In the face of more criticism than I think they expected, the Boulder County Commissioners hedged last night on their stance regarding the limits on home sizes. I believe they still want to implement the plan as stated (4000/2600 sq ft limits on plains/mountains homes) but they're providing "nothing is set in stone " platitudes while they regroup their messaging.
From the Camera: "I worry a lot about what rural Boulder County will look like in five years or more, when modest houses are scraped for larger ones," said Commissioner Ben Pearlman. "We're at a crossroads now."
Ironically, they will allow the loophole of being able to pay your way towards a larger house by purchasing development rights to preserve agricultural or rural land elsewhere in the county. Then, only the wealthiest of the wealthy will move to Boulder County and buy their way towards the large home they want. That is the true trade-off the Commissioners must be willing to accept - fewer homes in total - and huge ones at that - who become a side source of revenue for open space. What a millionaire's playground Boulder County will become (even more so). One more way to make Boulder County land more exclusive - and it can't be lost on people how that helps current homeowner's property values.
Check out the related quandary of the Commissioners: how to legally delay an approved 6000 sq ft house for Karen Bernardi because a floodplain study due next year may render her property un-developable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
This sounds like the luxury tax policy major league baseball has. If a team exceeds its salary cap, it pays a luxury tax. Just like the Yankees are doing this year.
A nice windfall for the county.
But it certainly would increase the prices of current housing over 4000 square fee. A nice windfall for those owners too.
Read that Karen bernardi paid $780,000 for the land alone. Then engineering, architect fees, etc..
Wonder what the property will be worth if deemed unbuildable?
As a non real estate agent to a Realtor here is a free tip. Next time make your contract subject to the succesful issuance of a building permit.
Looking at the aerial photos of that street, I wonder haw many other current homes will soon be in the floodplain? How would it work, for insurance purposes, if you build a home outside of old floodplain zones, but get moved into the floodplain after a more accurate floodplain mapping project? In reality, you've always been in a floodplain, of some sort, does this mean flood insurance is no good for you now? I noticed they moved a house out of the floodplain of Boulder Creek last year, although I think they just wanted to straighten the trail out, since it had to snake around it.
Bernardi's property is already in the floodplain. The issue is that new study shows the proposed house footprint in the floodway. That's insane.
Even if the Bernardi plan is allowed to slip through the cracks based on the old study still in effect, and the house gets built, any future buyer (with competent due diligence and representation) is going to get red flags looking at a home in the floodway.
To answer Cyclorado's question, floods are a common exclusion from homeowner policies. Most people do not acquire flood insurance unless they are IN a floodplain, and one of the only places to acquire this coverage is through the federal government. I do believe there might be a difference in the availability - and if not availability, a vast difference in the going rate - for coverage in the floodway versus the floodplain.
Development in floodplains, period, is a bad idea. But that's another topic...
I understand what you are saying about them being in the floodplain in reality, but usually the only thing that is looked at are the floodplain maps. The FEMA FIRM maps are terrible. I have used them all over the country on mapping projects, and they are OK in some places but never good. I would have to agree that building in a floodplain is a terrible idea. In fact a large buffer of the floodplain is also a good idea.
I've seen preliminary floodplain data for Boulder and it looks much better. But shouldn't the commissioners go with best current practices, instead of waiting for possible future data that may or may not prove this? I usually wouldn't argue this point, but the only thing that is in danger here is the person who wants to live at the mouth of a canyon that has the potential for a massive flash flood. The neighbors who are complaining should check the placement of their houses, also.
I think we're agreeing here.
That said, the difference between floodplain and floodway might be the significance I'm seeing that I haven't explained very well. Floodplain fills up with water in a flood (the 100-year flood under typical regulation, to get technical), and there are benefits to preserving it without urban development and impacts if it is developed. Floodway is the part of the floodplain that floods first and most frequently and is responsible for conveying high energy flows.
Model FEMA regulation allows development in floodplain but not floodway because of the difference in impact. Without getting into the many benefits (including flood control) of preserving the flood fringe, development outside the floodway can be readily floodproofed with competent engineering. Development in the floodway is prone to washing out, with the higher velocities and volumes of water involved.
So Bernardi's septic field could end up in South Boulder Creek backyards for all I know. That AND the kitchen sink.
The crux of the situation the Commissioner's are facing is their ability to apply new standards (the new map) retroactively to an application they'd already received. I think the initial reaction from the planning department was that this couldn't be done, but maybe the immediate public safety aspect has allowed a second take on that question. But I'm just guessing - need to catch up on my reading...
DC:
Lew Harstead, the Bernardis' attorney, told the commissioners Tuesday that two engineering firms determined in 2005 that the Bernardis' property is out of the floodway and that the county's floodplain manager, David Webster, approved those findings.
???
Floodpalin/floodway modeling is ulitmately a statistical exercise with many possible shades of accuracy depending on the accuracy of the input.
Whether or not the Bernardi property is in the regulatory floodway, the point is it's awfully close to the line between occupying a small footprint in a flooded area or blocking a significant cross-section in a flood conveyance.
It's an interesting juxtaposition of this floodplain issue, where the Commissioners have a pretty clear impact but little room for manuevering (based on existing regulation), and the house size issue, where the impact is fuzzy but the regulations as proposed would draw a very bright line.
What an embarrassment for the self proclaimed Boulders' best real estate agent. Did you receive the sellers' property disclosure statement? Did it not state that the property is in the flood zone?
Was your contract subject to building and zoning approval? If not, why?
I looked at that land 5 years ago when it was on the market? One phone call to the county is all I had to do to take a pass. But I am not a successful real estate agent...just an average Joe
My attorney friends say she can take the County to court and clean up right now, punitive damages and all. Should be interesting to watch.
no windfall here...caveat emptor prevails
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Post a Comment