My earlier comment about the County Commissioners perhaps reconsidering the 4000/2600 sq ft limit on plains/mountains homes is questionable based on the editorial they wrote for the Camera today.
They say "What we are trying to do is create a balanced program that mitigates the impacts of large structures without setting an absolute size limit," yet they also say "...while there would be no ultimate "cap" or limit to structure size ... a property owner who wants to build above a certain threshold would be required to purchase Development Rights or Credits in order to offset the larger scale of that development."
So what isn't articulated yet is the threshold sq. footage that would trigger a TDR purchase - which is a de facto limitation except for more wealthy homebuilders. They can buy their way out of a limitation that ostensibly is about reducing the carbon emission impact of larger homes. But if the larger home/pollution concern were truly defensible, they would champion the limitation all the way to court. But there are building technologies that address the size/pollution concerns. Hence the BuildSmart program they describe.
Because this loophole will exist, I feel the political decision to avoid a frontal assault on property rights ends up instead creating a rule that is actually about the subjective notion of "rural character" and appropriately-sized residential development.
The Commissioners say: "More and more of the new homes in Boulder County are far larger than existing homes; in many cases existing modest-sized homes are being scraped off and replaced by much larger structures. One of the main goals for the proposed TDR program is to sustain the rural character of Boulder County and to help preserve a diversity of housing stock, encouraging the preservation of smaller homes and mountain cabins while allowing for larger homes on parcels where that scale of development is appropriate."
The premise to this statement is that there is some kind of baseline design or size for homes in Boulder County that is the absolute standard. As if the homes built between (throw a dart at a stack of calendars) 1958 and 1975 demonstrate the "appropriate rural home" to be compared against today.
At one point people lived here in tents. Then cabins. Then various types of farmhouses and ranch homes. There is a never-ending evolution of home styles built in the manner the landowner desired - all with an unquestioned presumption that you could build what you wanted on your land. Who cares if the average home size in, say, 1987 was X sq feet? What does that have to do with the home I want to build today?
Well, we're more aware of aggregate pollution impacts on the global environment. Okay, I buy that premise. But that's where the efficient design standards come in. If you're building a home today it is more likely the materials far exceed the efficiency of homes 10+ years older. The County can press for further efficiency standards with the pursuit of carbon emission reductions with a straight face. People not liking it can buy and build in 100 other counties around the west.
Implementing a TDR purchase requirement then is about the subjective decision that a certain size is simply "too big", efficient design or not. That's my concern. Sure, I can look at homes and figure it's outrageous and who needs a house that big? But that's not my decision to make on them, outside of warranting efficient design. It is a property rights value that is deeply American. I believe the Commissioners figure that somehow a certain size is just too big. And they know what that is. (But you can buy your way out of the limit? What?!)
If Commissioners and public officials thought the same thing back in the 1860s as they're proposing now we'd all be living in tents and cabins. I know, I know, that's a stretch. My point is that homeowners of today feeling that a large house violates some kind of "rural character" have presumed a random year's average home size as "appropriate." Well, I don't buy it. Change happens. Be happy the Commissioners at least care about the efficiency aspects, the truly worthwhile concern.
Read the Commissioners' opinion here.
Read the proposals in layman's terms in the Boulder County Bunsiness Report.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dan, I'm trying to make sense out of all of this but......
Ron Stewart explained to me that TDRS was to "force" development to cluster in cities or towns leaving major open space between them.
This seems like an open space program to me.
Besides, anyone building that size house today would be taking advantage of tax credits. If the county really has energy conservation in mind, it should be pushing programs like this:
From the Energy Tax Incentive Act of 2005 -- Personal Energy Credits for Non-business Use
1313. Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit. A tax credit is available to individuals for the installation of nonbusiness energy property, such as residential exterior doors and windows, insulation, heat pumps, furnaces, central air conditioners and water heaters (Code Sec. 25C, as added by the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58)). The credit is equal to the taxpayer’s: (1) residential energy property expenditures plus (2) 10 percent of the cost of qualified energy efficiency improvements. The credit is limited to a lifetime maximum of $500 and no more than: $200 of the credit can be based on expenditures for windows; $50 of the credit on any advanced main air circulating fans; $150 of the credit on any qualified natural gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler, and $300 of the credit on any item of energy-efficient building property. The credit applies to qualified energy efficiency improvements and qualified energy property placed in service in 2006 and 2007. The property must be installed in, or on a dwelling unit in the United States that is owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer’s principal residence and originally placed in service by the taxpayer. Residential, energy property expenditures (heat pumps, furnaces, central air conditioners and water heaters) may include labor costs.
If sustainability is the main objective, Pitkin County (Aspen) has recently adopted some interesting regulations. Homes over 5K sf have to provide onsite renewable energy or pay fees, the bigger the home, the larger the fees.
Or, something similar - if a homeowner can prove that their 5K, 6K, or whatever, square foot home is as energy efficient as existing 4,000 sf homes, they could mitigate impact fees. To do this, the county would have to publish the average greenhouse emissions of a 4,000 sf home.
If a builder can build an 8,000 sf home that's as energy efficient as a 4,000 sf home, what's the harm?
To arbitrarily limit home sizes, or to simply allow a homeowner to pay fees to build bigger doesn't address sustainability.
Post a Comment