Brookhill Village overlay proposal advances amid questions about lease, infrastructure and affordability
Loading...
Summary
Developers and staff described a novel overlay to allow temporary, low‑infrastructure uses on Brookhill Village while a 99‑year ground lease remains in effect; council members pressed for clearer infrastructure funding, pedestrian connections and stronger guarantees for affordability and community protections.
A site‑specific overlay aimed at activating Brookhill Village for the next 25 years drew detailed discussion and pointed questions from Charlotte City Council on Nov. 24.
Planning staff framed the proposal as an unusual but practical tool to enable temporary uses — pop‑up entertainment, food‑truck events and other activities the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) does not typically permit — on a large property constrained by a 99‑year ground lease that runs through about 2049. The overlay would allow a set of temporary uses for the duration of the lease, cap building heights at 48 feet, commit to at least 100 income‑restricted residential units capped at 80% of area median income (AMI) for the lease term, and include a sunset clause when the lease expires.
Petitioners said the site currently contains buildings operated by the Harvest Center and that much of the property had been revitalized in recent years; they asked council to allow flexibility because the landholder’s lease makes long‑term investment difficult. Colin Brown, representing Brookhill Investments, told council the proposal would create space for community events without expensive permanent construction — and that the owners, who control the leasehold, have stabilized housing on a portion of the site.
Council members repeatedly pressed the petitioner and staff on three topics: 1) who would pay for key pedestrian and streetscape improvements (sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees) when the overlay contemplates lower‑cost, temporary uses; 2) whether the overlay would create a precedent that other applicants could cite elsewhere; and 3) the practical differences between the zoning commitments in the overlay compared with a conditional rezoning. Staff and the petitioner agreed there remain unanswered infrastructure questions, and staff said it could revisit standards (for example, requiring a conditional plan to lock in community‑requested screening or higher landscape standards).
Why it matters: Brookhill Village is a sizable property near South Boulevard with a history of disinvestment and a mix of longtime residents. The council is weighing how to enable activation and programming without creating long‑term entitlements that could displace current residents or require large public investments that would be hard to justify for temporary uses.
What was committed: The petitioner volunteered a minimum of 100 income‑restricted residential units meeting an 80% AMI standard for the duration of the lease and said existing Harvest Center units would continue to operate. Staff identified required landscape yards, a 25‑foot buffer where CG abuts N1 zoning, and the option for council to ask for stronger planting (Class A) and solid fencing; the petitioner said they were prepared to exceed minimum screening standards.
Next steps: Staff and the petitioner said they will continue working with the district representative and neighborhood groups to refine infrastructure commitments and whether certain screening or use‑prohibitions should be written into a conditional plan before a final decision.
