They have expanded the scope of this proposal and are actually now discussing eliminating single family zoning for the entire county through a zoning text amendment. Even allowing plex units in the agricultural and residential conservation areas. |
Who is making money off this and who is pushing this through at such a slam dunk pace? |
Means a density that does not fit with the infrastructure capacity of the community or creates a significant burden on nearby properties. Eg. A 50ft tall 19 unit apartment building, with insufficient setbacks that significantly reduce the sunlight to an adjacent property and creates basement flooding due to increase impervious surfaces and run off. If this development creates a significant impact on the existing neighbors use of the adjacent single story bungalow, it is incompatible. |
In this situation, maybe a small townhouse community two story units and sufficient parking would have a minimal impact on neighbors, but a 19 unit apartment complex would create a significant impairment on the neighbors use and enjoyment of their own property. There needs to be balance because unchecked development can impose significant costs on neighboring property owners and they do not get compensation for the losses they incur. |
Since when does a building have a right to not be shaded by an adjacent building? If a building causes basement flooding in an adjacent building, that's not incompatibility, that's grounds for a civil suit for damages. |
Can you point to where they said this? The document itself says that they will be retained. I haven't been able to find a recording of the meeting yesterday, but I'm willing to watch all of it to find this statement. I'm skeptical. |
Link, please? In any case, it would be EXCLUSIVELY single family zoning. Single family housing would still be allowed. I am not very worried about people building a duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes on 25 acre lots on well and septic in the Ag Reserve. |
No, it doesn't. It would allow property owners to build duplexes, but that doesn't mean anyone would actually build a duplex. Also what is this, the one-drop rule for single-family neighborhoods? A neighborhood with 99 uniplexes and one duplex is no longer a single-family neighborhood? |
Access to sunlight is very important for both physical and mental health. You are basically saying that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want regardless if of how much it harms anyone else. Under your logic, people should people to turn their neighbors house into a practically windowless basement because people have absolute property rights. |
My understanding is that the HOAs and covenants will be overridden. This is one part that is clearly very unclear. |
If moving into a SFH-zoned neighborhood, people had a reasonable expectation that a new development would not entirely block their sun like this. People's homes for the most part are their single largest investment. |
They will not be retained, multiple locations in the report suggest otherwise. Page 4 of the report Development Standards: The Planning Board recommends a series of development standards for small scale attainable housing that generally follows the development standards for detached houses. The Board further recommends that: o Substandard-sized lots that currently allow single-family detached homes should not have restrictions placed on them prohibiting duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes. This means they will waive setbacks and lot coverage requirements for undersized lots. The r200 zoning district has 72% undersized lots, so setbacks will no longer apply to most properties if they build plex units. They are suggesting that the development standards won't apply if it prevents people from constructing a multiplex unit. |
The County Council is not proposing to change the zoning code to "do whatever the hell you want." If people had an expectation that the zoning code would never change, then that was not a reasonable expectation. As for blocking the sun, I don't know if you've noticed, but we're having a heat wave. The climate is warming. Shade is a good thing, not a bad thing. |
Yes that are basically doing that, through proposing a dozens of different changes to zoning and development standards that will collectively erode any reasonable limitations to ensure environmental sustainability, sufficient infrastructure capacity and school capacity. People ate not expecting zoning to never change, but this is not a minor change to zoning standards. This is a significant change that will boost the allowable density of many areas by 4-8x+ depending on the location. |
So your rebuttal to this concern is that who care about having natural light because ... climate change. That is the most ridiculous YIMBY response to community concerns I have seen in a while. |