Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're these legally recorded restrictions in Cincy, or "just the way it was done?"
I think it was a combination. Ironically the woman who came up with the idea of and money to develop Mariemont envisioned a cornucopia of humanity living in a village reminiscent of an old English village, but after she was gone, through both covert and overt -ism, it became something she hadn't aimed for.
My dad's first memory of Cincy is his family getting run out of a home showing there because of their "cult following beliefs".
I think there were a couple other sundown towns around Cincy. I believe Reading (which is where many of my family members lived) was one for 100 years.
It may be possible to remove a deed restriction (CCR) with a Quiet Title action, or perhaps a vote of the county commissioners. Even if neither is possible - given enough time, I would expect the Legislature to step in and lay out a statutary path to removal. Eventually some important, high value development will be held up by a legacy restriction and the developer will be seeking a legal remedy.
The NC General Assembly would do that? You must be kidding. NC law explicitly says that covenants to restrict property to SFH are valid and are exempted from the 30-year rule. That's a pretty high hill to climb with a quiet title action.
In my neighborhood the covenants were in effect for the first 25 years and then entered a cycle of automatic 10-year renewals unless a majority of lot owners agree to change or repeal them.
Investors are going to swarm neighborhoods in North Raleigh and maximize profits posthaste. I’m sure some good is eeked out of this for some, but I definitely am in the camp that neighborhoods should have some significant say on this going through.
Edit: I guess it autocorrected, but I grew up in Crosswinds.
Why though? Two or three lots are about to close in my neighborhood. They are in flood zone and whoever buys them will have to do some signifÃcate floor remediation. But, at the same time if they decide to put up 6 duplexes instead of 3 SFH, why it should bother me? If city of Durham allows it, it should be okay. Just because it doesn’t fit the neighborhood style? Or, why? It’s really shouldn’t be anybody’s business. This is the nature of living in city limits. I know all my neighborhood is pretty liberal and try to out-liberal each other with the multitude of BLM signs and rainbow flags. But I know for sure something like this would create an uproar. This is mostly a class issue. Americans simply don’t like poor people. They don’t want duplex or affordable housing in their backyard. That at the end the main issue here.
Investors are going to swarm neighborhoods in North Raleigh and maximize profits posthaste. I’m sure some good is eeked out of this for some, but I definitely am in the camp that neighborhoods should have some significant say on this going through.
Edit: I guess it autocorrected, but I grew up in Crosswinds.
no.
Crosswinds is R-4. That means for all practical purposes, every lot will either stay single family (can add ADU), or might be torn down and a duplex built. And right now, homes there are selling for > $400K, so it's not like you'd be getting some trashy small duplexes with renters.
And all that doesn't even consider that Crosswinds may have valid restrictive covenants limiting every lot to 1 single family home, and even excluding ADU'S.
I looked up a recent sale in Crosswinds III, and found these restrictions:
1. 1 home, not more than 2 stories (not incl basement or attic) and 1 garage not more than 2 cars. So, nope, no duplexes allowed.
2. Minimum lot width of 75 ft "at the setback" (40 ft from front line in this case).
3. No business activity - so no yoga studios or therapists.
4. No animals (specifies poultry) except pets - sorry chicken coops!
5. the restrictions run for 25 years (passed), with automatic 10-year renewals UNLESS changed by a majority of homeowners agreeing to.. So, you'd have to change them to allow either ADU's or duplexes.
So see, HOA's and planned neighborhoods can be MORE restrictive than City "code", som long as the owners agree. And when any individual buys a home in Crosswinds III, they are agreeing to these restrictions.
For anyone interested in restrictions that may be recorded for your own subdivision, go here:
Why though? Two or three lots are about to close in my neighborhood. They are in flood zone and whoever buys them will have to do some signifÃcate floor remediation. But, at the same time if they decide to put up 6 duplexes instead of 3 SFH, why it should bother me? If city of Durham allows it, it should be okay. Just because it doesn’t fit the neighborhood style? Or, why? It’s really shouldn’t be anybody’s business. This is the nature of living in city limits. I know all my neighborhood is pretty liberal and try to out-liberal each other with the multitude of BLM signs and rainbow flags. But I know for sure something like this would create an uproar. This is mostly a class issue. Americans simply don’t like poor people. They don’t want duplex or affordable housing in their backyard. That at the end the main issue here.
if they're in the 100 year (floodway), they can't be built on to my understanding.
But yes, I agree with your assessment that in most cases, regardless of political leanings, people become NIMBY's.
I can't speak for all of the neighborhoods that were referenced since I haven't lived in all of them but one of the one's referenced is zoned PD (Planned Development). The SF homes and the townhomes are all zoned the same (PD).
While I don't know everything about the PD zoning I assume a "Master Plan" had to be submitted showing the layout of the community, the types of housing, modifications etc in order for it to be approved. What I don't know is whether or not this proposed change would also affect PD Zoning.
Another question I would have is how does this all affect impervious surface limits. I know that many of us are already at our limits and I just can't see how building more units on the same lot could be attained unless they are doing away with impervious surface limits.
And I would also hope that HOA's would have CC&R's that address this BUT I would assume that when they drafted them that they felt that the zoning would cover this and maybe failed to incorporate a restriction in the documents.
Frankly, I'm not really pleased with this change because I feel when you buy a home zoned a certain way (and in a neighborhood zoned a certain way) that you are buying it with some comfort of knowing that the neighborhood that you chose to live in would remain the same. I also don't believe that this will create affordable housing. It may help with providing some more housing but unless the City requires developers to set aside a certain percentage for low to moderate income households then these units are still going to be unaffordable for many.
Chapel Hill tried this...it backfired big time and I'd dare speculate has actually made for even less affordable housing. It was done with the best of intentions but severely limited development/construction of ANY housing....let alone affordable housing (which thus; by the laws of supply and demand; make the existing housing of all sizes/income levels... less affordable)
CH NIMBYism rivals anywhere.
Last edited by TarHeelNick; 07-15-2021 at 01:30 PM..
Chapel Hill tried this...it backfired big time and I'd dare speculate has actually made for even less affordable housing. It was done with the best of intentions but severely limited development/construction of ANY housing....let alone affordable housing (which thus; by the laws of supply and demand; make the existing housing of all sizes/income levels... less affordable)
CH NIMBYism rivals anywhere.
I thought this wasn’t allowed by the state legislature anyways
I thought this wasn’t allowed by the state legislature anyways
The Town of Chapel Hill has enacted an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that mandates a set aside percentage for affordable housing for new developments that propose five or more units to provide 15% (10% in the Town Center) of the units at prices that are affordable to low- to moderate-income households.
In meeting with the director of the Community Home Trust several years ago; it isn't technically "illegal" to not include the 15% affordable housing units; but they are hit with significant impact fees/tax disadvantages if they don't.
The (noble in intent yet incredibly naive) idea was that builders/developers would want in on that Chapel Hill $$$ so would "comply" and thus there would be a bunch of new neighborhoods going up in-town and they would include affordable units.
Instead; they realized that huge chunks of Chatham County also have a Chapel Hill address and are an easy commute to UNC with way less red tape.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
