 | |
|  |  | |
| 0 | 8/27/10 10:46am | i own a single lot in the baca and do not understand the rules that allow two lots to be consolidated and one single payment versus two to be made. it doesn't seem fair, nor wise in a business sense, for a landowner to pay the same amount for double the lot...is anyone addressing this issue?
|
[
Reply
]
| Renee Newell - 8/27/10 10:46am |
|
| 10 | 7/23/10 3:54pm | Hi. I would like to visit the topic of minimum square footage of a residence in the Baca. I believe a single person can be quite comfortable in a less than 900 s.f. dwelling. Why build(take) more than we need? we are trying to promote low impact, green projects aren't we?
|
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 9/14/09 9:39pm |
  | I agree. Not only are we trying to promote low impact, but past survey result
show that people are concerned about low density. Given the nature of our
community, there may be folks who just want a small retreat cabin. Such a dwelling
would be in keeping with the above mentioned values.
Also I have a suspicion that the original intention of the 900 s.f. rule was discrimination against lower income people.|
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 9/26/09 9:55pm |
|
| I agree. This makes prefect since to me. I can not think of any reason there should be such a limitation. The larger the residence, the bigger the cost and lower impact to adjacent neighbors and community. I would like to see the POA community polled on this issue. |
| If any minimum home size is needed, 500 sq. ft. sounds more reasonable than 900 sq. ft. There may be those who are currently saving to build a 900 sq. ft. home who could build a 500 sq. ft. home today, providing construction jobs in the area now, rather than later. |
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 10/22/09 3:48pm |
|
| If we wanted to change the bylaw from a 900 sf minimum to say a 500 sf, how would we initiate the process? If by petitioning the members of the POA, how would we gain access to their phone numbers and/or email? Or would the POA board itself initiate the process?
|
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 11/11/09 7:13pm |
|
| I am currently still living on Guam (located in the Marianas Islands in the West Pacific) and am also single (my children are grown). If an initiative is begun, I would like to participate in the voting/petition process. I believe a more defined section be included in the by-laws to neither discriminate lower income brackets or starter homes AND still ensure other sections of the building codes are adhered to. I look forward to relocating to the Baca soon and hope that I can afford a starter home (at the least). 500 Sq Ft should be suffice (approximately a 20' x 25' size). |
| I think (hope?) that the original intent of the restriction was to prevent people from popping up poorly-built shacks that would diminish the collective value of the area. But a properly-built home, even a little 300 SF one, shouldn't detract from the area. It would be cool if there were some criteria that would allow for smaller houses, while limiting the potential for cardboard shacks.
|
[
Reply
]
| Christopher Gadd - 1/21/10 5:20pm |
|
| I think 900 sq. ft. should be as small as it gets. Otherwise, the area will look like little boxes and will draw certain types of the population. I'd like to see land value increase while keeping a natural feel to it. It's no Aspen, but it would be nice to have a holistic Aspen feel to it.|
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 3/17/10 12:33pm |
|
| Hi and thanks for your input on the forum. As the original covenants were put in place with a vision similar to yours, i can understand your viewpoint. It is kind of like putting community design into a box. The Baca is a changing community, different from even 5 years ago. Most or all of the vested (developers)interests that were on the POA board are gone. The Baca is now looking at itself, at least some individuals are, as becoming a more diverse community allowing in some retreat style cabins. (Many residents are seasonal and come here on spiritual retreat.) Naturally, the the smaller designs would need to be tasteful and attractive, however, viewing these smaller dwellings as "boxes" is a somwwhat limited view of a potentially creative situtation. I personally have seen some very artfully done small dwellings. Look at some of the coffee table books out there in the book stores on cottage dwellings. Quite nice i think some of them are.
wl |
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 7/23/10 3:54pm |
|
| To me, the problem of changing the SF requirement is one of "bait and switch". Many of us purchased property with an expectation of only minor changes in requirements to something as basic as home size. When I purchased my lot in the Grants, it was with the idea of a permanent residential community, not a campground. In fact, the campground (Casitas) was offered as an option for those desiring such a lifestyle.
900 SF is definitely not large by most peoples' standards, and the cost of the extra square footage in terms of material and labor is minor compared to the basic plumbing, heating, etc. required for any permanent residence. I don't believe that reducing the SF requirement would produce enough cost savings to provide any significant boost in new construction.
|
| We certainly agree with the need for a change to the minimum, house size requirement as stated now at 900 sq.ft.
500 sq. ft minimum would suffice for many and even 750 sq. ft would be a welcome change. Please keep us posted as to how to assist in moving this change forward. We would like to build a small cottage style home on our lot and the perfect plans accommodate us at around the 750 sq. ft. mark.|
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 7/23/10 2:04pm |
|
|
| 0 | 5/27/10 3:33pm | Anyone have a general idea of what homes/lots are exempt or were never acquired or brought under the POA? |
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 5/27/10 3:33pm |
|
| 0 | 4/18/10 10:23am | The recent vote against the cell phone tower speaks of this communities fear of progress. One letter to the editor by a Ms. Silver alluded to the Crestone community's need to stay aligned with the former Crestone chamber moto :" we got plenty of nothin" and vote down the towers. A lengthy q and a article was included in the Crestone Eagle . This was the description of the dangers of cell phone towers. The alleged "expert" being question had their name held back by request. The expert cited 2 or 3 studies citing cell phone tower dangers. These protesters of cell phone towers are examples of misinformation and fear.
The evidence against towers is slight. The several studies are small and poorly done. The preponderence of SCIENTIFIC evidence shows no harm. The "denialists" who propound health fears are basing their argument on opinon not fact.
The "plenty of nothing" group is fearful of progress. Interestingly, many in this group take advantage of selective progress via spending money on second homes, travel etc. Progress is not bad. Cell phones can save lives . Further, the POA would have reaped some income. Progress is mistrusted. It is equated with government lies ( which have occured).
Unfortunatly, the POA mismanged the PR on the towers, not allowing enough time for a full discussion in the community. It could have highlighted the misinformation and nostalgia driven "no progress" contingent. |
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 4/18/10 10:23am |
|
| 0 | 4/5/10 5:24pm | I'd love to touch base with a couple if you're still there. I was a sales manager back before AZL sold the Baca and am wanting to perhaps come back to retire, house-sit, etc. I have spoken via e-mail to Century 21 and the local newspaper, but would like to have a more indepth idea of how things are now. |
[
Reply
]
| guest guest - 4/5/10 5:24pm |
|
|
New Topic
payments on consolidated lots
