-070: Prosperity Alliance and a Faith Anchored Housing Pitch

Petition 2025-070 by Prosperity Alliance covered 30.37 acres west of Beatty Ford Road. Staff described a proposal for up to 317 dwelling units across multiple housing types, including age restricted units and a mix of townhomes and single family, with affordability described between 60 and 120 percent AMI. Staff described a greenway easement dedication and enhanced open space.

Sean Kennedy and Bishop Claude Alexander spoke in support. They framed the project as a partnership among Prosperity Alliance, True Homes, LandDesign, and Park Church. Alexander described affordability mechanisms including building at cost, down payment assistance, and projected household equity, and referenced senior units and ADUs for CMS teachers. Council members spoke favorably, calling the partnership a model. The hearing closed in the excerpt.

Petition 2025-109: Independence Boulevard Site Plan Amendment

Petition 2025-109 by Raven Partners was described as a site plan amendment for a portion of a larger 80 acre rezoning approved earlier. Colin Brown said the change reflected updated NCDOT interchange planning and reduced the amount of commercial space, shifting one commercial conditional area to a residential conditional area.

Council member JD Masueta Arias described Independence Boulevard’s long identity as a car corridor and welcomed the mix of multifamily, single family, and commercial envisioned in the broader plan. The hearing closed.

Petition 2024-090: Mallard Creek, 860 Units, and the Cumulative Impact Argument

Petition 2024-090 by Charter Properties Inc. covered 65.27 acres along West Mallard Creek Church Road and Galloway Road. Staff outlined a five area plan with up to 860 residential units and 30,000 square feet of commercial uses, including a hotel and a vehicle fueling facility, with drive through lanes limited to a financial institution. Staff described age restricted units with affordability conditions and a series of transportation improvements identified through a traffic impact study. Staff also described cemetery preservation steps and a $10,000 donation to Mallard Creek Presbyterian Church or a cemetery preservation nonprofit.

Petitioner representative John Carmichael compared the proposal to earlier entitlements approved in 2017, describing the older plan’s larger commercial footprint and additional restaurant drive through allowances. He said the new plan would generate fewer trips than the older plan.

Renee Johnson pressed on schools and traffic. She cited school capacity figures presented in the staff material and described frustration with how capacity numbers appear across different years, arguing that the city is not counting cumulative impacts honestly enough. Driggs responded that Johnson’s concerns raised policy issues but cautioned against changing evaluation criteria mid process.

The hearing closed in the excerpt.

Petition 2025-100: Marsh Road Townhomes and Emergency Access Concerns

Petition 2025-100 by Roland Development Group proposed 37 townhomes along Marsh Road. Brittney Linz said the plan incorporated a 60 foot setback to match the corridor’s existing landscape berm pattern.

Mayfield questioned visitor parking and raised the scenario of a fire response and resident evacuation with only one ingress and egress. Linz said Charlotte Fire reviews each petition and had no outstanding fire access concerns on the plan. Anderson, the district representative, said the Sedgefield Neighborhood Association had engaged deeply and supported the petition, emphasizing the corridor’s history and the value of matching the Marsh Road landscape pattern. The hearing closed.

Petition 2025-104: Nations Ford Road, DR Horton, and a Tree Canopy Ask

Petition 2025-104 by DR Horton proposed up to 130 multi dwelling units with a public street network. Joy Mayo asked whether additional tree save could be added along Nations Ford Road to buffer noise and improve air quality. Petitioner representative Bridget Grant said the team would review landscaping options. The hearing closed.

Petition 2025-107: Morris Holdings, Truck Parking, and a Townhome Plan

Petition 2025-107 by Morris Holdings proposed up to 85 townhomes along Mallard Creek Road. Colin Brown described the ownership as tied to Morris Costumes and described community meetings with neighborhood groups, including interest in ending or improving conditions around truck parking and right of way maintenance.

Renee Johnson noted the petition was not in the cumulative impact map she referenced for District 4 and said she had requested accident data along Mallard Creek Road. The hearing closed.

Petition 2025-108: Dilworth Exception Rezoning, Height, and a Boutique Hotel Pitch

Petition 2025-108 by CRD Development LLC involved an exception rezoning request to modify quantitative standards in exchange for public benefits under sustainability and public amenity categories. Staff described the public benefits as a commitment to meet or exceed LEED standards and a commitment to work with the Dilworth Community Association on offsite publicly accessible amenities, plus additional open space beyond baseline requirements.

Colin Brown said the petitioner sought to build a similar height building to what current entitlements allow, but with a boutique hotel component. Anderson said the relatively empty hearing room reflected months of front loaded negotiations with the Dilworth Community Association and noted commitments on construction logistics, parking, access, and street trees. Mayfield asked for a deeper briefing on the exception provisions and parking ratio language during the new year rather than holding up the final meeting of the year. The hearing closed.

Petition 2025-110: North Graham Street and a Conventional Rezoning for an Existing Use

Petition 2025-110 by Graham Overlook LLC proposed changing zoning from ML2 to Neighborhood Center. Staff said it was consistent with the policy map and described the site as part of a corridors of opportunity pattern near Camp North End. Petitioner counsel described the request as intended to accommodate an existing use that became noncompliant after zoning changes, with interest in allowing the tenant room to expand. The hearing closed.

The End: “Say Joy,” Then Adjourn

With votes and hearings complete in the excerpt, council staged a group photo. Someone counted down and the room said “Joy.” A motion to adjourn followed. The meeting ended with holiday wishes.

About The Author

Jack Beckett is a senior writer at The Charlotte Mercury, covering City Hall, zoning, and the quiet procedural decisions that shape daily life across Mecklenburg County.

What Else Readers Can Find On The Charlotte Mercury

For readers who want the full civic map, not just the headline, The Charlotte Mercury covers how decisions get made on housing, zoning, transit, schools, public safety, and local governance, with reporting built for readers who want context and do not want surveillance. Tips, corrections, and strong opinions about turning lanes are always welcome, including on Twix, which is what Twitter becomes when the coffee is gone and the meeting runs long.

Creative Commons License

© 2025 The Charlotte Mercury / Strolling Ballantyne
This article, “Charlotte City Council Zoning Meeting, Dec. 15: Displacement Vote, Brookhill Overlay, TOD Disputes, and Growth Pressures,” by Jack Beckett is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0.

“Charlotte City Council Zoning Meeting, Dec. 15: Displacement Vote, Brookhill Overlay, TOD Disputes, and Growth Pressures”
by Jack Beckett, The Charlotte Mercury (CC BY-ND 4.0)