zombienutz1 t1_j7nxxpg wrote on February 8, 2023 at 3:53 AM

At least suspend Act 250 for a bit to help move development forward. Material and labor costs have really gone up. Planned Unit developments should be encouraged to offer lower cost home ownership. I think there's existing state funding for ADUs but again, material and labor costs are high.

BudsKind802 t1_j7o1qqo wrote on February 8, 2023 at 4:25 AM

PUDs lower the cost for the developer, but that isn't realized on the sale price enough to make much difference for the home buyer. And maybe through bonuses developers can squeeze a few extra single family houses, but that's not going to put a dent in the housing crisis.

Building more single family homes sprawled out is a large part of the issue, and Act 250 at least keeps some of that in check. We need denser housing options in downtime or growth areas and encouraging public transportation to those areas. Otherwise we continue with the same failed "trickle down" method we have now.

zombienutz1 t1_j7o6ke2 wrote on February 8, 2023 at 5:08 AM

PUDs have lot size requirements and typically can't squeeze extra houses in or else they fall into a different zoning category that may not be available in that same area. I know several homeowners who have taken advantage of PUDs and added two 3-4 bedroom houses on 1/3 acre. Yeah, it may not make a big dent but there is no "all or nothing" solution so every bit counts.

Realistically all of the 1-2 bedroom apartments being built aren't needed as much as 3+ bedrooms. It doesn't allow for families to stick around here. Act 250 holds up development, increases costs of building, replacing a sign or something small on an existing structure can trigger Act 250 permitting. Yeah, a lot of developers suck but denser housing in downtowns, as you say, won't build itself.

BudsKind802 t1_j7o7g6a wrote on February 8, 2023 at 5:16 AM

A number of towns in VT have PUD density bonus for reaching a better environmental practices, public good projects, and even for more open space.

Developers need a carrot and stick method to "encourage" them to build denser housing. Otherwise they will keep building homes out of the reach of most Vermonters.

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j7poa1p wrote on February 8, 2023 at 3:03 PM

Because density has its own cost. Particularly waste water and storm water management.

Outside of the bigger towns, most of vermont doesn’t have the infrastructure for density.