Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sudden_Dragonfly2638 t1_j8m841i wrote

Take it from someone who spent their entire 36 years in VT. This essay is spot on. Act 250 is no longer needed the same way it was in the 70s. Regulators have created a strong framework for responsible development that exists apart from Act 250. When someone asks me to describe land use in VT I tell them to imagine it as a statewide HOA.

Zoning minimums are making it harder to build SFH. My house on 3.5 acres that is part of a neighborhood in rural VT subdivided in the 90s was rezoned to a 5 acre minimum several years ago. This means my neighborhood, if built today, would have significantly fewer lots than it does.

8

[deleted] t1_j8met6g wrote

Seconded. (5th generation Vermonter here who has spent his life in land development.) Act 250 / Land Use described as Statewide HOA: 100% correct!

11

joeydokes t1_j8nkuqs wrote

> I tell them to imagine it as a statewide HOA.

Spitballing here, but I'd say 80% of VT is rural hamlets and villes. So lets talk that: valleys with properties usually very near the road built when some farmer sub'd their land and excluded the pastures behind said new homes. Or, properties up along some hillside or gore off dirt roads in the woods. OK?

Those places are akin to HOA's only due to the fact that they're run by the 'town fathers'; the click that collectively ignores everyone at town meeting day to preserve the status quo :)

> My house on 3.5 acres that is part of a neighborhood in rural VT subdivided in the 90s was rezoned to a 5 acre minimum several years ago.

My homestead was on 5ac, abutted by substantially larger tracts of land; either some farm or some woods logged or sugarbushed. I like the 5ac and think 3.5ac would feel too confining if I had neighbors. 5ac is about the min amount that offers real privacy and peace/quiet. I say this bec I have friends on smaller lots and they beef about noise/neighbors with too much regularity.

Just my .02 - Peace Out!

2