[11th Earl of Mar]

We have learned in Michigan how a 3 acre minimum eats up land faster than traditional development.

I am surprised the article did not really address "clustering."

Many local government authorities are opting for "clustering" in stead of the standard minimum acerage rule.

Clustering allows higher density housing as long as there is a "green space" set aside where future growth is prohibited.

For instance, a 20 acre piece with typical 3 acre development rules, could normally allow up to six lots of 3+ acres.

Under clustering, a developer would be allowed bonus lots, maybe 9 total lots, for setting aside a large chunk of that land. The municipality would allow lots to be maybe a half or three quarter acre each, as long as 10 acres was dedicated as perminant open space.

It is cheaper to do for the deveoper, the owners still get the use of the open space and the municipality gets more houses to tax.

[eno_]

Depends on what you mean by "eats up land." I live in an exurb of Boston on 6 acres. Properties in my area range form multi-million dollar equestrian farms to 2 acre minimums with fairly modest (but now rather pricey) splits. We have LOTS of wildlife here. And, since many larger property holders donated development rights when they sold in order to cut their cap gains hit, most of the large properties are locked-in and cannot be split up.

Don't listen to the anti-"sprawl" enviros. They think houses are incompatible with nature. Spread them out enough and they have very little impact.

[editor-surveyor]

"We have learned in Michigan how a 3 acre minimum eats up land faster than traditional development."

A three acre minimum preserves the quality of life. Clustering puts you in an urban cesspool, just like all the other 'Agenda 21' ideas. Increase crime, decrease security and quality of life are the marching orders of all government 'planners.'

[Mannaggia l'America]

Many local government authorities are opting for "clustering" in stead of the standard minimum acerage rule.

That's what is happening around here. I don't like it.

There was a 2 acre minimum, and there still is, but they make the developer cluster the houses. So if you have a 50 acre lot, you can build 25 houses all on one acre lots and set aside 25 acres for open space.

Fortunately, I bought my house (on 2+ acres) before they started this.

I'm sorry, but I want my 2 acres. Clustering (to me) means that I have less choices to move up. Everything new is being built on 1 acre lots or less. I want some space between me and my neighbors.

I don't see the point in the open space being preserved with clustering. I can't use it. It's usually owned by the developer or the homeowner's association if there is one. Even if I lived in the development where the open space was, chances are you would have some busybody complaining about something when you tried to use it for anything.

The other thing they are doing here now is they added a .25% tax onto our local income tax to buy development rights from farmers to keep the space open. Great - I get to pay for land that I never get to use.

That's the local government. The county government is going around buying up land to keep it from being developed. Pretty soon, it's going to be known as the "county of a thousand parks". Every time there is a proposed development somewhere, you have this group of women complaining about it and saying the county should buy the land and turn it into a park (that nobody will use). That's not the job of the government.