Over the past two months, I’ve argued that the traditional single family standalone starter home is no longer economically viable for builders; I then suggested pocket neighborhoods as one promising way to bring an attainable access point back to homeownership for younger buyers and seniors looking to downsize within their community. Having identified a problem, and offered a possible solution, how might we facilitate making these neighborhoods possible?
At least part of that answer comes by changing the local rulebook. Zoning laws of today were written to meet the housing landscape of the 80’s, 90’s, and early 00’s. What we need, instead, is a set of zoning rules today that meets, not yesterday’s but tomorrow’s, housing needs. In this community, that need is more attainable workforce housing for young people and families.
I believe every local government should consider adding an Innovative Housing Chapter to its Unified Development Ordinance. This would be a section specifically designed to encourage the kinds of neighborhoods our communities need today, not the ones our regulations were written for forty years ago.
Our zoning and subdivision ordinances have served us well, but they were largely written for a different housing market. They assumed inexpensive land, larger households, sprawling subdivisions, and a plentiful supply of starter homes. Today’s reality is dramatically different. Young families struggle to buy their first home, employers cannot hire within the community, and seniors no longer have the option of affordable downsizing in their own community. Yet our development regulations often make these solutions more difficult rather than easier to build.
An Innovative Housing Chapter would not replace traditional zoning. It would create an alternative path for projects that demonstrably advance important public goals. Rather than regulating solely by lot size and setbacks, it would reward thoughtful design, attainable housing, environmental stewardship, and efficient infrastructure.
Imagine a neighborhood where smaller homes are clustered around a shared green instead of separated by oversized yards, front facing streets, and double wide driveways. This is what we’ve known, but also what we will need to move away from if we hope to house our next generation of citizens. The playbook for alternative designs exists. Cottage courts, pocket neighborhoods, cohousing communities, mixed-income developments, inter-generational developments, or the adaptive reuse of aging commercial properties into housing are being accommodated in communities across the country. Many of these communities have adopted ordinance provisions that specifically encourage these development patterns because they increase housing supply while preserving neighborhood character and strengthening social connection.
In these Innovative Housing Chapters, projects meeting clearly defined standards could qualify for a more predictable review process and targeted regulatory flexibility. An Innovative Housing Chapter might offer administrative approval, reduced setbacks, modified lot dimensions, density incentives, flexible parking requirements, or alternative street standards for developments that incorporate meaningful percentages of attainable housing, preserve open space, encourage walkability, or reduce long-term infrastructure costs. The standards would remain objective, transparent, and enforceable. The incentive would simply recognize that these projects are advancing community priorities and should receive community preference.
This idea is not occurring in a vacuum. The bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act reflects a growing national recognition that local regulations can unintentionally limit housing production. Rather than dictating zoning decisions, Congress has encouraged communities to modernize outdated development standards, streamline approvals, and remove unnecessary barriers to innovative housing. Local governments are increasingly being encouraged to ask whether today’s regulations still produce yesterday’s intended benefits.
That same question applies to many of the individual requirements within our ordinances. Fire access standards, parking requirements, minimum lot sizes, and street design requirements all exist for legitimate reasons. Yet every regulation should periodically face a simple test: If we were writing this rule today, with today’s technology, construction methods, and housing needs, would we write it the same way? If the answer is no, responsible government should be willing to adapt.
Our goal should be regulatory modernization that facilitates solutions to modern societal problems. Municipalities in Haywood County show limited interest in this approach. Waynesville, for instance, does define a cottage court, but doesn’t incentivize their construction. Every generation updates its infrastructure, technology, and public institutions. Our development ordinances deserve the same attention. If we want to build neighborhoods where teachers, nurses, tradespeople, young families, and retirees can all find a place to live, we must reconsider whether yesterday’s zoning meaningfully advancing the public interest or stymying our best efforts.
