Lee Village Center rezoning continued after wide-ranging testimony on traffic, environment and TIA requirements

Patrick Biker and Dan Jewell presented the Lee Village Center consolidated annexation and compact-suburban-design rezoning for roughly 81 acres in Southwest Durham, describing an ownership-driven plan built on decades of comprehensive-plan guidance for transit-oriented form-based development. The applicants described a range of 1,667 to 2,294 dwelling units across subdistricts, proffered affordable housing text commitments, and offered a potential public park and a greenway connection to the UNC Botanical Garden property.

Hundreds of residents and community groups provided testimony. Opponents highlighted the absence of a comprehensive, current traffic impact analysis (TIA) at the rezoning stage, argued the site's higher-density scale assumed transit infrastructure (light rail) that no longer exists, and warned of drainage, natural-heritage and neighborhood-traffic impacts. Multiple residents and attorneys cited Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) TIA provisions, arguing a TIA is required at rezoning since the proposed changes "can be anticipated" to generate peak-hour trips. Supporters said the compact-suburban design includes form-based standards and that staff interpreted the UDO to allow TIA work per site plan phase rather than at rezoning for a multi-decade phased project.

Council members questioned applicants and staff about park acceptance criteria, greenway and riparian protections, whether TIA requirements could be met at site-plan phase, and how future transit access would be preserved. The planning director and transportation staff said phased site-plan TIAs would be required for each phase and that those TIAs would require mitigation where needed; the city attorney described that planning director discretion has to be pursued via the UDO's interpretation and appeals process if contested.

After extended deliberation the council voted to continue the hearing to Feb. 16, 2026 so staff could provide additional analysis and Parks and Recreation could review the proposed park dedication and other questions. Councilmember Cook voted no on the continuance and said she would vote against any approval without a rezoning-stage TIA because the UDO "shall" require TIAs in specified cases.

Ending: The public hearing remains open; the council asked staff and the applicant to return in February with additional materials addressing TIA timing and scope, park acceptance/prioritization, and clearer commitments on riparian conservation and other sensitive areas.