MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.

Zoning and civil covenants are completely separate. The county can zone property whatever it wants, but the covenant still applies unless a majority (often 2/3rds) of properties subject to the covenant agree to eliminate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a R90 zone and have three nearby neighbors with ADUs. Not a problem.

This is part of the problem. An ADU is very different from a 19 unit building squeezed into the lot nextdoor.

It's close to a duplex. And 19 unit - hyperbole much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.

Zoning and civil covenants are completely separate. The county can zone property whatever it wants, but the covenant still applies unless a majority (often 2/3rds) of properties subject to the covenant agree to eliminate it.

Watch the meeting video. While Friedson notes the current limitations of county zoning, they point to state legislation in the works, where changes to handling of contract law might be made that could then allow for municipalities to do something where covenants and zoning are in conflict.

Multi-layered density push.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a R90 zone and have three nearby neighbors with ADUs. Not a problem.

This is part of the problem. An ADU is very different from a 19 unit building squeezed into the lot nextdoor.

It's close to a duplex. And 19 unit - hyperbole much?

No, 19 unit bldgs will be in play in growth corridors. Not hyperbole. This is the point I'm making. They're selling it as duplexes but the regulation will allow for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a R90 zone and have three nearby neighbors with ADUs. Not a problem.

This is part of the problem. An ADU is very different from a 19 unit building squeezed into the lot nextdoor.

It's close to a duplex. And 19 unit - hyperbole much?

No, 19 unit bldgs will be in play in growth corridors. Not hyperbole. This is the point I'm making. They're selling it as duplexes but the regulation will allow for this.

Those corridors are where larger apt buildings belong!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.

Zoning and civil covenants are completely separate. The county can zone property whatever it wants, but the covenant still applies unless a majority (often 2/3rds) of properties subject to the covenant agree to eliminate it.

Watch the meeting video. While Friedson notes the current limitations of county zoning, they point to state legislation in the works, where changes to handling of contract law might be made that could then allow for municipalities to do something where covenants and zoning are in conflict.

Multi-layered density push.

Haha that is probably not legal and it will involve a lengthy battle in state abs federal courts. Banning new covenants is probably legal, but invalidating covenants that were legal when established related to (lot subdivision, architectural standards, etc raises constitutional questions. It also will create potential legal issues about the enforceability Of conservation easements that are essential for preservation. They are opening a major Pandora’s box with unpredictable consequences by kicking this legal bees nest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.

Zoning and civil covenants are completely separate. The county can zone property whatever it wants, but the covenant still applies unless a majority (often 2/3rds) of properties subject to the covenant agree to eliminate it.

Watch the meeting video. While Friedson notes the current limitations of county zoning, they point to state legislation in the works, where changes to handling of contract law might be made that could then allow for municipalities to do something where covenants and zoning are in conflict.

Multi-layered density push.

He did not say that. In fact he said that the county can't touch contracts.

You may be confusing where he said that the new state legislation may affect municipalities. That part is true. It just isn't clear yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.

Zoning and civil covenants are completely separate. The county can zone property whatever it wants, but the covenant still applies unless a majority (often 2/3rds) of properties subject to the covenant agree to eliminate it.

Watch the meeting video. While Friedson notes the current limitations of county zoning, they point to state legislation in the works, where changes to handling of contract law might be made that could then allow for municipalities to do something where covenants and zoning are in conflict.

Multi-layered density push.

Haha that is probably not legal and it will involve a lengthy battle in state abs federal courts. Banning new covenants is probably legal, but invalidating covenants that were legal when established related to (lot subdivision, architectural standards, etc raises constitutional questions. It also will create potential legal issues about the enforceability Of conservation easements that are essential for preservation. They are opening a major Pandora’s box with unpredictable consequences by kicking this legal bees nest.

Exactly. The County could either A) fight that entire long and drawn out fight against its wealthiest residents, and everything that comes along with it, or B) just shrug it off and convert the remaining 95% of the land they're after. If you expect them to go with A, I think it would be very fun to watch how you make decisions in your day to day life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.

Zoning and civil covenants are completely separate. The county can zone property whatever it wants, but the covenant still applies unless a majority (often 2/3rds) of properties subject to the covenant agree to eliminate it.

Watch the meeting video. While Friedson notes the current limitations of county zoning, they point to state legislation in the works, where changes to handling of contract law might be made that could then allow for municipalities to do something where covenants and zoning are in conflict.

Multi-layered density push.

Haha that is probably not legal and it will involve a lengthy battle in state abs federal courts. Banning new covenants is probably legal, but invalidating covenants that were legal when established related to (lot subdivision, architectural standards, etc raises constitutional questions. It also will create potential legal issues about the enforceability Of conservation easements that are essential for preservation. They are opening a major Pandora’s box with unpredictable consequences by kicking this legal bees nest.

Friedson was clear that the County can't get involved in contract law.

If there is covenant on the property and a buyer tries to build a multi-unit, the seller can enforce contract law.
The county has no role in that and can't override it. Friedson acknowledged that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

Not necessarily. If you live next to neighborhoods that aren’t protected from this crazy policy, it could actually reduce your property values.

On one hand that is true. But demand for housing in quiet, nice neighborhoods will always be high. If this effort is successful, supply will decrease drastically.

While many wealthy people may end up leaving the county altogether, I would still bet that protected neighborhoods would be highly valued. If you're highly paid employee of a MoCo-based org, and you want a home for your family, you'll be gunning for the best of what's left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.

Zoning and civil covenants are completely separate. The county can zone property whatever it wants, but the covenant still applies unless a majority (often 2/3rds) of properties subject to the covenant agree to eliminate it.

Watch the meeting video. While Friedson notes the current limitations of county zoning, they point to state legislation in the works, where changes to handling of contract law might be made that could then allow for municipalities to do something where covenants and zoning are in conflict.

Multi-layered density push.

He did not say that. In fact he said that the county can't touch contracts.

You may be confusing where he said that the new state legislation may affect municipalities. That part is true. It just isn't clear yet.

That's what I said.

Friedson noted the county's limitations.

State legislative initiatives might seek to change that.

Not sure how you read that differently or why you saw the need to write that as a counter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

Not necessarily. If you live next to neighborhoods that aren’t protected from this crazy policy, it could actually reduce your property values.

On one hand that is true. But demand for housing in quiet, nice neighborhoods will always be high. If this effort is successful, supply will decrease drastically.

While many wealthy people may end up leaving the county altogether, I would still bet that protected neighborhoods would be highly valued. If you're highly paid employee of a MoCo-based org, and you want a home for your family, you'll be gunning for the best of what's left.

DP. Soooo...too bad/so sad for the large number of detached SFH residents who don't live in a neighborhood with protective covenants? Those close to the top not only get a pass, but make out with more than they had before?

Sounds like a greeaaat policy, there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a R90 zone and have three nearby neighbors with ADUs. Not a problem.

This is part of the problem. An ADU is very different from a 19 unit building squeezed into the lot nextdoor.

It's close to a duplex. And 19 unit - hyperbole much?

No, 19 unit bldgs will be in play in growth corridors. Not hyperbole. This is the point I'm making. They're selling it as duplexes but the regulation will allow for this.

Those corridors are where larger apt buildings belong!

Within a quarter mile of Metro is where they might belong. All along a BRT corridor, rather than clustered, is asking for a ton of turning car traffic from residents of those apartments. That wouldn't be great for any of the vehicular traffic, BRT or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.

Zoning and civil covenants are completely separate. The county can zone property whatever it wants, but the covenant still applies unless a majority (often 2/3rds) of properties subject to the covenant agree to eliminate it.

Watch the meeting video. While Friedson notes the current limitations of county zoning, they point to state legislation in the works, where changes to handling of contract law might be made that could then allow for municipalities to do something where covenants and zoning are in conflict.

Multi-layered density push.

He did not say that. In fact he said that the county can't touch contracts.

You may be confusing where he said that the new state legislation may affect municipalities. That part is true. It just isn't clear yet.

That's what I said.

Friedson noted the county's limitations.

State legislative initiatives might seek to change that.

Not sure how you read that differently or why you saw the need to write that as a counter.

I indeed misread your post. Not enough coffee yet. Apologies.

[Anonymous]

An interesting take in which a building restriction is placed by a home seller, helping protect their neighbors and community from these developments. This ensures nothing but a single family home is built.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1212773.page