Elon’s town council has rezoned an irregularly-shaped parcel at University Drive’s juncture with Cook Road to allow its owner to squeeze more homes onto the property’s 1.16-acre footprint.
In a 4-to-1 decision on Tuesday, the council agreed to shift this triangular tract from a suburban residential zone to a denser, urban residential district that its owner, Brian Wagoner, had sought from the town. As part of this change, the council has also removed the parcel from a special overlay district that the town has established along much of the University Drive corridor.
A majority of the council signed off on this two-part decision despite the relatively short period of time since Wagoner had obtained the property’s previous suburban residential zoning.
According to the town’s planning staff, the landowner had secured this designation in 2022 to replace an industrial label that harked back to the tract’s previous existence as the eastern protuberance of a much larger parcel which was carved up by the construction of University Drive.
In his pitch to the council on Tuesday, Wagoner acknowledged that, in retrospect, the suburban residential, or SBR, zoning he received four years ago has turned out to be a poor fit for this oddly-shaped tract. He went on to observe that, after factoring in the suburban residential standards for buffers and setbacks, he had been left with a buildable area of less than 13,000 square feet.
“With the overlay, the buildable area is reduced to about 3,500 square feet,” he added. “Getting creative, it might fit two dwelling units, but that would still be a big ask.”
Wagoner informed the council that the conversion to urban residential use would increase the buildable area to just over 16,600 square feet. More importantly, it would lower the minimum lot size from the 10,000 square feet that generally forms the floor in a suburban residential district to the urban residential standard of 3,000 square feet.
“As you can see, the SBR with the overlay zoning is excessively burdensome,” the landowner asserted, “and this request presents an opportunity for increased density with very little impact.”
Wagoner’s arguments failed to impress Elon’s planning director Lori Oakley, who described the proposed reduction in minimum lot size as “vastly different” from what the landowner obtained in 2022. Oakley also objected to the requested increase in density as contrary to the town’s vision for this area.
“While staff recognizes the lot’s unique size, configuration, and development constraints,” she added, “the requested urban residential zoning would permit residential densities that are inconsistent with the low-density land use designation.”
Oakley ultimately advised the council to reject the landowner’s request for urban residential use. She nevertheless judged the repeal of the overlay zoning to be a reasonable concession in light of the property’s inherent challenges, and she urged the council to make this concession to Wagoner.
Oakley added that the overlay district’s removal has found favor with the town’s planning board, although she admitted its members had bucked her other recommendation and endorsed Wagoner’s request for urban residential use. She also confessed that the proposed zoning change had drawn no objections from the town of Gibsonville, whose own municipal limits begin on the other side of University Drive.
Oakley’s opposition to urban residential development found one kindred spirit on Elon’s town council in the person of mayor pro tem Monti Allison.
“I don’t always agree with staff recommendations,” Allison conceded before Tuesday’s vote. “But I agree with her on this one…and I’m of the opinion that if we remove the overlay, we accomplish what [the property owner] has asked us to do.”
The rest of the council, however, was more sympathetic to Wagnor’s plight.
“I like this proposal because it has the potential to expand housing choices,” declared councilman Michael Woods.
“We’re talking about a very unusual piece of land,” added councilman Steve Exum. “I don’t understand why we’re hesitating to approve both requests. Nobody has verbalized, in a way I can understand it, why we should be limiting him.”
“It is a very unique situation, a very odd situation,” concurred councilman Randy Orwig. “It looks to me like [Wagoner’s proposed density] is doable if somebody wants to live in that.”
In the end, Orwig, Exum, and Woods were joined by councilman Quinn Ray in the 4-to-1 vote to allow both urban residential use and extricate the property from the University Drive overlay. The lone vote of dissent came from Allison, who insisted that the overlay district’s repeal was a sufficient accommodation.
