Durham Planners Pause Lakewood Small Area Plan, Oppose Mosby Bragtown Project
The Durham Planning Commission updates local development rules to match new state laws, debates public notice and renter outreach, and takes big votes on rezonings from Thompson Village to the Glenn School Road mixed-use project and Mosby Bragtown. The commission also presses pause on the Lakewood–West End–Lyon Park Small Area Plan to seek broader community input before moving forward. 74mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Tuesday, October 13th, 2026
10374.597567
Durham Planning Commission October 13, 2026 (October 13, 2026)
In This Video
-
Robin Schultz presented an omnibus text amendment that updated multiple sections of the development ordinance with technical revisions and legislative compliance changes, including new rules for administrative appeals, home-based businesses, and glazing requirements on commercial and multifamily buildings.
-
Resident Mimi Kessler criticized the omnibus text amendment for potentially narrowing public notice and access beyond what state law required and requested that the Planning Commission delay action for at least one cycle to address these concerns.
-
Robin Schultz explained that recent state law narrowed the planning and development director’s ability to issue broad interpretations, limiting them to site-specific official interpretations that can be appealed, while emphasizing that recordkeeping and public notice practices were not intended to change.
-
During commission deliberations, a commissioner asked about delaying the omnibus text amendment, and Robin Schultz explained that the body could continue the item if it wished while staff and the City Attorney’s Office addressed the raised concerns in a follow-up memo to City Council, emphasizing that either choice would work for the Planning and Development Department.
-
In discussing whether to continue the omnibus text amendment, staff from the Planning and Development Department noted that parts of the ordinance still did not align with new state legislation and stated a clear interest in moving the updates forward to match state statute.
-
A commissioner emphasized the costs of delaying decisions on the omnibus text amendment and expressed support for moving forward based on staff’s recommendations.
-
A commissioner requested that renters be added to mailed notice requirements and questioned the ordinance’s reference to “domestic chickens” instead of hens, and Robin Schultz agreed to explore updating the draft to expand notice and clarify the terminology before it advanced to the governing bodies.
-
The Commission declined an unseconded motion to postpone the omnibus text amendment and then voted 8–1 to advance it to City Council with a favorable recommendation.
-
Planner Peyton Burgess presented a revised rezoning request for the Thompson Village project, reducing the proposal from up to 80 multifamily units to a Planned Development Residential district allowing up to 19 units with added design and grading commitments, and reported limited neighborhood meeting attendance and two online comments in opposition.
-
An applicant with long family ties to the Thompson Village property described meeting with neighbors and emphasized that the revised rezoning proposal significantly reduced the project’s density to better fit the surrounding community.
-
A nearby resident to the Thompson Village site expressed concern that the rezoning could lead to annexation into the city and higher living costs, questioned the affordability benefits of the project, and highlighted long-term neighbors’ desire to avoid additional expenses.
-
A resident raised concerns about road access and emergency vehicle circulation for the Thompson Village rezoning, the applicant responded that the street met standards and access would be designed for safety approvals, and the Planning Commission then voted 9–0 to forward the case to City Council with a favorable recommendation.
-
Planning staff presented a large mixed-use rezoning and annexation request for a 180-acre site at Glenn School Road and I-85, outlining proposed light industrial, townhouse, and commercial development, summarizing neighborhood meeting attendance and opposition comments, and noting the project’s consistency with the mixed-use neighborhood place type and many comprehensive plan policies.
-
Patrick Byker, an attorney representing the Glenn School Road rezoning applicants, highlighted anticipated economic benefits from adding new light industrial space and described an NCDOT‑approved realignment of Intercross Road intended to improve traffic safety near the I‑85 off‑ramp.
-
Attorney Patrick Byker described a text commitment that all townhomes in the Glenn School Road project would be priced affordably for households at 80% of area median income and framed the mixed-use development as a way to support generational wealth for Durham residents.
-
A speaker shared that the shortage of affordable for-sale townhomes had made it hard for younger residents to buy homes in Durham, praised the Glenn School Road mixed-use project’s affordable townhomes near jobs and a grocery store, and urged the Planning Commission to support it as a path to homeownership.
-
A long-time Glenn School Road property owner described the area’s lack of development over 40 years and voiced strong support for the proposed zoning map change as a win‑win project that should move forward.
-
A nearby resident to the Glenn School Road project requested a larger community contribution from the industrial portion of the development, citing higher contributions in other projects, and encouraged exploring a supermarket or similar grocery use in the planned commercial space.
-
Attorney Patrick Byker highlighted that noxious commercial and industrial uses had been removed from the Glenn School Road proposal, proffered a text commitment prohibiting special use permit uses such as auto repair and salvage yards and adding a 20-foot buffer along a creek watershed parcel, and urged the Planning Commission to approve the mixed-use project as a strong fit with comprehensive plan policies.
-
Attorney Patrick Byker and a commissioner discussed stream and buffer protections near the Ellerbee Creek Watershed, with Byker committing to a 20-foot buffer along a specified parcel while declining wider buffers, and the Planning Commission then voted 8–1 to send the Glenn School Road mixed-use rezoning to City Council with a favorable recommendation.
-
Planner Peyton Burgess presented a rezoning request to change 13.3 acres on Berwyn Avenue, Belvin Avenue, and Dominion Street from Residential Urban 5 to Planned Development Residential for up to 299 apartments, outlining affordability, design, environmental, and community contribution commitments and noting the project’s consistency with the mixed residential neighborhood designation and most applicable comprehensive plan policies after clarifying that an on-site stream was intermittent rather than perennial.
-
Speaker Sahib Singh, representing the property owner and a longtime Bragtown family, voiced support for the Mosby Bragtown project as a private investment that would provide additional, including affordable, homes enabling residents of different ages and backgrounds to live near work, family, and their place of worship.
-
Nil Ghosh described plans to remediate legacy underground storage tank contamination, committed to at least 10 publicly accessible Level 2 electric vehicle charging spaces and open space near sensitive areas, and updated the affordable housing pledge so that 5% of units would meet the UDO’s 60% AMI standard for rentals.
-
A UNC planning professor from Hope Valley, presenting work done with the Bragtown Community Association, highlighted data showing sidewalk and infrastructure shortfalls in Bragtown and urged the Commission to ensure that new growth addressed long-standing safety and livability needs for current and future residents.
-
A Bragtown resident from the Red Maple Park community urged the Planning Commission to deny the Mosby Bragtown rezoning, warning about a large influx of new residents, existing crime concerns, and the need for a local recreation center to serve the growing neighborhood.
-
A long-time Bragtown resident cautioned that the Mosby Bragtown rezoning could worsen traffic gridlock and strain emergency access along the Roxboro Road corridor, questioned the concentration of new apartments in the area, and argued for more opportunities for residents to build wealth through other types of housing.
-
A Bragtown resident acknowledged the Mosby Bragtown project’s deeper 60% AMI affordability but requested extending affordability to 60 years and increasing the proposed community contribution so more local students could access Durham Tech and living-wage job opportunities.
-
A resident from the Red Maple area opposed the Mosby Bragtown apartment rezoning, arguing that the proposed $4,000 school contribution was inadequate, sidewalks to Red Maple Park were incomplete, and additional apartments would worsen traffic, strain schools, and increase property taxes.
-
A representative of the nearby gurdwara described the temple’s long-standing presence next to the Mosby Bragtown site, clarified support for affordable housing but not the current plan’s scale and setbacks, and requested denial unless eight specific commitments on access, buffering, traffic, stormwater, lighting, and pollution cleanup were added before City Council review.
-
A member of SGNC warned that existing difficulty making left turns from Banner and Berwyn Streets onto Roxboro Street already posed safety risks for congregants and argued that adding 300 apartments without stronger traffic controls and pedestrian protections would worsen dangerous conditions.
-
Nil Ghosh responded to traffic and car-dependence concerns by noting that the proposed rezoning was expected to generate fewer daily trips than current zoning, emphasizing the site’s walkable access to nearby transit stops, and highlighting commitments to on-site and off-site sidewalks to improve connections to bus service.
-
Commissioner America Juarez Maldonado reflected on growing up driving Roxboro Street, agreed with residents’ traffic concerns near local businesses, and cautioned that adding 299 units without stronger supporting infrastructure for multiple residents per household would make it hard to envision safe day-to-day travel in the area.
-
Commissioner Kari Wouk acknowledged ongoing traffic concerns while appreciating the deeper 60% AMI affordability, questioned whether the 15 proposed affordable units were too few, and the applicant responded that increasing the number was a goal but could not be committed to that evening.
-
The Mosby Bragtown applicant discussed site access from Belvin and the possibility of omitting vehicular access to Berwyn, while a commissioner echoed Roxboro Road traffic concerns and requested more sidewalk and bus shelter commitments, and the applicant responded that on-site and off-site sidewalk and bus shelter improvements were already proffered, including one through a city sidewalk program.
-
The Mosby Bragtown applicant described a small legacy underground storage tank contamination area, explained that residential use would require higher cleanup standards despite an existing non-residential clearance, and noted a zoning commitment to remediate the site—potentially through soil management or removal—before allowing any residential development there.
-
The Planning Commission considered a motion by Vice Chair Kimberly Cameron, seconded by Commissioner Corrie Piontak, to forward the Mosby Bragtown rezoning case to City Council with a favorable recommendation, but the electronic vote failed 6–3.
-
Planning staff presented a text modification for the Shannon at Old Chapel Hill project to amend the existing development plan—without changing current zoning—to replace 17 previously approved apartments with 17 additional townhouses, summarized neighborhood meeting feedback, and noted that the limited scope meant it was not evaluated against comprehensive plan policies.
-
Applicant Scott Harmon explained that rising construction and financing costs made the previously approved mixed-use building with 17 flats infeasible, so the Shannon at Old Chapel Hill proposal was revised to swap those apartments for 17 townhomes while keeping all existing affordability, access, stormwater, and community engagement commitments, including close coordination with the adjacent Markham Chapel Baptist Church.
-
The Planning Commission voted 11–0 to forward the Shannon at Old Chapel Hill text modification to City Council with a favorable recommendation, after which the applicant briefly thanked the Commission.
-
Project Manager Sarah Long presented an overview of the draft Lakewood, West End, and Lyon Park Small Area Plan, explaining that it was created to implement the Comprehensive Plan around the Shops at Lakewood transit opportunity area by engaging historically disinvested neighborhoods and incorporating community input on needs, improvements, and design ideas for future development and public investment.
-
A project representative outlined implementation steps in the Lakewood, West End, and Lyon Park Small Area Plan, including sidewalk, traffic calming, transit, and bike/pedestrian improvements, preservation efforts for two historic Black cemeteries using ground-penetrating radar, and guidance that new housing in the Shops at Lakewood transit opportunity area include at least 20% affordable units within a compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented pattern.
-
A project representative detailed Small Area Plan recommendations for the Shops at Lakewood, including enhanced public services and improved transit stops, mixed commercial–residential redevelopment with 20% affordable housing in 3–5 story buildings, opportunities for small affordable commercial spaces, and recent survey feedback calling for stronger affordability language, safer and greener infrastructure, and structured parking to address concerns about lighting, safety, and parking availability.
-
Dan Jewell, a longtime landscape architect for the Shops at Lakewood, criticized the draft small area plan’s detailed schematic-style drawings as planning staff conjecture not grounded in workshop input. He warned they could be misused in future zoning decisions, and urged sending the plan back for revisions before adoption.
-
Attorney Nil Ghosh, speaking for Morningstar Law Group, cautioned that illustrative renderings in the Lakewood small area plan overstated redevelopment feasibility given existing property restrictions and urged the Planning Commission to continue the item so staff could revise the plan in consultation with property owners.
-
A neighborhood resident who participated in the Lakewood small area plan meetings noted that engagement activities were abstract and not demographically representative of the community, and recommended adopting the plan while also supporting a delay to allow for additional neighborhood input.
-
A project representative clarified that the Lakewood plan’s visualizations were meant to translate community ideas and comprehensive plan guidance for the transit opportunity area into illustrative concepts rather than literal designs, and offered to add language noting that any future redevelopment would be constrained by existing easements and long-term conditions.
-
Robin Schultz explained that the current commercial center zoning could already allow similar residential development up to 50 feet in height, though easements or private agreements might limit what could be built and the low-detail rendering made it impossible to confirm an exact match.
-
A commissioner asked about the purpose and history of Durham’s small area plans and whether they produced better outcomes, and staff explained that recent efforts were designed to implement the Comprehensive Plan while noting there were examples of long-range plans informing zoning and public investment but no comprehensive quantitative outcome data.
-
A commissioner questioned moving forward on the Lakewood small area plan without cost estimates, Robin Schultz responded that long-range construction costs were difficult to predict reliably, and the commissioner suggested delaying the item to revisit several issues.
-
Commissioner Maldonado supported delaying the Lakewood small area plan to allow more representative community outreach and suggested using the current map as a tool for residents to discuss what they liked and would change.
-
Commissioner Ora Musu Clemens, a Lakewood Park resident, criticized the small area plan’s community engagement as unrepresentative of historic African American neighborhoods, questioned advancing an aspirational plan without cost estimates, and faulted the draft for omitting any discussion of addressing lead contamination and the future of a major neighborhood park.
-
Vice Chair Kimberly Cameron questioned why Lakewood, West End, and Lyon Park were combined into one small area plan, emphasized that effective outreach to Black and Brown residents requires more personal and tailored engagement, and asked whether the Lakewood Shopping Center property owners and long‑term tenants had been meaningfully involved given the area’s distinct character.
-
A project representative explained that decisions about Lyon Park’s lead contamination would follow state DEQ analysis with Parks and Recreation, acknowledged that online surveys skewed participation toward more affluent white respondents, and clarified that Lyon Park and West End were included in the Lakewood plan to address how redevelopment of the shopping center could affect surrounding neighborhoods and guide earlier investments there.
-
Commissioners weighed the risks of delaying the Lakewood small area plan against past poor outcomes, ultimately emphasizing the need for more time and improved, in‑person community engagement and discussing a possible three‑cycle continuance to better reflect neighborhood input and feasibility.
-
Bo Dobrzenski from Planning & Development advised that staff could pursue more representative engagement during a 90‑day continuance but could not deliver full cost estimates for implementing the Lakewood plan, while a commissioner suggested door‑knocking and outreach through nearby schools and churches before staff explained that resource limits constrained engagement to mailed notices rather than residential canvassing.
-
Commissioners discussed extending the Lakewood small area plan for roughly 60 days, targeting a December 10 return to allow additional pre-holiday outreach that would include both neighborhood residents and Lakewood Shopping Center property owners, with the option to continue it further if needed.
-
The Planning Commission voted 11–0 to continue the Lakewood small area plan until January 12, 2027, to allow additional time to address commissioners’ concerns.
-
The Planning Commission reviewed eligibility rules requiring the chair and vice chair to be city and county appointees in specific combinations and then voted to confirm its officer selections for the upcoming term.
-
Planning staff announced that team member Andy Lester had left the Durham Planning and Development Department for a position in another jurisdiction, noted that responses might be slower while the vacancy was filled, and offered farewell wishes.
More from this government
Nearby governments