The Most Unlikely Housing Comeback in the Triangle
Carrboro and Chapel Hill are beginning to reverse decades of anti-growth policy, with zoning reforms that could reshape southern Orange County.
There are parts of the Triangle that are, by all accounts, known for their dynamism and growth. From large towns like Morrisville and Apex to small ones like Pittsboro and Wendell, these places have embraced a future in which their communities will be much larger, in terms of population and even geography, than they are today.
And then there are communities like Carrboro and Chapel Hill, which long ago decided that they’ve had enough change. With backing from anti-growth activists, elected officials in both towns worked with Orange County to set a growth boundary (which they call the “rural buffer”) in the 1980s, with the promise that the communities would continue to build all the housing they needed. Unsurprisingly, those same anti-growth activists then worked to block almost all new housing proposed in the towns.
Since that time, change in Chapel Hill and Carrboro has largely followed the same script. A developer proposes a project, anti-growth activists seek to block it, and the council decides its fate. This is the story for projects big and small, which is one reason why new construction (especially in Chapel Hill) looks like it was built without much thought to planning. This dynamic is also a major contributor to Chapel Hill’s high housing costs (the median home cost is $620k), particularly when compared to its neighbors ($394k in Durham, $427k in Raleigh).
But this pattern is about to change. Carrboro and Chapel Hill are poised to improve how growth happens in southern Orange County. For the first time in two generations, their councils are embracing zoning reforms that will make it possible to build small infill housing, not just McMansions or five-over-one podium apartment buildings. Here’s what to watch for in 2026.
Carrboro wants to grow. For real.
Since its adoption of a pro-growth comprehensive plan in 2022, Carrboro has been hard at work on implementation, including a complete rewrite of its unified development ordinance (UDO) that’s currently underway. Normally we’d expect Carrboro to follow Chapel Hill’s lead and take a decade (or more) to implement its plan, but there are three reasons to be optimistic about the current progress:
Carrboro’s town council supports growth. In 2023, pro-growth candidates defeated those who were more skeptical of policies to increase housing. In 2025, the last remaining member of the old guard, Randee Haven O’Donnell, declined to run again. The three candidates running for election, along with the mayor, all spoke in favor of implementing the 2022 comprehensive plan.
Carrboro recently hired a new planning director, John Fussa, who has experience planning in communities that want to accommodate more housing and more neighbors.
Finally, the new Carrboro town council showed that it means to carry out its comprehensive plan when it voted in November to adopt the Carrboro Downtown Area Plan. The downtown area plan thinks expansively, incorporating nearby neighborhoods that will eventually become part of downtown, and imagining taller buildings of varying sizes throughout the space. The plan supports a future Carrboro that will be more vibrant and accessible than it is today.
Carrboro’s town council will continue to discuss its zoning code rewrite throughout the year, although it’s unclear when they plan to take a vote. But in all likelihood, the current council will adopt the new zoning code, a significant upgrade from what we have now.
Chapel Hill is inching toward real change
If Carrboro has been sleepy for decades, Chapel Hill has been growing in fits and starts due to its process-first approach to housing. The town spent most of the 2010s fighting about its future. In 2014, a pro-growth mayor passed a form-based code, but it only applied to the area now known as “Blue Hill.” That small section of town has added more than 2,000 homes since, which is almost one tenth of all the housing that currently exists in Chapel Hill. Despite this success, “Blue Hill” helped bring about an anti-growth backlash that halted any further attempts to update the town’s zoning code.
Until now. Starting in 2021, pro-growth council members began winning seats and building a fragile majority committed to reform. That same year, town staff commenced what became a five year effort to rewrite Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). After hitting a snag with consultants, staff started the process over last January, but promised it would only add an extra six months to the timeline.
Meanwhile, staff presented (on council’s request) a series of text amendments that are expected to make it dramatically easier to build infill housing in Chapel Hill if passed. Among other things, the text amendments will:
Eliminate the requirement that developers present “concept plans” before they bring a project to council
Eliminate parking minimums townwide
Change subdivision rules to make it easier to build small homes on small lots
Reduce lot sizes and set backs across most zoning districts
Legalize zero-frontage and flag lots
Legalize shared driveways
Change rules to encourage the construction of ADUs and duplexes townwide, including the elimination of floor area ratio restrictions for duplexes.
This package of text amendments was not adopted when it came up for a vote in November. In part, this was due to the fact that Karen Stegman, a pro-housing council member, resigned in June, leaving just four reliable pro-housing votes on the council (five votes were needed to pass the amendments). Ordinarily, council holds a work session in advance of votes of this magnitude, but this didn’t happen, which meant that council did not have an opportunity to discuss the proposal in detail.
At the November 21 meeting, council member Amy Ryan proposed a series of amendments to the amendments, most of which aimed to scale back the original reform package. For example, Ryan proposed an amendment that would make concept plan reviews optional, rather than eliminating them entirely. Other council members argued that this optional process would become a de facto requirement, particularly if council rejected a proposal that did not go through concept plan review. The council deadlocked on Ryan’s amendment, after which she suggested that the entire package might fail that night.
From there, council members debated Ryan’s other amendments, discussing topics such as the optimal size of duplexes and the ideal number and location of off-street parking spaces. At the end of the night, the reform package failed, which pushed the vote to January, when two new members (both more favorable to housing) would join the council. Soon after the November meeting, council member Theodore Nollert said he planned to propose an amendment to legalize triplexes and quadplexes in the town.
At a work session on January 7, the new council expressed support for retaining several elements of the staff proposal that had been on the brink of elimination in November. For example, council members gave support to the elimination of concept plans, and the retention of the 5,000 square foot maximum for duplexes. Ryan had proposed dropping the maximum to 3,600 square feet, a slight increase from the current 2,500 square foot max that has proven insufficient to attract new builds.
Throughout the meeting, council discussed many of the age-old issues that impact Chapel Hill: the high cost of housing, the presence of students, and the trouble with parking. But two new voices, council members Louie Rivers and Wes McMahon, made the conversation more convivial than it had been in the past.
Town staff noted that Nollert’s proposal to legalize triplexes and quadplexes would need to go through a new process, which would take several months. Staff also suggested that they will soon begin the adoption process for their LUMO zoning code rewrite, with a vote coming as early as June.
In either case, we hope that the council continues to push for reform. For example, legalizing single-room occupancy apartments (basically dorms for adults) would help people who need safe and small housing near campus. Likewise, the council could look at removing obstacles to building townhomes. To top it all off, we’d love to see council members host a design competition to encourage homeowners and builders to take advantage of the town’s new rules. If you have ideas for the council, or just want to encourage them to pass the text amendments, please write to them here.
Will Chapel Hill and Carrboro lead the way on better zoning?
For decades, our highest growth communities have also been the ones furthest from services and jobs. Suburban sprawl is subsidized in a thousand ways, and our zoning and building codes encourage it. Infill is more complex than single-family housing (technically, politically, and economically), but much more important, as it makes our communities sustainable and resilient.
While Chapel Hill and Carrboro were once poster children for the anti-growth agenda, we’re beginning to witness a change. From accessory dwelling units and duplexes to cottage courts and small apartment buildings, southern Orange County is set to see a renaissance of new building types, all thanks to councils that can see a future more prosperous, diverse, and exciting than the present.
Our pro-housing councilors shouldn’t be afraid to take the actions they know are needed to secure more homes in our communities. In turn, those same pro-housing council members need support from their constituents and neighbors who understand the benefits of more housing. Not just on election day, but in their inboxes and at those long council meetings in which they’re envisioning what their communities could look like decades from now. Chapel Hill and Carrboro are closer than they’ve ever been to realizing a future in which housing is plentiful. It’s up to us to make sure that our elected officials know just how important it is to build a place for everyone.
Martin Johnson is a housing advocate based in Chapel Hill. This is his first column for CITYBUILDER.
 | A guest post by
|