|
Post by burnerbill on Feb 20, 2014 15:51:13 GMT -4
bchevy.. As I mentioned in my last post in response to falgar, this is a contentious topic. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground. If we are to wait for a "perfect" solution, that certainly won't happen. Personally, I believe most do want to see this septic issue in SKI resolved in some fashion. The sticking points are costs to the existing homeowners and how much build-out is allowed. Regardless, we all know there are folks who own lots in these communities that have been waiting a long time to build the home they've been wanting here on KI. Everyone who lives down there knows about these lots, and, for the life of me, I do not understand how some feel these lot owners have no right to have an expectation to build eventually. What happened in AA county is what happened in AA county. To the best of my knowledge, perc rules went into effect in this county sometime late 70's early 80's. The folks purchased before then could have built. of course, they would have the same issues as other homes down SKI, the lot still cannot hold water. The folks who purchased after perc rules went into effect had no illusions as to state of their lot not holding water and not being able to build for lack of septic. No one was ever promised sewer. It may have been "projected" but never promised. (projected by the same folks who testify they can control growth) That was a risk those buyers were willing to take, and it did not pay off for them - yet. And now with this new ordnance to combine lots, well, that is stripping them of their rights too, isn't it? They bought a LOT thinking it may one day be buildable, but if this passes, they still cant build and their rights have been stripped in the process of trying to give them rights. What happened in Mayo is the same thing that happened in Cloverfields, the county learned it cannot pick and choose who gets the building permits afterall and growth wins. They may have "testified" they can control growth but in reality, they cannot, as you state above, those lot owners have rights too. I agree a middle ground needs to be found. Lainey.... First, the issue of why this matter has gotten to this point. From what I understand, QAC received an exception to the state requirements regarding how a septic field can be constructed. Specifically, one requirement is the ground water as measured from the bottom of the effluent trenches for a field had to be at least 4 feet below at high water season. QAC got approval for a 2 ft. exception. This was way back in the 60's and 70's I think. Then it hit the fan. Now, you have QAC failing fields if there is evidence of ground water within 2 ft. of the surface. Hence the "holding tank" requirements now in effect since 4/2013. Secondly, at many of the hearings on this topic, there were many comments made to the effect the county was "promising" folks the sewer would come. There were many lot owners who testified they were told they will be able to build when the sewer line was run. The plant up at Terrapin Park was expanded with 500,000 GPD set aside specifically for the SKI sewer extension. Additionally, I was at a meeting at which it was mentioned the sewer project for SKI was actually on the books to happen sometime in the late 90's? I am not certain. I am certain bchevy or someone else who has been around a lot longer than I may know. It was then pulled off the table.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 20, 2014 17:23:08 GMT -4
bchevy.. As I mentioned in my last post in response to falgar, this is a contentious topic. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground. If we are to wait for a "perfect" solution, that certainly won't happen. Personally, I believe most do want to see this septic issue in SKI resolved in some fashion. The sticking points are costs to the existing homeowners and how much build-out is allowed. Regardless, we all know there are folks who own lots in these communities that have been waiting a long time to build the home they've been wanting here on KI. Everyone who lives down there knows about these lots, and, for the life of me, I do not understand how some feel these lot owners have no right to have an expectation to build eventually. What happened in AA county is what happened in AA county. To the best of my knowledge, perc rules went into effect in this county sometime late 70's early 80's. The folks purchased before then could have built. of course, they would have the same issues as other homes down SKI, the lot still cannot hold water. The folks who purchased after perc rules went into effect had no illusions as to state of their lot not holding water and not being able to build for lack of septic. No one was ever promised sewer. It may have been "projected" but never promised. (projected by the same folks who testify they can control growth) That was a risk those buyers were willing to take, and it did not pay off for them - yet. And now with this new ordnance to combine lots, well, that is stripping them of their rights too, isn't it? They bought a LOT thinking it may one day be buildable, but if this passes, they still cant build and their rights have been stripped in the process of trying to give them rights. What happened in Mayo is the same thing that happened in Cloverfields, the county learned it cannot pick and choose who gets the building permits afterall and growth wins. They may have "testified" they can control growth but in reality, they cannot, as you state above, those lot owners have rights too. I agree a middle ground needs to be found. Lainey, Just curious what your version of middle ground is?? Also, not saying it is right or will hold up in court but not allowing someone to build at all vs forcing someone to combine two lots but still allowing them to build is different. Not sure what happened in Mayo but I am going to find out.
|
|
|
Post by lainey on Feb 20, 2014 17:44:25 GMT -4
Exactly my point, folks will "testify" to darn near anything. I have lived here for 39 years, before the first sewer ever came to QAC and even today, no one can actually promise SKI sewer. The county has debated and projected and revised and reworked this a zillion times and not once has the end result been to promise sewer, not yet. We still don't have consensus, nor do we have state approval. I do know about the "projected" schedule for all Kent Island communities to go on sewer. I got that list when I bought my first house back in 1993. But even that was just a projection. I will dig thru my files, I may still have it. If I find it I will share it here. Heck, JBQ told me the other day sewer was coming and I could suck it. (Actually, he's told me that twice now on here.) But last time I looked, there was no state approval yet, so therefore no sewer yet. I guess I'm not the one sucking it afterall. Point is, folks saying it is coming is not the same as promised service.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 20, 2014 19:45:02 GMT -4
Exactly my point, folks will "testify" to darn near anything. I have lived here for 39 years, before the first sewer ever came to QAC and even today, no one can actually promise SKI sewer. The county has debated and projected and revised and reworked this a zillion times and not once has the end result been to promise sewer, not yet. We still don't have consensus, nor do we have state approval. I do know about the "projected" schedule for all Kent Island communities to go on sewer. I got that list when I bought my first house back in 1993. But even that was just a projection. I will dig thru my files, I may still have it. If I find it I will share it here. Heck, JBQ told me the other day sewer was coming and I could suck it. (Actually, he's told me that twice now on here.) But last time I looked, there was no state approval yet, so therefore no sewer yet. I guess I'm not the one sucking it afterall. Point is, folks saying it is coming is not the same as promised service. Lainey, I said it once after you called me a turd 6 times in the same post so suck it! Now it is 2 times.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 21, 2014 7:20:32 GMT -4
bchevy.. As I mentioned in my last post in response to falgar, this is a contentious topic. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground. If we are to wait for a "perfect" solution, that certainly won't happen. Personally, I believe most do want to see this septic issue in SKI resolved in some fashion. The sticking points are costs to the existing homeowners and how much build-out is allowed. Regardless, we all know there are folks who own lots in these communities that have been waiting a long time to build the home they've been wanting here on KI. Everyone who lives down there knows about these lots, and, for the life of me, I do not understand how some feel these lot owners have no right to have an expectation to build eventually. What happened in AA county is what happened in AA county. Again, you don't catch my point and blabber on. I agree that ALL property owners should be able to build on their lot. How can anyone fairly decide for others, who gets to build and who doesn't? Hence the lawsuit that was won across the bay. You keep babbling about what's in AA county is in AA County. It's sets a precedent for future reference doesn't it? I have 2 properties in Bay City, I NEVER had an issue with my water or sewer service. I'd say that speaks VOLUMES for the integrity of this system and it's installation. Go ahead with your blind approval of a STEP system just so it suits YOU. Hopefully someone with some sort of common sense will figure this out. Moving forward with a poor plan should be totally unacceptable for all involved. If it's going to happen, it needs to be done correctly and built to last. The system needs to be built for MAX. BUILDOUT, because that is what will happen. You have property owners paying property taxes, there's no way in he11 that the county would be able to run a sewer pipe in front of these properties and tell some of the owners "Sorry you're not on the good ole boy list of who can hook up" Build it once, build it right, or don't touch it. IMHO any STEP system ideas need to be tossed. That's from 23 years of hands on MAINTENANCE of THOSE SYSTEMS. We have Vacuum systems in multiple (most?) places of KI that have sewer right? Works good right? The crews that maintain them are good and already know the systems right? What sense does it make to put in a different system that your staff doesn't know? Been there DONE THAT.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 21, 2014 7:53:10 GMT -4
bchevy.. As I mentioned in my last post in response to falgar, this is a contentious topic. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground. If we are to wait for a "perfect" solution, that certainly won't happen. Personally, I believe most do want to see this septic issue in SKI resolved in some fashion. The sticking points are costs to the existing homeowners and how much build-out is allowed. Regardless, we all know there are folks who own lots in these communities that have been waiting a long time to build the home they've been wanting here on KI. Everyone who lives down there knows about these lots, and, for the life of me, I do not understand how some feel these lot owners have no right to have an expectation to build eventually. What happened in AA county is what happened in AA county. Again, you don't catch my point and blabber on. I agree that ALL property owners should be able to build on their lot. How can anyone fairly decide for others, who gets to build and who doesn't? Hence the lawsuit that was won across the bay. You keep babbling about what's in AA county is in AA County. It's sets a precedent for future reference doesn't it? I have 2 properties in Bay City, I NEVER had an issue with my water or sewer service. I'd say that speaks VOLUMES for the integrity of this system and it's installation. Go ahead with your blind approval of a STEP system just so it suits YOU. Hopefully someone with some sort of common sense will figure this out. Moving forward with a poor plan should be totally unacceptable for all involved. If it's going to happen, it needs to be done correctly and built to last. The system needs to be built for MAX. BUILDOUT, because that is what will happen. You have property owners paying property taxes, there's no way in he11 that the county would be able to run a sewer pipe in front of these properties and tell some of the owners "Sorry you're not on the good ole boy list of who can hook up" Build it once, build it right, or don't touch it. IMHO any STEP system ideas need to be tossed. That's from 23 years of hands on MAINTENANCE of THOSE SYSTEMS. We have Vacuum systems in multiple (most?) places of KI that have sewer right? Works good right? The crews that maintain them are good and already know the systems right? What sense does it make to put in a different system that your staff doesn't know? Been there DONE THAT. Bchevy, I asked you this before, did you ever reach out to Alan or Todd. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. They need to visit Mayo. I agree that if they are going to do it, the system should be the best system with the least amount of future problems and one that will last. Built to accommodate a reasonable amount of infill or all Iinfill and hope the courts keep it to a reasonable amount.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Feb 21, 2014 10:06:43 GMT -4
bchevy.. As I mentioned in my last post in response to falgar, this is a contentious topic. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground. If we are to wait for a "perfect" solution, that certainly won't happen. Personally, I believe most do want to see this septic issue in SKI resolved in some fashion. The sticking points are costs to the existing homeowners and how much build-out is allowed. Regardless, we all know there are folks who own lots in these communities that have been waiting a long time to build the home they've been wanting here on KI. Everyone who lives down there knows about these lots, and, for the life of me, I do not understand how some feel these lot owners have no right to have an expectation to build eventually. What happened in AA county is what happened in AA county. Again, you don't catch my point and blabber on. I agree that ALL property owners should be able to build on their lot. How can anyone fairly decide for others, who gets to build and who doesn't? Hence the lawsuit that was won across the bay. You keep babbling about what's in AA county is in AA County. It's sets a precedent for future reference doesn't it? I have 2 properties in Bay City, I NEVER had an issue with my water or sewer service. I'd say that speaks VOLUMES for the integrity of this system and it's installation. Go ahead with your blind approval of a STEP system just so it suits YOU. Hopefully someone with some sort of common sense will figure this out. Moving forward with a poor plan should be totally unacceptable for all involved. If it's going to happen, it needs to be done correctly and built to last. The system needs to be built for MAX. BUILDOUT, because that is what will happen. You have property owners paying property taxes, there's no way in he11 that the county would be able to run a sewer pipe in front of these properties and tell some of the owners "Sorry you're not on the good ole boy list of who can hook up" Build it once, build it right, or don't touch it. IMHO any STEP system ideas need to be tossed. That's from 23 years of hands on MAINTENANCE of THOSE SYSTEMS. We have Vacuum systems in multiple (most?) places of KI that have sewer right? Works good right? The crews that maintain them are good and already know the systems right? What sense does it make to put in a different system that your staff doesn't know? Been there DONE THAT. bchevy.. Where did I say I APPROVED the STEP system? All I said was the COUNTY was moving forward with the STEP system because it is less expensive to install in order to mitigate the costs to the users. I may not have expressed it in previous comments, but, I am in jackbquick's corner about how this system still leaves the requirement to have a septic tank on site and the reliance on pumps to get the liquids out. A full vacuum system is definitely a better, permanent solution. unfortunately, you are not the one that has to pay for it. I, and my fellow residents who live in the impacted SKI areas, have to. This project is not a free gift to SKI from the county as some make it out to be. Lastly, you mention 23 years of experience with such a system. Well, is that experience with a 23 year old system that is not as good as the systems the county examined recently installed and in use today? I accept your opinion and the county has made theirs.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 22, 2014 15:47:05 GMT -4
I have only been here for 28 years so I can not attest to what prospective buyers were told prior to 1986. I can only tell you that I was told sewer MIGHT come down here one day and if it did the residents would bear the cost but at the time, 1986, there was grant money available to help with the cost. I was also told there was no guarantee that grant money would be around forever. Now for the lost size issue and the right to build. Kent Island Estates has community covenants that require a certain square footage lot, as does the county, in order to build a home in this community. A single lot has never met those requirements. Therefore anyone who bought a single lot WAAAAAYYYYY back in the day for as little as $500 dollars, and there were many of them, they were never promised they would be able to build a home on that single lot. They were also told that if their lot was the right size it would still have to perc to build a home on it. I don't know how any of that equates to taking a lot owners right to build away. If your lot meets the requirements you can build. If it doesn't you can't. I own one of those single lots that is not big enough to build on whether the sewer line comes down here or not. I think people are confused about having to combine two lots. This is not a new requirement. You have always had a minimum square footage requirement and that usually meant having to have 1 1/2 lots or more to build. My home sits on 1 1/2 lots and my single lot is in addition to that. I knew when I bought the single lot it did not meet the building requirements for the community or the county. So all those people who bought a single lot anticipating ever being able to build a home on it were either misled or misinformed because for as long as I can tell, all the way back to at least the conception of the community covenants in the 1950's, a single lot has never met the requirements for building a home, sewer lines or not. Certainly I can not be the only single lot owner who understands the rules and requirements for building on my lot. The owners of those single lots can call it anything they want but they have never had the option of building on that single lot therefore their right to build has not been taken away. Even with sewer lines, they can not supersede the county and community requirements for lot size, therefore their single lot is not buildable either way.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 22, 2014 16:33:23 GMT -4
Now as an aside to the above post. The owners of the unimproved lots who so adamantly want sewer lines down here so they can build their "dream homes" have a great advantage over those of us who already have homes built. These owners will be able to tie the cost of the sewer project into their building loan and not really be impacted financially by such a decision. Sure their loan payment will increase some but it will be minimal and not require an additional out of pocket expense. Many of the homeowners down here are already upside down in what they owe compared to what their property is worth and therefore can not tie the cost of the project into a refinance loan. They will be required to find alternative financing for the project and therefore be creating a whole new bill to their already stressed homeowner's budget. My concern is we will see the foreclosure rate skyrocket, we already have way too many abandoned homes in KIE now. When our road became so deteriorated that we could not navigate a car up and down it, the residents of this road approached the county to have it upgraded to county standards, at our expense, and we would then turn it over to the county. Great opposition to this plan was expressed by the lot owners who had not yet built on their property. Since we could not move forward without their support, we as residents, opted to pay for their road improvements as well as our own, in order to complete the project. Immediately following the completion of the project several lot owners put their properties up for sale for far more than they were able to list them previously. Now these same lot owners are pushing for sewer lines so they can build on the property they have owned for so long waiting to build that dream home. But these are the same owners who would not pay for their road to be improved. Shaking My Head!
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Feb 22, 2014 20:16:06 GMT -4
redone53... some excellent points and thanks for your experience with this "lot owner rights" issue that will definitely be part of the SKI sewer discussion.
What I do find interesting is lot owners are still living in the past as it relates to what they can do with their lot. I guess they feel if they bought their lot in 1980, the code in existence at that time still applies to them. Who knows. The ordnance proposed by QAC is to bring up to code all those "ancient" lots platted when there were no building codes or lot size requirements. It simply says you have to comply with the current code of having a 20,000 s.f. lot in order to build. From what I understood when I attended the meeting at KIHS, if you owned two side by side 10,000 s.f. lots, the county will automatically combine them for you in order to comply with current code. If you own 4 10K s.f lots, the county will create two 20K s.f lots out of that parcel. As you pointed out about yourself, you happen to own 1-1/2 lots, correct? If those two lots add up to less than 20K s.f., the county will make them 1 lot, considered buildable, but not up to code. I have not seen anywhere where the county will deny an owner of a lot or combined lots which add up to less than 20K s.f. the right to build if the sewer is run.
Personally, I would much prefer to see larger lots, which will allow for a larger home to be built and more space between homes, and as a result, the real estate values will be higher in a community in which the new homes are not all ranchers or shot-gun splits, built to fit on a smaller lot. This raises everyone's values.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 22, 2014 21:59:16 GMT -4
Personally, I would much prefer to see larger lots, which will allow for a larger home to be built and more space between homes, and as a result, the real estate values will be higher in a community in which the new homes are not all ranchers or shot-gun splits, built to fit on a smaller lot. This raises everyone's values. Newsflash. The lots are what they are. unless lot owners volunteer to merge lots this idea is a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 22, 2014 22:56:07 GMT -4
Okay, I guess I didn't make myself clear. The covenants for the community were drawn up long before the 1980's. These convenants dictate the total square footage needed to build a house in KIE. That usually equates to 1 1/2 lots. You can build on more than that, two, three, four lots, whatever, but you can not build on less than that. The covenants are such that even if the county changes, i.e. reduces because of sewer lines or whatever, the required square footage needed to build, the lot owner still must meet the community requirements for square footage, which still renders a single lot unbuildable. If the county were to increase the requirement for square footage, which seems to be the basis for the two lot minimum I keep hearing about, or combining of two lots, this would meet the community requirements and still make a single lot unbuildable. It sounds to me like all the property owners who purchased a single lot back when, for as little as $500 and sometimes even as little as $50, which was not even a buildable lot when purchased, want the county to reduce the required square footage in order for them to build on a lot they knew was unbuildable when they purchased it. The only way the covenants can be changed is by taking the community association to court and in the past those who did so have not won and have not been able to change covenants. This is what renders single lots, one lot, unbuildable, per the covenants for the community and the county codes. These codes and covenants were not changed in the '80's, they existed long before that, when a large majority of the single lot owners bought their single lots. They knew then the lots they were purchasing did not meet the specifications needed to build on them, per the community and the county requirements. I am not sure about my next statement, but I believe that even if a lot meets county specs for building but does not satisfy the requirements for the community, the county codes can not supersede the community requirements and therefore it is still not a buildable lot. This brings back the argument that the owners of these small lots knew when they purchased them they did not meet the building requirements. I also want to clarify that I have 2 1/2 lots. 1 1/2 that my home sits on that met county and community requirements when built, and one additional single lot, 1 lot, that I purchased after the purchase of my home. This lot is adjacent to my 1 1/2 lots that my home sits on. It is landlocked, meaning that there is an existing house on either side of it and does not ever allow for the purchase of additional land to increase its size. I can not sell my single lot as a building lot as it does not meet the specifications for a building lot per the community covenants and/or the county specifications. I knew that when I bought it, thus was able to purchase it for about $2000 in 1987 rather than the $12,000 the seller was asking for it at the time. The seller was willing to sell it for what he could get because he knew only two people would ever be interested in purchasing it, the neighbors on either side of it since it did not meet the building requirements for the county or the community and was a landlocked lot with no option to increase the square footage since there was not additional land to purchase adjacent to it. I as a buyer in the '80's was told that at some point sewer would come down this way and the homeowner would be responsible for the cost, grant money not withstanding, but I was also told that my lot/lots would still have to meet the requirements for a building permit and single lots do not meet those requirements. Many of these single lots are owned by investors, real estate moguls and private individuals who knew very well what they were purchasing when they bought them. It sounds to me like now they want all the rules changed so they can capitalize on a very modest investment at the expense of the residents of this community. Again, I certainly understood when I bought my single lot that it did not meet the requirements of the community or the county to be a building lot, you can not tell me these educated investors, real estate moguls and the like, did not know their lot wasn't buildable either. For any private individual who did not know the terms involved when purchasing, I say shame on you and whoever sold you the lot for not educating you on the investment you were making. And to bchevy I say you are 100% correct. The lots are what they are. Single lots are not buildable so if a lot owner chooses not to combine two lots, if they have two, their property is not buildable. If they only have one lot and no option to acquire additional land adjacent to their lot, it is unbuildable. That being said, their purchase price certainly reflected these options.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 22, 2014 22:58:50 GMT -4
To bchevy I say you are 100% correct. The lots are what they are. Single lots are not buildable so if a lot owner chooses not to combine two lots, if they have two, their property is not buildable. If they only have one lot and no option to acquire additional land adjacent to their lot, it is unbuildable. That being said, their purchase price certainly reflected these options. Anyone who has wanted to build their "dream home" on Kent Island has not been prohibited from doing so as long as their land met the county and community building requirements.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 23, 2014 8:56:22 GMT -4
To bchevy I say you are 100% correct. The lots are what they are. Single lots are not buildable so if a lot owner chooses not to combine two lots, if they have two, their property is not buildable. If they only have one lot and no option to acquire additional land adjacent to their lot, it is unbuildable. That being said, their purchase price certainly reflected these options. Anyone who has wanted to build their "dream home" on Kent Island has not been prohibited from doing so as long as their land met the county and community building requirements. Redone53, Please check your facts. If you own two side by side 10,000 sf lots, based on the new ordinance introduced, you have to combine them. It has always been the case that if you have one 10,000 lot and it perks, you can build. The new ordinance introduced also says that if you own one non-conforming 10,000 sf lot and you can meet the setbacks, you can build on the STEP system.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 23, 2014 9:11:40 GMT -4
Okay, I guess I didn't make myself clear. The covenants for the community were drawn up long before the 1980's. These convenants dictate the total square footage needed to build a house in KIE. That usually equates to 1 1/2 lots. You can build on more than that, two, three, four lots, whatever, but you can not build on less than that. The covenants are such that even if the county changes, i.e. reduces because of sewer lines or whatever, the required square footage needed to build, the lot owner still must meet the community requirements for square footage, which still renders a single lot unbuildable. If the county were to increase the requirement for square footage, which seems to be the basis for the two lot minimum I keep hearing about, or combining of two lots, this would meet the community requirements and still make a single lot unbuildable. It sounds to me like all the property owners who purchased a single lot back when, for as little as $500 and sometimes even as little as $50, which was not even a buildable lot when purchased, want the county to reduce the required square footage in order for them to build on a lot they knew was unbuildable when they purchased it. The only way the covenants can be changed is by taking the community association to court and in the past those who did so have not won and have not been able to change covenants. This is what renders single lots, one lot, unbuildable, per the covenants for the community and the county codes. These codes and covenants were not changed in the '80's, they existed long before that, when a large majority of the single lot owners bought their single lots. They knew then the lots they were purchasing did not meet the specifications needed to build on them, per the community and the county requirements. I am not sure about my next statement, but I believe that even if a lot meets county specs for building but does not satisfy the requirements for the community, the county codes can not supersede the community requirements and therefore it is still not a buildable lot. This brings back the argument that the owners of these small lots knew when they purchased them they did not meet the building requirements. I also want to clarify that I have 2 1/2 lots. 1 1/2 that my home sits on that met county and community requirements when built, and one additional single lot, 1 lot, that I purchased after the purchase of my home. This lot is adjacent to my 1 1/2 lots that my home sits on. It is landlocked, meaning that there is an existing house on either side of it and does not ever allow for the purchase of additional land to increase its size. I can not sell my single lot as a building lot as it does not meet the specifications for a building lot per the community covenants and/or the county specifications. I knew that when I bought it, thus was able to purchase it for about $2000 in 1987 rather than the $12,000 the seller was asking for it at the time. The seller was willing to sell it for what he could get because he knew only two people would ever be interested in purchasing it, the neighbors on either side of it since it did not meet the building requirements for the county or the community and was a landlocked lot with no option to increase the square footage since there was not additional land to purchase adjacent to it. I as a buyer in the '80's was told that at some point sewer would come down this way and the homeowner would be responsible for the cost, grant money not withstanding, but I was also told that my lot/lots would still have to meet the requirements for a building permit and single lots do not meet those requirements. Many of these single lots are owned by investors, real estate moguls and private individuals who knew very well what they were purchasing when they bought them. It sounds to me like now they want all the rules changed so they can capitalize on a very modest investment at the expense of the residents of this community. Again, I certainly understood when I bought my single lot that it did not meet the requirements of the community or the county to be a building lot, you can not tell me these educated investors, real estate moguls and the like, did not know their lot wasn't buildable either. For any private individual who did not know the terms involved when purchasing, I say shame on you and whoever sold you the lot for not educating you on the investment you were making. And to bchevy I say you are 100% correct. The lots are what they are. Single lots are not buildable so if a lot owner chooses not to combine two lots, if they have two, their property is not buildable. If they only have one lot and no option to acquire additional land adjacent to their lot, it is unbuildable. That being said, their purchase price certainly reflected these options. Redone53, What are talking about. My home in KIE- sits on one 10,000 lot. There are tons of homes in KIE- sitting on 10,000 lots. If what you are saying is true, the county would not be goung through the headache of introducing an ordinance to reduce the number of billable lots. Nothing in the covenants prevents a owner of one lot from building if they meet the setbacks. Why would they have plotted single 10,000 sf lots back in the 50s if the covenants in KIE- were for larger lots. They would just have plotted larger lots to meet the covanants. The county came in with zoning in the 80's that overlaid NC- 20 on top but the original building sizes were grandfathered. Where are you getting your information from? Have you read the KIE covenants? The thing I find laughable is that the county introduced NC20 years ago so there would be room for a reserve septic field. Now that there will be sewer, there is no need for a reserve field and yet they want to force lot owners to combine lots to get to NC20. I am all for compromise but......
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 23, 2014 10:55:12 GMT -4
To jbq: My single lot which is 60 x 175 does not meet the community or county standards of a buildable lot and it hasn't since I have owned it. It might have before the community set minimum square footage standards, but that was long before most of the homes in this community were built. Once the covenants were established and as lots were sold off for building on 1 1/2 lots, many single lots were left, just like mine, that were not purchased for the original building of a home. That left them landlocked with a home on each side and rendered them useless to anyone other than the neighbors on each side. The owners of these lots have never been able to sell them as buildable lots. The combining of lots to build on a parcel large enough to satisfy the codes is nothing new. That is why most of the homes down here are sitting on at least 1 1/2 lots. Many sit on more. I do not know when that standard was set. I do know that some of the older original homes sit on smaller parcels, especially on the waterfront but that was long before the current standards were set. These are probably the ones you mentioned that were grandfathered in. When I requested a permit to erect a pool on my single lot, that is next to my lots that my home sits on, I was denied. I was not allowed to build ANYTHING on that lot, no pool, no shed, no home, nothing because it did not meet the minimum square footage for building. I was required to apply for an administrative subdivision to incorporate that lot in with the lot and a half that I live on, in order to be approved for any building permit. This is the same thing, I had to combine my lots. The administrative subdivision removed the existing property line between my living space and my single lot and recorded it as one parcel, now 2 1/2 lots. This subdivision can never be changed and the property line can never be added back to re-establish the original single lot and the lot 1/2 the home sits on. It will always be one parcel with 2 1/2 lots making up the parcel. So you are wrong that you have always been able to build on a single lot in KIE. Are you telling me that you only have exactly 10000 square feet of ground, no adjacent lot, incorporated or not. That that your house sits only on exactly 10000 square feet? I would find that suspect since I could not obtain a building permit for my lot that was 10500 square feet. What a lot of people do not understand is that their home may sit on one lot and they have an additional lot or 1/2 lot that brought them up to the standards needed for building but they may still have two tax parcels, if a proper subdivision was never completed. That doesn't meant they can sell the house and the one lot separate from the addition lot.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 23, 2014 11:19:47 GMT -4
To bchevy I say you are 100% correct. The lots are what they are. Single lots are not buildable so if a lot owner chooses not to combine two lots, if they have two, their property is not buildable. If they only have one lot and no option to acquire additional land adjacent to their lot, it is unbuildable. That being said, their purchase price certainly reflected these options. Anyone who has wanted to build their "dream home" on Kent Island has not been prohibited from doing so as long as their land met the county and community building requirements. Redone53, Please check your facts. If you own two side by side 10,000 sf lots, based on the new ordinance introduced, you have to combine them. It has always been the case that if you have one 10,000 lot and it perks, you can build. The new ordinance introduced also says that if you own one non-conforming 10,000 sf lot and you can meet the setbacks, you can build on the STEP system. jbq, that is not correct because on 10000 square feet of ground you can not meet the required setbacks, the minimum square footage required for the home (and yes the community has requirements for that too) and the minimum square footage for the lot. That is what makes a single lot unbuildable. For the owners who have two lots it is possible, but sewer or not they would have to combine their lots to reach these requirements. That is why so many homes down here are on 1 1/2 lots, or more.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 23, 2014 12:04:47 GMT -4
To jbq: My single lot which is 60 x 175 does not meet the community or county standards of a buildable lot and it hasn't since I have owned it. It might have before the community set minimum square footage standards, but that was long before most of the homes in this community were built. Once the covenants were established and as lots were sold off for building on 1 1/2 lots, many single lots were left, just like mine, that were not purchased for the original building of a home. That left them landlocked with a home on each side and rendered them useless to anyone other than the neighbors on each side. The owners of these lots have never been able to sell them as buildable lots. The combining of lots to build on a parcel large enough to satisfy the codes is nothing new. That is why most of the homes down here are sitting on at least 1 1/2 lots. Many sit on more. I do not know when that standard was set. I do know that some of the older original homes sit on smaller parcels, especially on the waterfront but that was long before the current standards were set. These are probably the ones you mentioned that were grandfathered in. When I requested a permit to erect a pool on my single lot, that is next to my lots that my home sits on, I was denied. I was not allowed to build ANYTHING on that lot, no pool, no shed, no home, nothing because it did not meet the minimum square footage for building. I was required to apply for an administrative subdivision to incorporate that lot in with the lot and a half that I live on, in order to be approved for any building permit. This is the same thing, I had to combine my lots. The administrative subdivision removed the existing property line between my living space and my single lot and recorded it as one parcel, now 2 1/2 lots. This subdivision can never be changed and the property line can never be added back to re-establish the original single lot and the lot 1/2 the home sits on. It will always be one parcel with 2 1/2 lots making up the parcel. So you are wrong that you have always been able to build on a single lot in KIE. Are you telling me that you only have exactly 10000 square feet of ground, no adjacent lot, incorporated or not. That that your house sits only on exactly 10000 square feet? I would find that suspect since I could not obtain a building permit for my lot that was 10500 square feet. What a lot of people do not understand is that their home may sit on one lot and they have an additional lot or 1/2 lot that brought them up to the standards needed for building but they may still have two tax parcels, if a proper subdivision was never completed. That doesn't meant they can sell the house and the one lot separate from the addition lot. Redone53. I am going to stop arguing with you because you have no idea what you are talking about. Get caught up on the facts and then I will discuss this with you. The only reason you could not build on your lot is because it did not perk. Period. If there was a 9,000 sf lot that could meet the setbacks and it perked, someone could put a house on it in KIE. Before you say I am wrong, call the health department or planning and zoning and get the facts. Stop making things up..
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 23, 2014 12:13:17 GMT -4
Redone53, Please check your facts. If you own two side by side 10,000 sf lots, based on the new ordinance introduced, you have to combine them. It has always been the case that if you have one 10,000 lot and it perks, you can build. The new ordinance introduced also says that if you own one non-conforming 10,000 sf lot and you can meet the setbacks, you can build on the STEP system. jbq, that is not correct because on 10000 square feet of ground you can not meet the required setbacks, the minimum square footage required for the home (and yes the community has requirements for that too) and the minimum square footage for the lot. That is what makes a single lot unbuildable. For the owners who have two lots it is possible, but sewer or not they would have to combine their lots to reach these requirements. That is why so many homes down here are on 1 1/2 lots, or more. redone53, If you have a lot that is 50 feet by 200 feet lets say which is the standard for KIE- and you build a house 30 feet by 60 for example, you can meet the setbacks. Only thing stopping a vacant lot owner from building on that vacant lot in KIE- is a positive perk. Perk is not going to happen which has something to do with why septic fields are failing and sewer is being discussed for 30 years. Look up John Nickerson and give him a call. And by the way, I don't care if the lots are buildable or not except for the fact that they are going to help reduce the cost for the homeowner to $100 a month. The courts will decide everything you think you know what you are talking about. I know that for sure!
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 23, 2014 13:17:32 GMT -4
I wonder how the 'no growth' people feel about the three vacant homes surrounding my house. One is in foreclosure, one has been reduced in price a couple times already, and the other one recently came on the market. And that's just adjacent to our house. The recovery just doesn't seem to be happening around here. On my street we have three in foreclosure, two currently for sale, one that goes on and off the market about every three months and one that is empty but financially in good standing. We have not had that much going on on my street in all the 28 years I have lived here put together!!!!! Now who is going to pay their part of the project. You can't get blood from a turnip and my fear is the current residents will have to pick up the slack for those in trouble. We had to do that to get our road project through, for different reasons, but we still had to pay for the unimproved lot owners who refused to pay.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 23, 2014 13:20:24 GMT -4
jbq, that is not correct because on 10000 square feet of ground you can not meet the required setbacks, the minimum square footage required for the home (and yes the community has requirements for that too) and the minimum square footage for the lot. That is what makes a single lot unbuildable. For the owners who have two lots it is possible, but sewer or not they would have to combine their lots to reach these requirements. That is why so many homes down here are on 1 1/2 lots, or more. redone53, If you have a lot that is 50 feet by 200 feet lets say which is the standard for KIE- and you build a house 30 feet by 60 for example, you can meet the setbacks. Only thing stopping a vacant lot owner from building on that vacant lot in KIE- is a positive perk. Perk is not going to happen which has something to do with why septic fields are failing and sewer is being discussed for 30 years. Look up John Nickerson and give him a call. And by the way, I don't care if the lots are buildable or not except for the fact that they are going to help reduce the cost for the homeowner to $100 a month. The courts will decide everything you think you know what you are talking about. I know that for sure!
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 23, 2014 13:37:42 GMT -4
Time for Nascar, so I gotta go for now. I know, I know, everyone is saying "Thank God!"
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 23, 2014 13:46:33 GMT -4
redone53, If you have a lot that is 50 feet by 200 feet lets say which is the standard for KIE- and you build a house 30 feet by 60 for example, you can meet the setbacks. Only thing stopping a vacant lot owner from building on that vacant lot in KIE- is a positive perk. Perk is not going to happen which has something to do with why septic fields are failing and sewer is being discussed for 30 years. Look up John Nickerson and give him a call. And by the way, I don't care if the lots are buildable or not except for the fact that they are going to help reduce the cost for the homeowner to $100 a month. The courts will decide everything you think you know what you are talking about. I know that for sure! You are correct but most of the lots that we are talking about do not come to the required minimum square footage required by the county or the community. A single lot is almost always just under the requirements. Mine is. That means you will have to combine another lot with it even under the old rules. If you had two lots all along you were not prohibited from building if you met all the conditions so I don't know why all these people have been saying they have been waiting for sewer to come to build their dream house. If they met the requirements they could always build their dream house, they would just have to do it with septic tanks and wells. I am trying to point out that the people who are screaming the loudest are the investors, the real estate moguls and those who paid very little for a lot that wasn't buildable when they purchased it and they think that since sewer and water would change those requirement because you no longer need the space for well and septic their lot should automatically become buildable. If it isn't big enough it isn't big enough. Again, I know some of the original homes were built on less land and before these requirements went into effect. But the large majority of these lot owners bought these lots under the new guidelines just as I did. They want the rules to change and they think sewer is the answer because they no longer need that space for well and septic. I have been told specifically if the rules are changed and you can build on these smaller lots, I can not sell mine off for that purpose. So why wouldn't the rules change for me too. The courts will only come into it if it comes to that. Again, usually the courts side with the community covenants. I don't know but of a few challenges that went in favor of the land owner when it did go to court. Those were for the way the square footage of a home was recorded and was disputed by the community association. I would be very careful about believing this $100 a month maintenance fee, some residents in Bay City are seeing $800 quarterly usage bills. Anything the government pushes this hard can't be good. I have read the covenants and have been very involved in this community for a long time. It seems very easy for you to say to people that they think they know what they are talking about but that works both ways. I will not get into an arguing match with anyone over this. You might want to be careful what you say and what you think you know if you really are serious about running for commissioner because people will figure out who you are. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 23, 2014 21:55:41 GMT -4
[quote author=" redone53" source="/post/ 141205/thread" timestamp="1393177593"]You are correct but most of the lots that we are talking about do not come to the required minimum square footage required by the county or the community. A single lot is almost always just under the requirements. Mine is. That means you will have to combine another lot with it even under the old rules. If you had two lots all along you were not prohibited from building if you met all the conditions so I don't know why all these people have been saying they have been waiting for sewer to come to build their dream house. If they met the requirements they could always build their dream house, they would just have to do it with septic tanks and wells. I am trying to point out that the people who are screaming the loudest are the investors, the real estate moguls and those who paid very little for a lot that wasn't buildable when they purchased it and they think that since sewer and water would change those requirement because you no longer need the space for well and septic their lot should automatically become buildable. If it isn't big enough it isn't big enough. Again, I know some of the original homes were built on less land and before these requirements went into effect. But the large majority of these lot owners bought these lots under the new guidelines just as I did. They want the rules to change and they think sewer is the answer because they no longer need that space for well and septic. I have been told specifically if the rules are changed and you can build on these smaller lots, I can not sell mine off for that purpose. So why wouldn't the rules change for me too. The courts will only come into it if it comes to that. Again, usually the courts side with the community covenants. I don't know but of a few challenges that went in favor of the land owner when it did go to court. Those were for the way the square footage of a home was recorded and was disputed by the community association. I would be very careful about believing this $100 a month maintenance fee, some residents in Bay City are seeing $800 quarterly usage bills. Anything the government pushes this hard can't be good. I have read the covenants and have been very involved in this community for a long time. It seems very easy for you to say to people that they think they know what they are talking about but that works both ways. I will not get into an arguing match with anyone over this. You might want to be careful what you say and what you think you know if you really are serious about running for commissioner because people will figure out who you are. Just saying. [/quote] Redone53, Most of the lots are 50' wide and yes that is wide enough to meet the side yard setbacks. You might be right those screaming the loudest are the investors but it will be you and I when we are on holding tanks at $600 a month to pump. I don't know about you but I would gladly pay $100 a month today to avoid $600 a month at some later date. Just saying. Lastly, Bay City is water and sewer and my friends who live in there pay about $100 a month for water and sewer so $800 a quarter or $260 a month is the exception. $100 is very realistic if you break down the numbers to see how the county arrives at that number.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Feb 23, 2014 22:59:34 GMT -4
Personally, I would much prefer to see larger lots, which will allow for a larger home to be built and more space between homes, and as a result, the real estate values will be higher in a community in which the new homes are not all ranchers or shot-gun splits, built to fit on a smaller lot. This raises everyone's values. Newsflash. The lots are what they are. unless lot owners volunteer to merge lots this idea is a pipe dream. bchevy.. totally understand. Note I said "prefer". At least the ordnance the county is proposing goes a long way to having larger lots, thereby, creating more space between homes. This ordnance will apply to lot owners who own the same parcels which are together. It would not force an owner of a small lot to join with another owner and merge their lots. Obviously that can't happen. But, who says one can't buy out the other? I moved here from Pasadena, and the way the county allowed shot-gun splits on narrow lots, especially in the Green Haven area, to go up everywhere was mind boggling. Talk about "reaching out and touch your neighbor"!
|
|