Let City Council and the Zoning Committee Hear From You

Our neighbors to the south in the Cady Lake, Stone Creek Ranch and Rea Farms area need your help. Apparently Charlotte City Council Member Ed Driggs is still not convinced that density saturation is bad for Charlotte and taxpayers have said Enough!

Let Charlotte City Council Members and the Zoning Committee hear your voice:

Dear [City Council Member or Zoning Committee Member]

I urge you to oppose rezoning petition 2023-046 on the Cato property on Tom Short Road in South Charlotte, with plans to build nearly 1,000 housing units  (682 apartments, 211 town homes and 24 single-family homes) in the middle of a our single-family neighborhood.  

This development will destroy the continuity of our community while increasing the density of this property by 300% over what was rezoned in 2004.  

The infrastructure in South Charlotte is already overwhelmed by the outsized development of multi-family rental apartments.  

With the large number of planned apartments and a new middle school, our neighborhood roads will be become dangerously congested with traffic, putting our children at risk and  further clogging main transit arteries.  We have no viable public transit options, issues with flooding, increasing crime, an overcrowded elementary school, and a continued lack of single-family homes available for potential homeowners.  

This property was approved in a 2004 conditional rezoning for 331 single-family homes and we believe that is what should remain in place.  

This development was opposed by all attendees at the Community Meeting in December and a petition opposing this rezoning has gathered over 3,100 community signatures.  

There are over 5,000 new apartments planned or under construction in the 28277 zip code, creating an increase of over 65,000 vehicle trips per day on already crowded roads.  

Our community doesn’t want further encroachment of commercial development from neighboring Rea Farms, and our community doesn’t need any more apartments.  

This rezoning request only results in financial benefit for the property owner and developer, all at the expense of the community and city, while further driving wealth inequality by reducing opportunities for residents to become home owners instead of renters. 

Please vote against this rezoning petition 2023-046.

Thank you 

Sincerely, 

[Your Name] 

Zoning Committee

douglas_welton@einsteinslegacy.com - Douglas Welton (Chairperson)

lansdell.tl@gmail.com - Terry Lansdell

shneeley@yahoo.com - Shana Neeley

russellclt704@gmail.com - Will Russell

cltdevelopment1775@gmail.com - Clayton Sealy

rebekah.whilden@gmail.com - Rebekah Whilden

charmeckrick@gmail.com - Fredrick Winiker

City Council

mayor@charlottenc.gov - Vi Lyles

Dimple.Ajmera@charlottenc.gov - Dimple Ajmera (At Large)

Mayfield@charlottenc.gov - LaWana Mayfield (At Large)

James.Mitchell@charlottenc.gov - James Mitchell (At Large)

Victoria.Watlington@charlottenc.gov - Victoria Watlington (At Large)

Tariq.Bokhari@charlottenc.gov - Tariq Bokhari (District 6) This is north of District 7

Ed.driggs@charlottenc.gov - Ed Driggs (District 7) This is our district representative

Dante.Anderson@charlottenc.gov - Dante Anderson (District 1) Mayor Pro Tem - Central Charlotte

Malcolm.Graham@ci.charlotte.nc.us - Malcolm Graham (District 2) - Northwest Charlotte

Renee.Johnson@charlottenc.gov - Renee Johnson (District 4) - Northeast Charlotte

Marjorie.Molina@charlottenc.gov - Marjorie Molina (District 5) - East Charlotte

Tiawana.brown@charlottenc.gov - Tiawana Brown (District 3) - West Charlotte

Observation Notes March 25, 2024

We are pleased once again to share with you this week's field notes from our eagle expert. While most of us enjoy watching these impressive beautiful birds, Bob's detailed and recorded observations serve as an important baseline to a more formal understanding of our eagles' behavior.

"It was a bit quiet at the nest. Post lunch nap for the eaglets? Both showed themselves, but in limited ways. One did not show itself until an hour had passed. Glen was on nest watch duty and Piper was away for this part of the afternoon. Notes attached. Interesting tidbit, when I walked back up from the lower level, a Red Shouldered Hawk had perched on my scope and remained there until I got within a few feet." - Bob 

Photo Courtesy Bob (All Rights Reserved)

OBSERVATION NOTES

PIPER GLEN BALD EAGLE NEST

March 25, 2024

OBSERVER: Bob

LOCATION: Piper Glen Golf Club (Driving Range) 4300 Piper Glen Dr.

DATE OF VISIT: 03/25/2024

TIME OF VISIT: 2:20-3:345PM

WEATHER CONDITIONS:

Temperature: 57 F Wind (direction & speed): E @ 4mph (gusty)

Sky: partly sunny 

Precipitation: none

BAEAs PRESENT: (Yes) No 

Number & Type: 3; 1 mature + 2 eaglets

BEHAVIORS OBSERVED:

Food Deliveries: Yes (No) 

Eaglet(s) in Nest: (Yes) No

Eaglet Fledging: Yes (No)

OBSERVATION NOTES (record every :15):

:15 From the parking lot a mature BAEA is visible perched above the

nest. I walked out onto the dam and set up my scope. Some

movement detected in the nest by one eaglet.

:30 With little action in the nest, I moved to the lower level and began

walking out towards the nest tree. When I was within 40 yards the

mature BAEA vocalized, left its perch and flew to a new perch

beyond the golf cart path. It is presumed that this is the male BAEA

Glen. Still very little activity in the nest.

:45 An eaglet raised itself to the top of the nest and began to exercise its

wings.

1:00 The second eaglet finally came to the top of the nest. I guess it had

been nap time.

1:15 Glen flew from his perch with much vocalizing. He flew over the

small pond, did a lap around the reservoir and flew off toward the

Gillespie property. After a while Glen flew back towards the nest and

perched in a tree close to the nest tree. Piper didn’t show up.

One Week After a Packed City Council Meeting City Staff Tells Council Opps!

Citing challenges with driveways and parking, Charlotte planners say they want to place new limits on triplexes in neighborhoods

A slide from Monday’s City Council meeting outlining the proposed change.

by Tony Mecia

Charlotte’s planning staff is recommending that the construction of triplexes in most single-family neighborhoods be limited to corner lots, following some concerns from residents about new triplexes being planned near their houses.

The Ledger reported in February that some residents in south Charlotte are worried about triplexes being built in their neighborhoods, which has been allowed since last summer under city rules as part of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

In a presentation to the City Council on Monday, planning director Alyson Craig said building triplexes inside existing neighborhoods can create problems with parking and driveways.

“Triplexes can be challenging, because there is a challenge between maintaining the pedestrian environment but also recognizing that there are cars and driveways and driveway cuts, and it is really hard to have both of those,” she said. “The thinking is it’s better to have triplexes on a corner, where you can have driveways on two different street frontages to really space that out.”

The proposed changes could draw criticism that the city is watering down its new development rules, which took effect last June and are designed to encourage more construction of housing to help relieve rising housing prices.

Controversial provision: When housing development changes were debated in 2021, the change allowing duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods was one of the most controversial provisions of the UDO. It passed on a 6-5 vote.

After hearing Monday’s presentation, council members seemed to have few objections to the recommendations.

Council member Malcolm Graham, who voted in favor of the UDO, said the council needs to balance the reality that the new development rules would always have changes and require improvements with the need to create certainty among developers and residents.

“I’m concerned that starting tomorrow, we will get a lot of phone calls, because of the uncertainty with what people can do and what they can’t do,” he said. But he said he’s a “team player” and that he’ll “go along with it.”

The change to the development rules would affect most neighborhoods, according to a map of zoning districts presented Monday. It would allow triplexes only on corners in N1 zoning districts, which is the designation of most single-family neighborhoods:

The Ledger’s article in February gave an example of a triplex under construction on Topping Place, near the Barclay Downs neighborhood close to SouthPark Mall. The lot was bought for $825,000 in August 2023, and three units could each sell for $1M or more. The president of the nearby homeowners association said: “Neighbors are concerned. … There are more questions than there are answers right now.”

The same company building the triplex on Topping Place, Aspen City Homes, is building at least seven other triplexes in Charlotte neighborhoods, city records show.

Craig said Monday that 20 triplexes are being built under UDO rules.

City staff and the council will work on the language of the revised rules in the coming months, with a City Council vote expected in July.

What does this mean for the Rea Road Gillespie Project and RK Investments Rezoning Request RZP 2022-121? 

At this point it is hard to say. Clearly Charlotte City Council recognized that having a UDO that gave developers a by-right option that was possibly worse than rezoning was "uncomfortable". 

It may also may mean that the "by-right" option becomes a hands down clear choice compared to RK Investments proposal since it could cut the number of buildable units under by-right by one third.

It also means that RK Investments better come up with a last minute proposal that has substantial changes as Ed Driggs promised or any chance of "compromise" is dead on arrival.

Chip Starr

Note Charlotte Ledger needs our support join the effort here.

"Unintended Consequences" Charlotte Officials Revisiting UDO Zoning Codes

The changes could impact how much density is allowed in many future townhome, duplex and triplex projects.

https://www.wcnc.com/video/money/markets/real-estate/charlotte-leaders-revisit-zoning-codes/275-37e4129d-7f72-4459-a187-bb4efb43e51a

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Charlotte officials are revisiting the city’s new zoning codes due to what they call "unintended consequences."

 

The Unified Development Ordinance was adopted in 2022. One of the main goals is to allow higher-density housing in more places to help address the city’s housing deficit. 

 

Now, city planners are proposing changes that could decrease density for certain projects after finding issues with how they are being built. 

Charlotte city planners told the city council on Monday that they’ve found a loophole in the UDO that is allowing builders to decrease lot sizes to fit more units. 

Their concern is that the way the projects are being built is hindering people’s quality of life. That's because the developments are too close to existing housing and their streets are too small.

 

For example, many homeowners opposed a luxury townhome development that's currently being built on Selwyn Avenue due to its density.   

"This development doesn’t have any setbacks on any of its sides," neighbor Paul Maxwell said while pointing to the project. He worries there isn’t enough space for cars or parking. 

 

"The streets are almost nonexistent, they have tiny alleys between each building," Maxwell added.

 

City planning director Alyson Craig told city councilmembers she is seeing similar situations across town. "What we’re seeing is not really getting at what we had intended," Craig said.  

 

Craig said the root of the problem is the conservation development option in the UDO. It allows builders to use smaller lot sizes and increase density if they conserve open space. However, Craig said green space isn't being conserved as they envisioned. 

 

"I think it's just about making sure we’re getting it right," Craig added. 

 

She’s asking city leaders to tweak the UDO to limit the conservation option to projects that are at least five acres. The current requirement is two acres.

 

The changes would also increase green space and buffer zone requirements, which could decrease density in some projects. 

 

"As our city grows at such a fast pace, open space and green space continue to be a challenge," Charlotte City Councilwoman Dimple Ajmera said on Monday.

 

Maxwell said the changes are too late for his neighborhood, but he thinks they can help others. "I’m hoping that the authorities take a look at these new [regulations] and modify them," Maxwell said. 

 

The city council will hold a public hearing on April 15 and is set to vote on the proposed changes on May 20. 

 

Contact Julia Kauffman at jkauffman@wcnc.com and follow her

 

 

 

Suburban development threatens Mecklenburg’s most biodiverse natural spaces

WFAE | By Zachary Turner

Published March 19, 2024 at 6:28 PM EDT 

                  A spotted salamander forages for bugs under a decomposing log.

A red-shouldered hawk lets loose a shrill call overhead. The sound reverberates through the 90-acre West Branch Nature Preserve in Davidson.

“Another hawk just landed next to that hawk,” says Chris Matthews, the nature preserves and natural resources director at the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department. He points through a gap in the canopy, where a second hawk shuffles next to the first.

The hawks perch together, looking over the 30-acre wetland at the center of the preserve. Neither bird would be here without this expansive protected area, surrounded on all sides by suburban development.

“He or she was calling, and he or she just showed up,” Matthews said. “No cellphone needed.”

West Branch is one of the county's most biodiverse areas, according to Lenny Lampel, the natural resources supervisor for the Mecklenburg County Parks Department.

“Pretty much every reptile and amphibian species that we have documented before in Mecklenburg County, has been documented here,” Lampel said.

One such amphibian is the spring peeper. A solitary peeper lets loose its eponymous call from the water’s edge, a few yards away from where Lampel is standing.

At the height of mating season, the ballads of peepers and upland chorus frogs fill the woods. Matthews called it “a cacophony of sound.” But on the other side of the county, those same eager chirps were nowhere to be found in the Flat Branch Nature Preserve near Ballantyne.

“We've had development happen in or in and around our property,” said Matthews, referring to Flat Branch. “We weren't able to get there soon enough.”

Construction severed the flow of water to Flat Branch, spelling the demise of creatures, especially amphibians, that rely on a steady supply of water to create habitat.

“We used to have a fairly robust population of salamanders down there,” Matthews says. “We just do not have them anymore.”

Mecklenburg County commissioners granted the Parks Department a $50 million budget for land acquisition over the last two years. But with the price of land increasing amid continued urban development, Matthews and his staff are racing against the clock.

Inside West Branch, a panorama of tulip trees, sweetgums and shagbark hickories rise from the wet soil, the flooded landscape dappled with sedge tussocks and rushes. A downy woodpecker flits between the standing dead trees, or snags.

“Even dead trees standing in a wetland area are important,” Lampel said. “That's where great blue herons will usually start to nest, and other birds as well will nest on top of some of those dead trees.”

Dead trees are prime real estate for many species, even after they fall. Matthews rolls over a dead log about knee height in diameter. Underneath, a spotted salamander squirms, agitated by the sudden light.

“This salamander was probably down in the water a month and a half or two months ago, laying eggs,” Matthews said.

After breeding, the spotted salamander roams upland and lives under leaf litter and fallen logs, where it feeds on small invertebrates like worms and ants.

“If you're losing those extensive areas of upland habitat around the wetlands,” Lampel said, “you end up losing those species as well.”

Urban sprawl isn’t the only human impact on local biodiversity. Climate change is making it more difficult for some species, like the spotted salamander, to survive.

“Weather conditions are so variable right now, whether it’s extensive wet periods or extensive dry periods, but if their timing is off — we hit this weird dry period, and they just dry up really quickly, you’re losing all of the young for that year."

This weather pattern — intense rainfall, bookended by long dry spells — is becoming increasingly common, according to Jack Scheff, an assistant professor of geography and earth sciences at UNC Charlotte

“[Climate change] tends to lead to precipitation happening all at once real quick and then waiting longer for the next rainstorm,” Scheff said.

Our log-dwelling salamander relies on large, unfractured forests and a stable climate to thrive. In turn, the red-shouldered hawk needs the salamander and other critters. In urban areas, they all depend on humans for protected spaces like the West Branch Nature Preserve.

“They’re here because it’s here,” Lampel said, “because it's protected.”

North Mecklenburg County's West Branch Nature Preserve mirrors the much smaller "Pooh's Corner" area adjacent to the Rea Road Gillespie Property in Southern Mecklenburg County, as well as the Flat Brach Nature Preserve located an additional 2.5 miles to the southeast.

These natural habitats have become increasingly fractured as development, urban sprawl and density saturation threaten their very exitance. - Chip Starr

Standing Room Only Crowd Says NO to Gillespie Property Rezoning

It was an amazing turnout at Monday’s Charlotte City Council meeting. 

So many “VOTE NO” supporters filled council chambers that more than 100 citizens were forced to watch the proceedings from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center lobby television monitors.

OUR WORK IS NOT DONE 

Despite our continued opposition and massive show of unity our Charlotte City Council District 7 Representative Ed Driggs continues to sit squarely on the fence.

This despite the fact that our loud and clear message could not have been more direct and visible during the March 18th City Council Meeting.

                    VOTE NO ON THE RK INVESTMENTS PETITION RZP-2022-121

The Reasons for our Unwavering Opposition:

• Overstressed Infrastructure (Schools, Public Safety, Roads, Sanatiation, Parks)
• Adds to Flooding (already a major problem)
• Destruction of an irreplaceable Natural Resource (loss of 38 acres of trees)
• Apartments (12 Times Density of Surrounding Area)
• Does Not Meet the Charlotte 2040 Plan Goals
• Buildings Too Visible from Rea Road & Elm Lane
• Too Much Additional Traffic
• Not in Keeping with the Character of our Community

City Council Member Driggs we again ask that you stop promoting the petitioner’s scare tactic of “build by-right”. 

We strongly believe that in this market the petitioner will build "by-right" a very high-end and attractive single family development to create demand with customers who are willing and able to pay the high prices that are needed to maximize their return on investment.

Build By-Right Advantages:

• No Multi Family Rental Apartments
• Fewer Housing Units (400 vs 640)
• Lower Building Heights
• Comparable Tree Save Across the Entirety of the Property
• No Appreciable Change or Loss in Traffic Enhancements
• Fewer Vehicles and Less Traffic
• Lower Density
• Comparable or Greater Building Set Back Requirements

We fully understand the need for more housing in Charlotte. However rental apartments do not equate to home ownership.

The adoption of the UDO already rezoned the property from 159 single family detached homes to 477 duplex, triplex and quadraplex homes. A 300% increase in density.

The only explanation to asking for an additional 100% increase is greed on the part of the developer. A developer who is taking advantage of Charlotte's misguided UDO and taking it to a whole new level.

Therefore the only answer to this stunning amount of greed is to say NO!

Got a minute? Copy the above and email this message directly to Ed Diggs at Ed.Driggs@charlottenc.gov

Observation Notes March 18, 2024

Photo Courtesy Ward Welch (All Rights Reserved)                                

We are pleased to share with you this week's field notes from our eagle expert. While most of us enjoy watching these impressive beautiful birds, Bob's detailed and recorded observations serve as an important baseline to a more formal understanding of our eagles behavior. 

OBSERVATION NOTES

PIPER GLEN BALD EAGLE NEST

Mar 20, 2024

OBSERVER: Bob 

LOCATION: Piper Glen Golf Club (Driving Range) 4300 Piper Glen Dr.

DATE OF VISIT: 03/18/2024

TIME OF VISIT: 11:30 -12:30 PM

WEATHER CONDITIONS:

Temperature: 53 F Wind (direction speed): N @ 7mph

Sky: mostly cloudy 

Precipitation: none

BAEAs PRESENT: (Yes) No 

Number & Type: 4; 2 mature + 2 Eaglets

BEHAVIORS OBSERVED:

Nest Improvement: Yes (No) 

Courting: Yes (No)

Copulation: Yes (No) 

Territorial Defense: Yes (No)

Nest Sitting: Yes (No) 

Food Deliveries: Yes (No)

Eaglet(s) in Nest: (Yes) No 

Eaglet Fledging: Yes (No)

OBSERVATION NOTES (record every :15):

:15 Both mature BAEAs were perched above the nest when I arrived. As

I walked out to the dam one of the BAEAs left its perch and flew a

path over both the small pond and the larger reservoir.

Eventually it flew toward the Gillespie property. I noticed

that 15 Cormorants were perched in the favored tree across the

reservoir. I could make out one eaglet in the nest with my

binoculars.

:30 I walked out toward the end of the dam and set up my scope. From

this vantage point I could view both eaglets in the nest. One

was out on top of the nest and the other a bit inside the nest.

Their fuzz is beginning to be replaced by the normal dark

feathers. This vantage point will not last much longer as the

leaves of the Sweetgum tree are beginning to unfurl. I

walked down to the lower level and out to the nest tree. I

am happy to report that no new vines have appeared to

climb the nest tree. I was able to locate a clear view of the nest

and the eaglet from a location along the perimeter of the small pond.

This location should continue to offer good unobscured views of the

nest and the eaglets.

:45 As I continued to watch the nest one of the eaglets retreated into the

nest and was no longer visible. There were some strong wind gusts

and I suspect that was the reason for the retreat. At some point

the BAEA mate had returned to the reservoir and reclaimed

its perch from the Cormorants. All remained the same until

my departure.

Big crowd turns out to oppose Piper Glen rezoning

 

Neighbors speak out against Rea Road development and city staff recommend against it at a public hearing; Rea Farms school + homes rezoning also debated

Green was the color of the day Monday for dozens of south Charlotte residents who attended a public hearing to oppose the rezoning of 53 acres in the Piper Glen area of south Charlotte.

by Lindsey Banks

A proposal to bring 640 apartments and townhomes to the Piper Glen area in south Charlotte was the big topic of the night at a public hearing before Charlotte City Council Monday, with neighbors opposing the project packing the city council’s chambers and city staff saying they recommend against it. 

South Charlotte residents turned out to voice their concerns about the development in what’s now wooded area between Elm Lane and Rea Road, saying it would exacerbate flooding issues, increase traffic, disrupt the character of surrounding areas and pose a threat to two nesting American bald eagles who live in the area. 

City staff said they do not recommend the petition in its current form and will work through issues and concerns that have been raised, including addressing traffic improvements and working with the county to connect pedestrian paths on Rea Road, Elm Lane and the Four Mile Creek Greenway with a bridge.

A more slimmed down version ahead? The staff’s opposition probably means that the developer, RK Investments, will have to reduce the number of apartments in the proposal to have a shot at winning approval. Of the 640 units, 500 are proposed as apartments. The current proposal is a slimmed-down version of the developer’s previous plan, which was to build 1,100 units with six-story buildings.  

Dozens of residents who oppose the development wore bright green T-shirts Monday that said “No! To Rezoning” with a silhouette of an eagle. They held up signs with the same message, and one resident wore a hat topped with a stuffed eagle. Some rode to the Mecklenburg County Government Center on one of two tour buses organized by Kim Hombs of local environmental nonprofit Trees, Bees & All of These. 

A representative for the project’s developer shared plans with city council members to address concerns over the anticipated increase in traffic, including the addition of turn lanes and traffic light signals, as well as plans for tree-save areas within the development. 

He also noted that the bald eagles’ nest does not fall within the minimum 660 feet from the development that’s required by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Dan Paulson, a resident who lives off Elm Lane, asked the city to make infrastructure improvements in advance of the project to fix traffic congestion and flooding issues that already exist around the site. 

“We need to break the cycle of pushing for more development as possible [and] then worry about other things later,” Paulson said. 

One resident presented the city council with a hard copy of a petition with nearly 20,000 signatures of people who oppose the project.  

City Councilmen Ed Driggs, who represents most of south Charlotte in District 6, said he opposes the proposal, and that he has “made it very clear that I will not support this petition tonight in its current form,” Driggs said as the crowd cheered. “The staff doesn’t support it either. We’ve got work to do.”

Driggs told residents that as long as they remain a united front in opposition to the plan, the rezoning request will not be approved as it is. However, Driggs warned the crowd that if the current rezoning request is denied, one that neighbors might deem even more troublesome could take its place in the future. 

“I just am concerned that when we look at what can happen if [the petition] is withdrawn, we might end up in a position that’s worse than this,” Driggs said to crowd boos. 

“I wish there was a way to preserve this as the habitat that it is,” Driggs said. He said the county was not interested in purchasing the property for a park or green space. 

Councilmember Victoria Watlington challenged city staff to figure out how to improve the process of evaluating rezoning requests. 

“I think we’ve got a policy gap,” Watlington said. “We need to raise our standard.” 

Councilmember Tariq Bokhari complimented Driggs on his efforts to represent his constituents and also called out the Unified Development Ordinance that went into effect last year, which earned him applause from the crowd. 

“We spent over two years working on, debating, putting out this Unified Development Ordinance, into the community, which is essentially pouring rocket fuel onto growth,” Bokhari said. “That is absolutely unacceptable.”

Another big south Charlotte rezoning in Rea Farms

A proposal to build apartments and a new middle school in the Rea Farms area in south Charlotte was also on the agenda Monday night.

“It’s my big night tonight,” Driggs joked. The petition site is also in District 6.  

The city heard from petitioner Childress Klein and Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, which plans for a new middle school and 917 homes on 125 acres along the east side of Tom Short Road. 

The middle school, which was included in the 2023 CMS school bond referendum, is designed to relieve overcrowding at J.M. Robinson Middle School and accommodate up to 1,200 students. If approved, the school would open in August 2026. 

Some residents are concerned that the development will exacerbate flooding issues in the area and that the infrastructure will not be able to support the additional traffic and residents. Marian Black, a neighbor who has been leading efforts against the project, compiled 1-inch binders of information about the site and the proposed development’s impact on the area to present to city staff and council members Monday. 

Glen Danziger, a resident who lives across from the rezoning site, told council members that  the project would be “an undue burden on the community.” He commented on the “inappropriate nature” of the development and that it would add 65,000 new vehicle trips per day to the area.  

City staff has recommended that council members approve the petition. 

Driggs noted that the rezoning site is 125 acres, and he commended the developers for not trying to build even more housing units on the site. 

Councilmember Dimple Ajmera called for fewer housing units to preserve the neighborhood’s character, and Mayfield asked the developer if the new school’s teachers would be able to afford to live in the homes. 

The city council is expected to vote on both rezoning petitions later this spring.