Council adopts denial of Trailwood rezoning application after split vote, sending proposal back to planning commission

The Raleigh City Council on May 5 adopted a motion to deny rezoning case Z3825 after councilors split on whether to delay action while the applicant revised conditions. The move effectively sends the proposal back to the planning commission for further review.

Planning staff described Z3825 as a request to rezone just under 14 acres on both sides of Trailwood Drive from a mix of R6 and R4 (with the special residential parking overlay) to a combination of residential mixed-use (three-story limit) and R10 zoning with conditions. Bynum Walter of planning and development told the council that the site includes flood-hazard areas on the west side of Trailwood and that the applicant had offered several protections, including limits on disturbance in the 100-year floodplain, a commitment “to pursue a no-rise certification in accordance with the city stormwater design manual,” a build-to along Trailwood, and a street-facing pedestrian entrance.

The planning commission recommended approval, Walter said, though the staff presentation noted inconsistencies with the future land use and urban form maps and recorded concerns from some planning commissioners about enforceability of floodplain protections; staff said those protections had been revised to address earlier enforceability concerns.

At the hearing the applicant’s attorney, Molly Stewart of Morning Star Law Group, asked the council to reserve the applicant’s remaining presentation time and defer so the team could evaluate substantial changes to the proposal. Multiple residents and commenters objected to the prospect of materially revised conditions arriving late in the process without an opportunity to review them or for the planning commission to weigh in first. One commenter said presenting an “entirely new plan” at the last minute was unfair to neighbors.

Staff responded that, if the council continued the hearing to June 2, revised conditions would be due no later than May 22 and that because the public hearing had already been opened any revised offer must be more restrictive than the existing offer. Council members debated whether to continue the hearing to allow evening public participation or to decide based on the materials on the table.

A motion to continue the hearing to June 2 at 7 p.m. failed on a 4–4 tie. A later motion to adopt the agenda’s proposed consistency statement dated 05/05/2026 and to deny the zoning amendment was made and seconded; the council adopted the motion to deny, and council members noted the denial gives the applicant an opportunity to revise the proposal and restart the review process with the planning commission.

Next steps: the applicant is expected to revise conditions and may resubmit through the planning commission; staff set a May 22 deadline for any revised conditions if the hearing were continued.