Whither Development in our Chapel Hill neighborhood?

GUEST COLUMNS

By Charles Berlin

A recent article in the News and Observer alerted surprised residents near this corner of our town of not one, but four proposed large-scale residential rental developments. In aggregate, the proposed new housing projects would occupy 41 now-mostly-wooded acres, with 41 buildings, 1,094 rental units, and 1,896 parking spaces.  These are arrayed close to each other along Old Chapel Hill Road from White Oak to Pope Road, and then up Pope Road a bit, near the intersection of 15/501 and I40.  These proposals, which are requesting zoning changes from our town council to proceed, appear to be on a very quick time table, coming before council in the very near future.

I can only hope that council members pause to think this through with wisdom and forethought before forging ahead and rubber-stamping this enormous amount of development, which dwarfs in size Wegmans at the other end of Old Durham/Old Chapel Hill Road.

Last year, UNC and the Town commissioned a highly experienced urban planning consultant, Rod Stevens, to study the overall history and direction of residential development in Chapel Hill.  His report concluded that Chapel Hill’s development trends of the last decade have badly failed to meet the most important needs of this region, and are heading toward further failure unless we correct course.  More specifically, he noted that the proliferation of expensive market-rate rental apartment buildings, and not much else, have shut out first-time buyers, young families, empty-nesters, seniors, etc, from planting roots here.  As a result, the vast majority of people who work in Chapel Hill have to live elsewhere and, paradoxically, a large number of Chapel Hill residents commute to elsewhere in the region for their employment.  He noted that we’ve badly failed to meet the need for “missing middle” housing.  Stevens strongly recommended that, rather than continuing to build large-scale rental buildings with little connection to their surroundings, approved on a project-by-project basis (“the worst option”), there should first be planning for neighborhoods as a whole, including community involvement.  

The proposed developments along Old Chapel Hill Road raise the following concerns:

1) We would be getting the one thing that Stevens indicated we don’t need more of, which is primarily expensive market-rate rentals (with a smattering of nominally affordable rentals), rather than the “missing middle” and affordable ownable housing that is so important to the town’s future vitality.

2)  We would be getting – especially from the proposed White Oak project – another of what Rod Stevens referred to pejoratively as “ocean liners” plunked down willy-nilly and jarringly in low-rise surroundings.

3) We would be adding substantial traffic of 1,900 cars to the traffic on Old Durham/Old Chapel Hill Road.  Despite current improvements of added sidewalks and bike lanes, this remains a two-lane road, which already struggles with frequent problems of back-up next to Wegmans at the Old Durham/15-501 intersection.  And these additional cars will add to the slowly failing and congested 15-501transit corridor, while the “Reimagining 15-501” project has yet to produce any clear solutions to this problem.

4) Development in this small area was strongly predicated on the placement of a light rail station contiguous to these proposed developments.  Since the light rail project failed to come to fruition, and as local bus service remains meager here, the notion that the residents of these developments will be able to get around without cars seems highly unrealistic.

5) Loss of a significant amount of tree canopy and green-space:  41 acres of mostly-wooded property – the kind of large, beautiful, and ecologically necessary landscape for which Chapel Hill was once famous but which is now rapidly disappearing from our city — will be largely cleared of trees.

6) There has been, to my knowledge, zero community engagement by either the developers or the Town about these proposals beyond the tiny notices of required upcoming board and council hearings buried deep in the Town’s website. 

Based on the details of these proposals submitted to the Town, at least three of the projects (Gateway, 5500 Old Chapel Hill Road, and Huse Street) appear to have made some effort to preserve some green space and to limit density and building heights to a level compatible with the nearby neighborhoods (although still only offering rentals).  Interestingly, all three of these projects are being proposed by regionally-based developers.  The North White Oak Drive proposal however, is from an Atlanta-based corporation which had an Atlanta-based architectural firm present its proposal and announces on its website that it has developed/managed over 75,000 units nationally. This developer has requested permission to build two massive high-rise buildings with parking decks. Construction will entail building on much of the site’s existing green space except for a protected stream in the middle, and would create 50% more housing density than the nearby Huse Street proposal, which has similar acreage.

And while The White Oak project notes its adherence to existing city LUMO requirements, it appears to be significantly at odds with the spirit and recommendations of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which the city has labored so long to refine, and which all three of the other nearby proposals note and appear to make efforts to take somewhat into account in their designs.  Specifically, the North White Oak Drive proposal appears to be at odds with FLUM, which envisions town homes and a four-story height maximum in this specially designated area to provide a “harmonious transition” from taller, higher-density buildings to the adjoining established single family neighborhoods and preservation of tree canopy.

Given these considerations, I strongly suggest

1) that the town council initiate a small-area study, with a moratorium on all of these projects until a more comprehensive plan for this small area is completed.  Such a study could focus more directly on this area of the town – the overall neighborhood planning that Stevens strongly recommends – and address the larger issues (including the need for owner-occupied rather than rented housing) that together make for successful local development that serves its citizens well.

2) that council specifically not allow the White Oak proposal to proceed, given that this proposal appears to be greatly at variance with the needs of the neighborhood, FLUM guidance and the needs of the Town generally.

3) that the Town require all of these developers to engage the local community in dialog, and take this input seriously, in planning their proposals.

Finally, I urge any interested citizen to get more information about the above proposals and communicate your views to our mayor and town council, who represent your interests. And act quickly before council makes further decisions (tentatively May 4 for the White Oak project).


Charles Berlin lives in Chapel Hill’s Pickard Oaks neighborhood

The Local Reporter is committed to publishing a diversity of views on issues of local concern. Send guest columns or letters to the editor to editor@thelocalreporter.press. Submission guidelines can be found here.

Share This Article

Scroll down to make a comment.

Support The Local Reporter

Subscribe for free to the community's ONLY local nonprofit news source! Support local journalism by becoming a sustainer.Click the PayPal Donate button below, for a one-time gift or — even better — make a monthly donation. You can use this Venmo link for TheLocal-Reporter, or mail a check made out to "Friends of Local Journalism," nonprofit EIN 83-4390359 publisher of The Local Reporter, to:
POB 16341, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-6341

5 Comments on "Whither Development in our Chapel Hill neighborhood?"

  1. Elizabeth S. Friedman | April 26, 2022 at 12:13 am | Reply

    I feel there is little the average citizen can do to halt any project of this sort. I no longer know whom to contact, even, to object. The “town”, whomever that may be, just seems to proceed with whatever HUGE project someone proposes, and the public, who’ll be dealing w/ this for years to come, be damned. Is is tax-base related??? Who knows? I voted for Pam and others of her ilk who seemed sensible people, people who were interested in controlling outsized growth…to absolutely no avail. Check out the massive project along the bypass and Ephesus Church Road…oh, MY! And drive along Ephesus Road and see what damage your car sustains until that road is repaired ….someday. Lotsa luck with trying to stop the next ginormous project!

  2. One only needs to drive through what is left of the Glen Lennox neighborhood to see where the true values of this town are placed. Good lip service and hand wringing are given to the lack of affordable housing and the squeeze out of middle class residents in Chapel Hill. It is all virtue signaling for the foolish people (me included) to reelect these spineless folks time and again. The tear-down of Glen Lennox represents the demise of some of the last affordable access friendly housing in this town. Regarding the “third-world” quality of Ephesus Road, it just demonstrates the lack of real power town leaders have over developers.

  3. Sharon Mcclellan | April 27, 2022 at 7:12 am | Reply

    The last town council meeting I attended, regarding planning for future construction before Wegmans was built, I learned there was absolutely no planning to handle traffic and stormwater runoff. Why is that? All the new buildings are really ugly. Our city council is ruining our town. Why can’t we stopp this? Someone, please run for office on a platform of stopping this insane overdevelopment.

  4. Holly FitzGerald | April 28, 2022 at 3:30 pm | Reply

    Yes, I agree!! Huge and often ugly developments are making developers happy but are truly taking away the beauty of Chapel Hill, our trees, SAD!! I thought our mayor was against overdevelopment, but that appears not to be so!!

  5. It’s time for those vocal advocates of affordable housing on the town council and in related organizations to step up and ensure this latest development meets the actual housing needs of the community and help conserve our limited parks and green space.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*