Submitted by DaddyBobMN t3_119x7rv in vermont
Glad-Palpitation292 t1_j9qguv1 wrote
Reply to comment by Azr431 in Senate panel advances major housing bill, overhauling municipal zoning and Act 250 by DaddyBobMN
They should eliminate 5 and 10 acre zoning, as well.
kellogsmalone t1_ja2u3zv wrote
Tell me about this zoning.
Glad-Palpitation292 t1_ja2x6cs wrote
What, five and ten acre zoning? It's a type of zoning district that only allows one house on each 5 or 10 acre parcel, respectively. If you want country roads lined with million dollar "rustic modern" post and beam houses (you know, the ones built to look like old farmhouses connected to a barn, so they put red siding on the attached three car garage) and that are owned by people from other states, it's the best way to do it. By setting the acreage requirements so high, it eliminates entry level houses, because the lots themselves go for $150,000 before you've broken ground for a foundation.
It's also really inefficient from a tax perspective. First, because the houses are fewer and further between, there is a smaller tax base, even though individual houses are more valuable. Second, even while 5 and 10 acre zoned houses are highly dispersed, their owners still need municipal services, which take more effort to provide and are therefore more expensive.
There's also the Current Use program to discuss, which is its own huge problem for affordability. But you asked about zoning.
kellogsmalone t1_ja31wo5 wrote
Good to know. I personally would love to rehab an actual farmhouse with 5-10 acres but I assume that would be a bit different than what you described. I actually want to homestead and have some livestock. This zoning sound more like these pseudo mcmansion style developments that seem rural because they're sparsely distributed given the acreage but sure look like subdivisions.
Glad-Palpitation292 t1_ja3e6yj wrote
Correct.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments