Charlotte City Council Zoning Meeting - October 20, 2025
Charlotte City Council Zoning Meeting - October 20, 2025
The Charlotte City Council convened for its third zoning meeting of the month on October 20, 2025, to address a motion to modify the MPTA appointment process and to review eight zoning petitions, including decisions, hearings, and administrative deferrals. The session highlighted significant deliberation on community notification standards, traffic infrastructure capacity in single-family neighborhoods, and the specific conditions for redeveloping existing hotel structures into multifamily housing.
Consent Calendar
- The Council unanimously approved the deferral of six petitions (Items 12, 14, 18, 19, 23) to November 17, 2025.
- The Council unanimously approved the following rezoning petitions under the consent agenda with no opposition: Item 3 (2024-113), Item 6 (2025-051), Item 7 (2025-064), Item 8 (2025-066), Item 9 (2025-068), and Item 10 (2025-037).
- The Council unanimously approved the Statement of Consistency for Item 4 (2025-033), noting support from Councilmember Johnson for the Innovation Park development's contributions to greenway funding and amenities.
- The Council unanimously approved the Statement of Consistency for Item 5 (2025-041), a hotel rezoning where Councilmember Mayfield expressed satisfaction with the petitioner's contractual agreements regarding parking requirements should future events necessitate it.
- Changes to the zoning process regarding the MPTA appointment were adopted with a vote of 10 in favor and 1 opposed (Councilmember Brown).
Public Comments & Testimony
- MPTA Process Discussion: Councilmembers discussed the necessity of aligning city appointment votes with the MPTA (Metropolitan Planning and Transportation Authority) partners to ensure collaborative balance. Councilmember Ashby expressed support for flexibility in the nomination process, while Councilmember Driggs noted that the underlying procedure was already adopted and only dates were shifting. Councilmember Brown opposed the motion, citing concerns about the fluidity of the process without explicit language codifying flexibility.
- Petition 2025-025 (District 3 - Moss Road): Residents from the Kingsbridge Subdivision, including Arnamunar Tasten, testified in opposition to the rezoning for 21 triplex units. They expressed concerns regarding: (1) development within a floodplain increasing flood risks; (2) a lack of direct access from Moss Road forcing all ingress/egress through Laughlin Lane; and (3) insufficient capacity of existing water and sewer infrastructure. The petitioner clarified that a single dwelling currently prevents direct access and that a stormwater department test ensures drainage compliance.
- Speaker Position: Councilmember Brown expressed strong concern regarding the transparency of the notification process, noting that 179 of 204 potential contacts were reported as not receiving notice, despite staff claims of compliance with 300-foot radius and HOA notifications. Councilmember Watson expressed support for the concept of density but raised concerns about the single point of ingress/egress. Councilmember Ashby echoed the need for direct access from Moss Road and expressed skepticism about the flooding concerns without a site plan.
- Staff Position: Staff clarified that the 100-foot buffer dedication and 50% FEMA flood fringe concession were part of the proposal, and that all projects require a capacity analysis for water and sewer prior to permitting. Staff noted that the 300-foot notification rule is standard, though acknowledged the need to verify HOA dissemination.
- Petition 2025-039 (District 1 - Murray Hill Road): Chris Martin (petitioner) testified in favor, explaining he is a homeowner seeking to subdivide a large lot to sell, not a developer. He stated he held two community meetings and adjusted his request based on neighbor feedback. In opposition, Catherine and Jeremy Howard expressed that the petitioner lacked a site plan or detailed aesthetic commitment, worried about future subdivisions setting a precedent, and noted the property has been vacant for two years, raising questions about financial motivations.
- Petition 2025-057 (District 7 - Ballantyne): Anastasia Chmilowska testified against the site plan amendment allowing right-in/right-out access for a proposed fuel station. She expressed that a convenience store scenario generates ~3,383 daily trips, posing safety risks to a nearby school bus stop and environmental hazards (vapor, noise) to the adjacent Dare neighborhood. She requested a full environmental and fire safety review.
- Staff Position: Staff clarified that a site plan amendment is a limited action distinct from a full rezoning and that the existing zoning authority remains in place unless rescinded.
Discussion Items
- MPTA Appointment Process: Councilmember Mitchell proposed a vote to adopt a new timeline for the MPTA appointment process, pushing the vote to November 6th to align with partner entities. Councilmember Ashby questioned the rigidity of the "three per category" rule versus submitting a top 27 list. Councilmember Driggs argued the procedure was already adopted and only dates needed shifting. The Council discussed the need to ensure the language did not box them into selecting exactly one candidate per category given the 27 total nominees and 9 categories. Councilmember Watlington and Ashby suggested amending the language to remove the mandatory "one per category" constraint to allow flexibility in balancing skill sets. Councilmember Molina was recused from this specific discussion due to a prior appearance of impropriety regarding the appointment process.
- Petition 2025-025 (Moss Road): Councilmember Johnson questioned the legal standing of HOA deed restrictions versus zoning, noting that the City does not enforce deed restrictions. She emphasized that even if denied, the property might be developed "by right" for duplexes/triplexes depending on current zoning. Councilmember Melvin clarified that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to justify an exception, and the current petition has significant unresolved infrastructure and notification issues.
- Petition 2025-080 (District 5 - WT Harris): Councilmember Molina inquired about the traffic impact on a curve near the site and the buffering for adjacent single-family homes. The petitioner confirmed the site is set back significantly to accommodate NC DOT future improvements and that the proposal includes a buffer to the single-family neighbors.
- Petition 2025-090 (District 3 - Forrest Pine Drive): Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Brown raised concerns about the displacement of low-income residents currently living in the hotel being converted to multifamily housing. The petitioner (Stephen Siller Tunnels to Towers Foundation) assured the Council that the property is under contract to be sold vacant, with no long-term residents to displace.
Key Outcomes
- MPTA Process Schedule: The Council unanimously approved a motion to adjust the MPTA appointment timeline, moving the voting date to November 6, 2025. The motion was amended to change "nominate one applicant per category" to "encouraged to nominate one applicant per category" to allow for flexibility in selecting the top 27 candidates. Councilmember Brown voted opposed.
- Deferrals: Six items (12, 14, 18, 19, 23) were unanimously deferred to November 17, 2025.
- Approvals:
- Items 3, 4, 5, and 6-10 (Consent Agenda) were approved unanimously.
- Items 13 (2025-032) and 15-17 (2025-055, 2025-074, 2025-025) were approved unanimously after staff addressed specific buffering and open space conditions.
- Public Hearings for Items 21 (2025-039), 22 (2025-045), 24 (2025-057), 25 (2025-075), 26 (2025-080), 27 (2025-087), and 28 (2025-090) were closed unanimously. These items will be voted on at future dates or next month's meeting (Item 26 specifically noted for next month due to no opposition but needing DOT coordination).
- Petition 2025-025 (Moss Road): This petition was NOT finalized tonight. Due to the presence of opposition and outstanding issues regarding infrastructure and notification, the matter cannot be voted on until December 2025 (post-election).
- Recusal: Councilmember Molina was unanimously recused from the MPTA appointment process discussion.
- Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned following the successful conclusion of all agenda items.
Meeting Transcript
One and welcome to the October Twentieth zoning meeting. We're going to start with introductions, and we will start with the clerk. Billy Thomas, Deputy City Clerk. Good evening, I'm Renee Johnson, and I'm honored to represent District Four. Good evening, everyone, James Mitchell at large. Keep pounding. Good evening, Lawana Mayfield, Councilmember at Lawrence. And our invocation by a council member is meant to underscore our proceedings. And we celebrate all religious diversity of our community, including those that do not practice a religious faith. And it's less of an invocation, but more of a thought that I've been having over the last several weeks. Right here in Charlotte in our region and across the U.S., you know, we are experiencing a sense of hopelessness and apathy. And when we allow apathy and hopelessness to take over, it it robs us from our joy. It robs us of being able to practice things that bring joy to others. And it clouds our outlook on the art of possibility and what can happen if we put the work in and work together collectively. And so I tonight I'd like to extend a prayer that we all uh combat apathy and hopelessness by having a renewed fervor in our spirituality, um, a renewed connectedness and looking out for our neighbors and reaching out to our neighbors, checking on friends and family members that you may not have seen or heard of in months. Check on them. Do wellness checks, do something that you believe brings you joy, whether it's taking a walk in the park, um, or playing playing with animals, adopting time with children, but we need to ensure that we are prepared to do the work, and in order to have that level of preparation, we have to stave off apathy and hopelessness. So that is my prayer for myself and this council, as well as all of the residents here in Charlotte, North Carolina. If you are able to stand, please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Amen. Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and fans one nation. So this is our third meeting of the month, which is our our zoning meeting. Uh but before we uh continue with zoning proceedings, we have a topic that the council would like to uh have a conversation around this evening. Um I will pass it over to uh councilmember Mitchell to jump start this conversation with the understanding that we need to have a vote to actually put this on the agenda. Uh mayor council, I would like us to consider the vote to uh unanimous vote tonight to put on a new process for our MPT MPTA point appointment process okay. Any comment hearing none, all in favor of placing this item on the agenda, raise your hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. I will uh again hand it over to Mr. Mitchell to guide this discussion. Mayor Pro Tim, thank you. And and cut Council members, I have at your point of order. Hold on, point of clarification from Ms. I just wanted to ask the question because I know that uh Councilmember Melina uh is intending to request recusal. So before we got into the discussion, I just wanted to make sure that we gave an opportunity to do that if now is the appropriate time. Mr. Fox, um we just we just made a motion, a unanimous motion to discuss the process and procedure of the MPTA, the transit authority appointment, because we previously voted on that process, so we need to vote to make those modifications. Mr. Fox with this introduction of this the motion was made and seconded and the vote was called for. Ms. Malin did not acknowledge participation, but by her presence will be deemed to have voted in the affirmative unless she chooses to ask for a recusal at this point on the appointment process. The recusal relates to the appearance of impropriety. Yes, even though, as I've opined before, there is there is no financial peculiar interest that would otherwise prohibit it from participating at this point in time. I'd like to make a motion and if I stand to recuse uh councilmember uh Marlene from this process. Second okay. We have a motion and a second, any discussion. All in favor of recusing councilmember Molina from this process. Well, now my mayor, I would also reflect that and if the vote passes that to acknowledge her her that she did not participate in the prior action of the body, which was a vote to bring this on for consideration. Yes. Would you consider that please?
openpublica.com