I am so tired of hearing about the developers vision and desire to preserve green spaces and natural quiet. Let's ignore the slick marketing for a moment and look at the developer's actions. I happen to know the developer personally and his family well. I used to hang out with his sister all the time. The developer divided our peninsula into as many lots as he could--261 to be exact. He wanted to sell as many lots as he could at as high a price as the market would bring. Many lots are 1/2 acre lots. To that end, when he realized he could not get premium prices for the small lots that were serviced by a dirt road, he had the roads paved. I know this to be true because the developer's sister told me the story.
What does 261 lots built on look like? See the picture below. The picture below is Mission Lane. With the exception of the house on the left, the houses were built in 2004 and 2006—that is, these houses were built while the developer was still in control. This being the case, it is safe to assume that these houses represent the developers vision as to house size. The house sizes from left to right are, 3,126 sq.ft, 4,478 sq.ft, empty lot, 4,781 sq.ft, 3,453 sq.ft., 3,940 sq.ft., 4,373 sq.ft. These large houses are not the exception. For example, the developer allowed the combination of 3 lots with a house of 6,052 sq.ft with a carriage house. Furthermore, with the exception of the empty lot, I don't see any green spaces. Instead the average space between houses is 30 feet. Thirty feet is not even as wide as a typical 2 lane road.
Alternatively, if the lots were twice as big and the homes were built somewhere near the center of the combined lots, each of these houses would be separated by 190 feet (160 feet average combined lot width plus the current 30 foot corridor). I think 190 feet provides much more green space than 30 feet...but maybe my math is wrong :) . Oh and by the way, once a house is built across the original lot lines the lots cannot be split out again. Better yet, the dues and voting structure remains unchanged. An adjoining lot owner, on the other hand, can always sell their adjoining lot and someone else can build on it which would eliminate the green space opportunity realized with combining lots.
This image is a far cry from what the "Candidates Who Care" are promoting. In fact, one of the members of the ARB told me he thinks the appropriate number of houses is NOT 261 but 181. This opinion begs the question as to how do you limit the number of houses? Who decides which lot owner will be lucky enough to build their dream home? The answer—the current ARB and the Board.
Comments
JimandGinny
on Tuesday, 21 November 2023 22:00
We have 261 lots and a goal of 181 builds. That means 80 lots are unbuildable. Owners of unimproved lots must be asking …
In answer to the last question, during a meeting in 2022 (videotaped) one member stated that the ARB “ABSOLUTELY” had the power to tell a homeowner they could not use a color in the approved color palette simply because there were too many houses nearby with the same color. Based upon this interpretation of the ARB’s power, I believe the answer is--yes, the ARB can declare a lot unbuildable because it creates too much density in buildings.
Will the ARB tell you your lot is not buildable? Of course not. They can’t legally. What the ARB can do is to deny your plans over and
over until you simply give up.
What do you do with an unbuildable lot? You could hold it knowing you are contributing to Tolomato’s green spaces or sell it. To sell the lot you will have to be lucky enough to find someone with the inclination and funds to invest in a piece of property for the sole purpose of contributing to Tolomato’s green spaces. I doubt there is much demand for properties of this type thus, you will probably have to discount the price of your lot to move it.
Steve Anderson is right, as non-residents, the future of building your dream home is in jeopardy. Worse yet, should you own a lot that is “silently” declared unbuildable, the market value of your lot may also be in jeopardy.