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.
I know what your saying but never say never. That is why they grant variants and code changes.
I have a man on the inside. I am 100% sure there will never be a variance granted to the density limitations in the falls watershed to allow for that type of high density development.
I have a man on the inside. I am 100% sure there will never be a variance granted to the density limitations in the falls watershed to allow for that type of high density development.
NRG,
Are you 100% certain that townhomes could not be built in a trade for equal or greater reduction in proposed detached homes?
I.e., same or less potential residents with same or less impermeable surface?
NRG,
Are you 100% certain that townhomes could not be built in a trade for equal or greater reduction in proposed detached homes?
I.e., same or less potential residents with same or less impermeable surface?
Mike,
Great question! This is something different than a straight on variance. I would want to check with my inside man before I put my money where my mouth is.
To get to the bottom of this it would be key to determine the exact location of the land parcel in question within the watershed and the build out scenario and drainage maps of the land in question. One would also need to take a very close look at the Wake Forest ordinances. Very important to determine whether or not they include the density averaging ordinance amendment that would be needed in such a case. Also, are the parcels in question in the critical watershed area? That is key question that would need to be answered as it could chnge things yet again. If so the density limitations are extremely stringent and even a case that makes logical sense on paper (swapping that results in less overall impermeable surface) may not be allowed under the regualtion due to the specific language in NC Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules.
Great question Mike! Again I would need check with my inside man to be 100% sure.
NRG,
Are you 100% certain that townhomes could not be built in a trade for equal or greater reduction in proposed detached homes?
I.e., same or less potential residents with same or less impermeable surface?
Mike this is exactly where my head was and what I understood about the conversation I was hearing on the subject. It is absolutely true that they could NOT build townhomes and still keep all the proposed lots in Hasentree but if they reduced the number of single family home sites in other words trade single lot space for multi unit space that potentially would be a compromise to get more homeowners into Hasentree.
I am a firm believer that where there's money to be made there is always a way!
Maximbel: The golf, tennis and activities staff are fantastic. I have heard nothing bot good things from others and have been impressed myself. Let me know if there's anything in particular you want to know. There have been a number of acitivites/socials planned within the community as well that have been well done, and enjoyable.
My favorite part, though, are all the walking and biking trails. There are more planned and I feel optimistic that these will come to fruition as they are cheap to build and maintain
NRG: Your source sounds better than my source! My source said that the area where they built Hasentree is "sensitive" and that all the feeder streams and the layout of the golf course would make increasing density almost impossible. This only covers the area where there are currently roads. We didn't discuss all the other property that doesn't "exist" yet.
Dansdrive: There are some villas finished and some under construction. One is already occupied. They are big villas, though! I'll let you know if I hear anything different.
Let me know if you have any more dirt from inside sources!
Maximbel: The golf, tennis and activities staff are fantastic. I have heard nothing bot good things from others and have been impressed myself. Let me know if there's anything in particular you want to know. There have been a number of acitivites/socials planned within the community as well that have been well done, and enjoyable.
My favorite part, though, are all the walking and biking trails. There are more planned and I feel optimistic that these will come to fruition as they are cheap to build and maintain
NRG: Your source sounds better than my source! My source said that the area where they built Hasentree is "sensitive" and that all the feeder streams and the layout of the golf course would make increasing density almost impossible. This only covers the area where there are currently roads. We didn't discuss all the other property that doesn't "exist" yet.
Dansdrive: There are some villas finished and some under construction. One is already occupied. They are big villas, though! I'll let you know if I hear anything different.
Let me know if you have any more dirt from inside sources!
Queen thanks and will do! However my dirt is more like clay!
I live in Hasentree, and just finished reading this thread. One thing I thought I'd throw out there pertains to increasing the density of housing -- that is one thing that can not happen. The development is within the Neuse watershed, and was already drawn to maximize housing. You can't add anymore impervious surface to the development. Period. So they can't build condos or divide one lot into two lots in order to get more housing in here.
I have seen that happen in Metro DC especially in VA where exceptions to density were made. I am not sure of the circumstances of those exceptions but they did happen and the effect was oversubscription to public services like water, sewer, ROADS (#1 reason there) and VA actually had to stop making exceptions. So when it comes down to more TAX dollars from more small homes than non existent large homes, the tune might change.
In DC I lived in a planned community and maryland required that you mix up higher and lower income units in developments. I rented an apt across the street from 600k-1.2mil dollar townhouses and single family homes.
I have seen that happen in Metro DC especially in VA where exceptions to density were made. I am not sure of the circumstances of those exceptions but they did happen and the effect was oversubscription to public services like water, sewer, ROADS (#1 reason there) and VA actually had to stop making exceptions. So when it comes down to more TAX dollars from more small homes than non existent large homes, the tune might change.
In DC I lived in a planned community and maryland required that you mix up higher and lower income units in developments. I rented an apt across the street from 600k-1.2mil dollar townhouses and single family homes.
Trust me, the density regualtions in that area will not change out of a desire for more tax dollars. Even if the city wanted to, they don't have the authority to change the regualtion since it is established at the state level and any attempt to try and change local ordinances related to the state rules would require state approval and need to go through the State Environmental Management Commission.
Ultimately those sites in the Hasentree community will either be built out under the current density limits or remain vacant. The chances of the regulations being altered to allow for another option are so slim they might as well be zero.
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.
