Elon’s town council has decided not to make any changes to the maximum lot size in one high-density zone as part of a package of newly-approved adjustments to the town’s new land development ordinance.
The council ultimately set aside a staff-level proposal to nix the cap on lot sizes in so-called neighborhood residential districts when its members formally approved more than two dozen other amendments to the seven-month-old development ordinance on Monday.
Among the tweaks that the council accepted that evening were the elimination of a 10-foot side setback between adjacent townhomes, the relaxation of the conditions that will trigger traffic studies and tree surveys for new developments, and the restoration of a provision that had previously allowed developers to put up their own temporary construction signs.
In the end, the council voted 5-to-0 to implement 27 proposed changes that the town’s planning Lori Oakley had originally presented to its members on August 13. Its members nevertheless balked at revising the lot size requirements in neighborhood residential districts, despite Oakley’s contention that the current 10,000 square foot ceiling may be too onerous for this development zone.
The planning director had initially suggested that the council strike the district’s maximum lot size altogether. Several members of the council were nevertheless put off by this recommendation, which they asked Oakley to tinker with, along with a couple of other items that she originally presented to them during a public hearing on August 13.
Oakley returned to the council on Monday with some proposed alternatives to the complete elimination of the 10,000 square foot limit. These included proposals that would raise the cap to either 15,000 or 20,000 square feet in order to assuage some of the council’s concerns. In either case, Oakley stressed that any of these proposals could benefit individual landowners in the town’s neighborhood residential districts – a relatively dense designation that tends to pop up near Elon’s downtown rather than on the municipality’s margins where most of its new development has been taking place.
As an illustration of the current rule’s real-world implications, the town’s planning director pointed to a historic neighborhood off of Ball Park Avenue that’s lies to the southwest of Elon’s municipal building on Williamson Avenue. Oakley observed that this neighborhood, which is generally zoned “neighborhood residential,” has an average lot size of 21,183 square feet, meaning that most of its residents are grandfathered in under the town’s current development rules. She added that any of her proposed amendments would greatly reduce the number of homeowners who are at the mercy of this grandfathered status.
Some of the town’s elected leaders were nevertheless reluctant to give up the existing lot size restriction. Councilman Quinn Ray, who had previously angled for the rule’s preservation, reiterated his arguments to the rest of the council on Monday.
“I’m still on the side of keeping the maximum square footage at 10,000,” he told the group. “The biggest reason is keeping us in the driver’s seat…Once we remove that box, it’s one less box for [developers] to click.”
Aside from keeping developers on their toes, Ray argued that the 10,000 square foot maximum will increase the town’s stock of affordable housing by forcing developers to build homes on smaller parcels.
Meanwhile, council member Stephanie Bourland insisted that the council should seek feedback from affected residents before it fiddles with the existing rule. Bourland reminded her colleagues that they’re scheduled to hold a series of three neighborhood meetings in the coming weeks in order to let the town’s residents air their concerns on any subject.
“I do think we have a great opportunity to talk members of the community,” she added. “This is a chance to reach out.”
In the end, councilman Randy Orwig suggested that the council should put a pin in its discussion about the maximum lot size and approve the rest of Oakley’s proposed amendments. The council voted 5-to-0 in favor of the recommendation.
