How did “Blue Hill” and the market-rate apartment frenzy begin?

Speaking at a Chapel Hill Economic Development meeting sometime around 2012, Roger Perry, president of a prominent Chapel Hill development firm, expressed to Town officials that it was just too hard to develop in Chapel Hill. Out of this discussion, the idea of using Form-Based Code (FBC) to streamline development approvals was born. Mr. Perry’s firm, East West Partners, would be the first to apply to develop under this new zoning structure in 2014.

It was also the first to be approved. The Alexan (now known as the Berkshire) would not be subject to review by the town council. Needing only approval by the Town manager, ground was broken shortly after; no resident input, Council review, or negotiations required. The project included no mandate for affordable housing, and Roger Perry’s son Ben sold it for $72 million before the structure was fully rented.

Designed to improve consistency and efficiency in the development process, form-based code is a planning tool that, like any other, can be wielded either well or poorly.

FBC is an increasingly popular approach to zoning. Designed to improve consistency and efficiency in the development process, FBC is a planning tool that, like any other, can be wielded either well or poorly. Many municipal governments have used FBC to create positive, lasting changes in their communities. The process works well when all parties with a stake in a town- officials, developers, and residents- create the new code collaboratively, and when the community’s values and desires are woven into the requirements. In its most ideal form, the creation of FBC begins with conversations between town officials and residents. Town officials, in turn, shape the new code to reflect what residents need.

However, when the Council hired a consultant to write FBC rules for the 30-acre area encompassing 3 aging shopping centers (Eastgate, Village Plaza/Whole Foods, and Rams Plaza/Food Lion), the guidelines the Town provided were far removed from the input that the town sought and that the public had given. 

Roger Perry got what he wanted in the Code. By now, the Berkshire’s basic form has been replicated numerous times in “Blue Hill” Chapel Hill. Town leaders told the public they sought vibrancy and interesting urban forms. Unfortunately, what we got was a fast-track Code with abundant “build-whatever-the-developer-wants” features, no affordable housing, questionable environmental protections, flooding, parking concentrated on our transit corridors, and sterile, lifeless structures. 

Developing using form-based code can succeed; this, however, is completely dependent on town officials to ensure the Code reflects the values and needs of the community.

No town council since has chosen to make meaningful change in the Blue Hill FBC. Unsurprisingly, the Town is not getting the affordable housing it needs in that area. Developing using FBC can succeed; this, however, is completely dependent on town officials to ensure the Code reflects the values and needs of the community. While the current FBC remains unchanged, our town council continues to relinquish the power it has to create the housing that Chapel Hill desperately needs. With no public hearings or options for town officials to negotiate for community needs, our current FBC achieves more flexibility and profitability for developers but delivers little to the community in return. 

Where are we now? Housing report gets attention.

”Flying blind” – Rod Stevens turned  the spotlight on  the town’s planning failures with his recent report on housing development over the last decade. Access his report (Chapel Hill Housing Needs Analysis 2020 – 2040) to see his presentation to Council. His analysis clearly indicates that we need more housing- but that we aren’t building the kind of housing that we need. 

Yet our Council continues to approve the same “wrong” types of housing. Even more harmful, according to Stevens’ analysis, is that Council makes housing development decisions without an overall strategy- one that considers the type and price of housing needed, and how the Town will provide required infrastructure–transportation, safety for pedestrians, retain tree canopy, equitable and accessible public green space, and measures to mitigate climate change.

Blue Hill is symptomatic of the gap between the town’s stated commitments and Chapel Hill’s planning problems. For more than a decade, Town staff has pushed for housing density along major corridors with the idea that ultimately our free transit system will be expanded to meet the transportation needs of these new residents and thus reduce private vehicle usage (ironically, while building huge parking garages with each development). However, in the real world, we’ve discovered our town struggles to retain bus drivers, much less expand service. Even more serious is the cloudy future of the North-South Bus Rapid Transit system we’ve counted on, which may always fall short of required funding until the majority political party changes in the General Assembly.

While the current form-based code remains unchanged, our town council continues to relinquish the power it has to create the housing that Chapel Hill desperately needs.

Despite a few long planning exercises with substantial resident input, including the recent Future Land Use Map (FLUM), this process has continued to build density along main corridors- but, critically, without specifying amount and type. The FLUM also neglected putting in place requirements for community amenities that would keep our town livable and green for future residents and failed to adequately consider the impact of stormwater runoff.

Our Town council has taken steps in the right direction by hiring experts in housing and planning as consultants. Now it’s time to put their recommendations into practice and build affordable, livable communities for all Chapel Hill residents, current and future.