To the Editor,
In a nutshell, this law allows you to build a house on a small lot. Slightly smaller than the smallest lot we currently allow. Is that a good idea? I would say YES, but it is not a solution to our housing problems at all.
The basic idea of single lots with single family houses on them has been our norm and it has gotten us into the trouble we are in now. Low density housing spread across our land is exactly what has put pressure on our woodlands. It is exactly why we have long commuter times, more pollution in our atmosphere, more time away from our families and less total housing units. This land development pattern needs to be changed and environmental activists should join in with planners to develop solutions wisely and methodically.
Will we see more single-family sprawl due to this law? I would say very little. Rather, we will see some amount of greater density of houses in areas that are already developed. This is due to the requirement that these lots connect to public sewer.
Currently, the smallest lots we allow must have 6,000 SF of land. This law allows lots to be 5,000 SF BUT be connected to public sewer, meaning you won't see tons of little lots with little houses on them all over rural areas. They also require at least 50 FT of street frontage. Looking at a map of our town where sewer service is, I see very few lots with 50 feet of extra frontage, let alone an extra 5,000 SF of land. The impact of this law will be surprisingly minimal.
This law is, perhaps, more symbolic than impactful. The creators were likely hoping to see small houses on small lots that might cost less money. This is also not true. If the same allowable building area we have for our existing small lots is applied to these new smaller lots, we could see 5,000 SF homes built on them. That seems like we'd see McMansions, but we actually do not see them being built much here at all. So, how do we make these new houses even somewhat affordable?
The state will allow us to apply reasonable restrictions on these new lots. Restrictions will be needed and I would suggest that we be bold enough to require size limits so that they have no more than, say, 3,000 SF of living area. If multifamily units are built, we could limit those units to 1,500 SF each. Some sort of size restriction might be the simplest and most direct way of attaining the goal of semi-affordable housing through the wise manipulation of market forces via clever regulations.
Low rise, low density, housing sprawl is an understandable dream, but is also a scourge to our land and not the solution to our housing issues. This law could be called a low rise, slightly denser housing approach. However, we need to address other types of housing such as multifamily structures. In our town, the best way to do that is to nuance greater housing density on land that has already been developed, such as downtown and, perhaps, to allow two or three family housing in our residential districts along with design guidelines so that they are built to look and feel like single family homes, with single front door entries, etc... We need well thought out, nuanced solutions to our housing and I hope the Planning Board will be busy working on such solutions. This law can help, in its own very small and incremental way.
Gary Gilbert
Manchester
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here