Complex Leesville Road rezoning and annexation deferred amid airport, traffic and environmental concerns

The Planning Commission deferred consideration of a complex rezoning and annexation request, Z5425 (accompanied by annexation request AX4425), that would change roughly 31.58 acres near Leesville Road from a mix of county and city districts to Office/Residential mixed‑use with conditions. Staff and the applicant presented competing tradeoffs tied to airport overlay removal, future street connections and environmental protections.

Planner Hiram Marziano summarized the multi‑parcel request and said the proposal would rezone Wake‑ and Durham‑side parcels into a consolidated city designation (OX4 with parking‑limited CU for portions touching Leesville Road). Staff said the request entails removal of parts of the airport overlay district and a proposed block‑perimeter amendment; staff noted the site is in a city growth center but inconsistent with the future land use map and flagged fire‑response‑time and connectivity concerns.

Applicant counsel Molly Stewart (Morningstar Law Group) and the Mill Creek team argued the request fills a gap in the city growth center and would provide housing options where the city expects infill. They said they offered three airport‑related conditions commonly used when overlays are removed: an avigation easement, performance‑based interior noise‑mitigation construction standards and recorded disclosure of airport noise contours. Stewart said some traffic improvements (turn lanes and signal work) are already tied to nearby large projects and that the planned extension of TW Alexander (a long‑range planned connection) could affect future developable area; she acknowledged TW Alexander is not currently scheduled.

Multiple neighbors voiced strong opposition. Dan Barnes and Donovan Patterson said the site contains wetlands and streams (Sycamore Creek), argued the area lacks sidewalks/transit and said the airport authority discourages residential uses in the overlay; Patterson questioned the trip‑generation math and the capacity of existing roads and emergency services. Staff and applicant said there are stream buffers, tree conservation areas and stormwater rules to mitigate impacts, and that some public right‑of‑way dedications or fee‑in‑lieu arrangements would occur at site‑plan stage.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about airport authority positions (staff said the airport typically opposes overlay removal but may request conditions), stormwater and sewer infrastructure, block‑perimeter effects on future connectivity, and the timing of transport projects. Several commissioners said they wanted more time to visit the site and meet with residents and staff to better understand tree conservation, stormwater protections and potential street connections. The applicant agreed to defer; the commission set the case for return on June 23.

Next steps: applicant to coordinate additional materials on block‑perimeter impacts, connectivity options and technical clarifications about airport‑related conditions; case deferred to June 23 to allow commissioner/site/neighborhood engagement and packet updates.