Reply to MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It is too long post. Where are they building? [/quote]

[b]They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. [/b]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.  [/quote]

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

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics