Pros & cons of flag lots
Stuart Baker
The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
the residential zoning districts.
I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
--
********************************************************************
* Stuart G. Baker *
* Town Planner/Zoning Officer A hundred years after we are *
* 2 Union Street gone and forgotten those who *
* Littleton, NH 03561 never heard of us will be living *
* with the results of our actions. *
* Town of Littleton Home Page: *
* http://gov.littleton.nh.us Oliver Wendell Holmes *
********************************************************************
Peter Rosa
Stuart Baker wrote:
>
> The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
> minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
>
> Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
> the residential zoning districts.
>
> I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
> private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
> --
>
To some extent, it depends on your main goal - preserving values of existing properties
or increasing the availability of affordable housing.
Robert Cote
> The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
> minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
>
> Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
> the residential zoning districts.
>
> I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
> private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
Flag lots by minimizing both linear and peripherial public contact tend to
transfer infrastructure costs to private development and relieve public
per unit ongoing maintainence requirements.
Ron Newman
>> The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
>> minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
>>
>> Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
>> the residential zoning districts.
>>
>> I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
>> private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
what is a "flag lot" ?
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <51e7l5$f...@shell1.cybercom.net>, rne...@shell1.cybercom.net
(Ron Newman) wrote:
> >> The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
> >> minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
> >>
> >> Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
> >> the residential zoning districts.
> >>
> >> I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
> >> private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
>
> what is a "flag lot" ?
Ditto.
Nelson
John Hascall
-------------
| |
| Flag |
| Lot |
| |
|---------- | It sort of looks like a flag on a pole, hence...
| | |
| | |
| Front | |
| Lot | |
| | |
-----------------
street
-----------------
John
--
John Hascall, Software Engr. Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you
ISU Computation Center demanded are now mandatory. -Jello Biafra
jo...@iastate.edu
http://www.cc.iastate.edu/staff/systems/john/welcome.html <-- the usual crud
Frank Warner
Flag lots are the banners of bad planning. Make them build real
streets.
Frank Warner
Geenius at Wrok
On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, Frank Warner wrote:
> Flag lots are the banners of bad planning. Make them build real
> streets.
I know a guy who wanted to build a cluster development, but the local
zoning laws wouldn't permit it (even though another bylaw purported that
the town considered open space a priority). So he subdivided his lot into
several freakishly gerrymandered flag lots, in some cases with the houses
in the "poles" rather than in the "flags." The town didn't stop him or
punish him, but it was very quick to make what he did illegal for anyone
after him. It's still pretty much impossible to build the cluster zoning
that the town claims to want.
--
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net
He is a writer and an editor.
You try to run, but he's got a gun,
And he shoots you dead, and he eats your head.
Analects 2:24 /=/ "This must be what evil tastes like!"
Ron Newman
In article <techscan-130...@term2-2.vta.west.net>,
Robert Cote <tech...@west.net> wrote:
>In article <323879...@littleton.nh.us>, pla...@littleton.nh.us wrote:
>
>> The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
>> minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
>>
>> Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
>> the residential zoning districts.
>>
>> I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
>> private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
>
>transfer infrastructure costs to private development and relieve public
>per unit ongoing maintainence requirements.
Will someone please tell us what a "flag lot" is???
William Morse
In article <323879...@littleton.nh.us>,
Stuart Baker <pla...@littleton.nh.us> wrote:
>The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
>minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
>
>Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
>the residential zoning districts.
>
>I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
>private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
Typically flag lots allow for lower installation and maintenance costs for
public streets and utilities, by shortening the frontage per lot. For the
homebuyer this may be offset by higher costs for the longer driveways and
utilities required to reach the house. However many homeowners like the
increased privacy offered by the long driveway. Some emergency response
agencies (police, fire, ambulance) do not like longer driveways.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Jason P. Makofsky
Nelson S. Benzing,nben...@ix.netcom.com,Internet wrote:
>In article <51e7l5$f...@shell1.cybercom.net>, rne...@shell1.cybercom.net
>(Ron Newman) wrote:
>> >> The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
>> >> minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
>> >>
>> >> Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
>> >> the residential zoning districts.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public
and
>> >> private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
>>
>> what is a "flag lot" ?
>Ditto.
>Nelson
Around here we have something called "Pork-chop" lots, which are
building lots in already developed areas. In order to subdivide, the
commonwealth of Massachusetts has a minimum frontage requirement
of 20 feet (many cities and towns have increased this) on a public
way. Homes that were been build years ago may have 200 ft of
frontage and some acres of back-lot.
In order to sell building lots and make some quick cash, an owner &
developer might draw up a plan that has additional lots, each with 20
feet on the street, a long, narrow driveway, and the required lot size
somewhere in the owner's backyard. Hence the shape suggests the
names flag lot or pork-chop lot.
Jason Makofsky
MAPC
Boston, MA
Daniel P Tasman
Ron Newman (rne...@shell1.cybercom.net) wrote:
: what is a "flag lot" ?
Something like this ...
| |
-+--------+-
| |
| | <- This is the flag lot
| |
+------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
--+------+-+---
Public ROW
BTW, Stuart, e-mail to pla...@littleton.nh.us bounces - I get "Nameserver
recognition" errors. Is there a numerical IP address for the
littleton.nh.us domain?
Dan
--
Dan Tasman tas...@acsu.buffalo.edu http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~tasman/
UB School of Architecture and Planning http://www.arch.buffalo.edu/
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree. |
| indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all." |
| Odgen Nash, Song of the Open Road |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Robert Cote
In article <51i67d$o...@shell1.cybercom.net>, rne...@shell1.cybercom.net
(Ron Newman) wrote:
> In article <techscan-130...@term2-2.vta.west.net>,
> Robert Cote <tech...@west.net> wrote:
> >In article <323879...@littleton.nh.us>, pla...@littleton.nh.us wrote:
> >
> >> The Littleton, NH Planning Board is currently discussing creating
> >> minimum lot frontage standards in its zoning ordinance.
> >>
> >> Of current concern is the creation so-called "flag lots," especially in
> >> the residential zoning districts.
> >>
> >> I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
> >> private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
> >
> >Flag lots by minimizing both linear and peripherial public contact tend to
> >transfer infrastructure costs to private development and relieve public
> >per unit ongoing maintainence requirements.
>
> Will someone please tell us what a "flag lot" is???
+-------------|---------------+
| | |
| Flag Lot | Flag Lot |
| | |
| | |
| +--------+----------+ |
| | | |
| | Traditional | |
| | Lot | |
| | | |
======================================
Public access, road, whatever
======================================
Frank Warner
Stuart Baker <pla...@littleton.nh.us> wrote:
>I'd be very interested in any views others have regarding the public and
>private costs and benefits of flag lot development.
Beware of flag lots. They are the banners of bad planning. And
they're the biggest loophole for developers trying to avoid building
an orderly system of standard roads.
Flag lots are parcels of land that, when drawn on a map, often look
like flags.
The "flag" is the main part of the lot; the "flag pole" is the strip
of land for a driveway connecting the main lot area to a road some
distance away. And not every flag lot looks like a flag.
The principal identifying element of a flag lot is that its border
along a road -- its street frontage -- is significantly narrower than
the lot width a municipality normally would require at the building
line. (The building line of a lot is an imaginary line, parallel to
the street, drawn through the planned building at the point nearest
the street.)
For example, a zoning district may require a minimum lot width of 200
feet at the building site. If flag lots are allowed, the lot width at
the road does not have to be 200 feet. Where it meets the existing
standard road, that flag pole might be just 30 or 40 feet wide, barely
wide enough to allow room for a driveway between the road and the
house.
So what's wrong with flag lots? What's wrong with squeezing a few
odd-shaped lots behind and between the standard lots that have
standard frontage -- no flag poles -- on standard roads?
Experience has found plenty wrong with flag lots:
-- Flag lots can produce unsafe crowding of driveways along busy
streets.
-- Flag lots can result in maintenance disputes between neighbors
sharing a private drive.
-- Flag lots can bring on disorganized development that later will be
difficult to reach with new sewer lines, waterlines and other
utilities.
-- Flag lots can place homes in locations difficult for fire trucks
and other emergency vehicles to reach.
-- Flag lots can give developers a way to evade construction of
standard roads, pedestrian paths and stormwater controls.
Proponents of flag lots like to argue that the concept gives a
developer a way to carve out a large "open space" lot behind the
regular size lots along the road. But too often, flag lots are not
significantly larger than the roadside lots.
Even when flag lots are large, the developer often comes back to
re-subdivide them. A development might end up with as many or more
flag lots in the rear as standard lots along the road. In the
process, the developer evades his duty to build a standard quality
road tha would have served the new homes properly.
Nevertheless, with strict controls, flag lots do have a place.
It makes sense, in some cases, to allow flag lots to front on a
turn-around circle at the end of a cul-de-sac (dead end) street.
On a cul-de-sac turn-around, flag lots are appropriate only as long as
municipal planners and decision-makers are certain there won't be a
need to extend the cul-de-sac street. If a street is never going
beyond the development, that street need not cut through the street's
dead-end lots. The street can stop a little short, allowing the
dead-end lots to become flag lots, with relatively narrow frontage on
the cul-de-sac turn-around.
Flag lots on a cul-de-sac circle would be drawn like pie slices, with
the larger area in the back wide enough to meet zoning requirements
for minimum lot widths at the building line.
But if a cul-de-sac street might be extended someday, the developer
should build the street all the way to the development tract's rear
boundary, and even the lots at the dead end should have road frontage
at least as wide as the lot width that zoning normally requires at the
building line.
Controlling flag lots takes a little thought, but any experienced
municipal engineer can help muncipal decision-makers write reasonable
regulations that aren't full of loopholes. Make sure that engineer
has no conflict of interest.
Good regulations can make sure flag lots are not overused, and can
encourage preservation of large back lots. Here are a few recommended
flag lot restrictions:
1. In general, any flag lot must have at least three times the land
area of the lot area minimum normally required by the municipal zoning
ordinance in that zoning district.
2. The area of the access strip -- the flag pole -- must not be
included in calculating the required lot area.
3. There must be no flag lot in any subdivision of four or fewer
lots. In subdivisions of five or more lots, there must be no more
than one flag lot or a number of flag lots amounting to no more than 7
percent of all the lots, whichever number is higher.
4. No flag lot may be permitted in any subdivision if any of the
subdivision's land had been part of another subdivision that produced
one or more flag lots.
5. Access to the flag lot, that is, the distance between the street
and the building line, must not exceed 500 feet in length. The
building site must be shown on all plans submitted to the
municipality.
6. The grade for a flag lot access driveway must not be greater than
10 percent.
7. No flag lot's driveway may be permitted any closer than 500 feet
from the driveway of any other flag lot, whether the nearest other
flag lot is part of the new development or part of an earlier
development.
8. Every flag lot must be deed restricted from further subdivision,
and must be recorded with conservation easements granting a local
conservation trust and the municipality the right to prevent further
subdivision of the flag lot.
9. Additional flag lots may be permitted on a cul-de-sac turn-around
circle, as long as the municipality determines there will never be a
need to extend the cul-de-sac street into the neighboring tract.
10. Flag lots on a cul-de-sac circle must have side lot lines that
radiate from the center of the circle, and must have frontage on the
circle no less than 33 percent of the normally required minimum lot
width at the building line.
I hope these ideas are helpful to you.
Frank Warner
The Township Avenger
Stuart Baker
An illustrated definition of flag lot:
______________________________
| | |
| Flag Lot | |
| | |
____|________ | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
--------------------------------------- ^
Street (No scale) | N
---------------------------------------
Flag or pipe stem lots typically consist of narrow road frontage with a
building location often behind adjactent lots fronting on the same
street. Most often found in residential development. This type of lot
design is caused by a current or past lack of minimum road frontage
requirements in zoning & subdivision regulations.
Stuart Baker
In the interest of stirring constuctive discussion of flag lot design, I
offer two cons that come to mind:
1) Flag lot designs can increase the number of lots and driveways on a
highway, thus resulting in the potential for higher traffic from local
developments.
2) Flag lots often result in longer driveways, which can be harder to
privately maintain and consequently can create response difficulties for
emergency services.
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <51f754$n...@news.iastate.edu>, jo...@iastate.edu (John Hascall) wrote:
> Nelson S. Benzing <nben...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> }> what is a "flag lot" ?
> }Ditto.
> See diagram below:
Thanks, John
Nelson
Stuart Baker
The discussion in this thread has been very helpful thus far, but I'd
like to see some more dialogue about the compelling public interest
rationale behind Frank Warner's 10 recommended flag lot restrictions:
>Frank Warner wrote:
>Here are a few recommended flag lot restrictions:
>1. In general, any flag lot must have at least three times the land area of the lot >area minimum normally required by the municipal zoning ordinance in that zoning >district.
What is the public interest in requiring a larger lot size for a flag
lot? If there aren't any natural resource constraints (geology and
soils, water resources, fragile ecosystems, etc.), wouldn't this
standard unnecessarily tie up otherwise developable lands?
>2. The area of the access strip -- the flag pole -- must not be included in >calculating the required lot area.
Again, what is the public interest? Certainly frontage and front lot
areas are included in the calculating the required lot areas of other
styles of lot design.
>3. The must be no flag lot in any subdivision of four or fewer lots. In >subdivisions of five or more lots, there must be no more than one flag lot or a number >of flag lots amounting to no more than 7 percent of all the lots, whichever number is >higher.
>4. No flag lot may be permitted in any subdivision if any of the subdivision's land >had been part of another subdivision that produced one or more flag lots.
>5. Access to the flag lot , that is the distance between the street and the >building line, must not exceed 500 feet in length. The building site must be shown on >all plans submitted to the municipality.
I'm assuming the public interest in the above three recommendations is
to limit the number of lots in a subdivision where the brunt of the
infrastructure costs (access drives, utilities, etc.) are left to the
individual land owners. Are there other reasons?
>6. The grade for a flag lot access driveway must not be greater than 10 percent.
Clearly a public safety concern for emergency service providers.
>7. No flag lot's driveway may be permitted any closer than 500 feet from the >driveway of any other flag lot, whether the nearest other flag lot is part of the new >development or part of an earlier development.
I'm somewhat stumped by this standard. I can understand this if the
topography of the land is difficult, but is it a fair standard if other
lot designs are not subject to the same condition?
>8. Every flag lot must be deed restricted from further subdivision, and must be >recorded with conservation easements granting a local conservation trust and the >municipality the right to prevent further subdivision of the flag lot.
Seems like this could be an unfair restriction of the right of a
landowner to further subdivide. (Say it with me - taking!) What if the
frontage provided at the base of the flag pole is sufficient to meet the
local standards for creation of a new public or private road to access
future lots?
>9. Additional flag lots may be permitted on a cul-de-sac turn-around circle, as >long as the municipality determines there will never be a need to extend the cul-de-sac >street into the neighboring tract.
Seems reasonable.
>10. Flag lots on a cul-de-sac circle must have side lot lines that radiate from the >center of the circle, and must have frontage on the circle no less than 33 percent of >the normally required minimum lot width at the building line.
What is the public interest rationale behind the 33 percent standard?
Alan Luchetti
tas...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel P Tasman) wrote:
>Ron Newman (rne...@shell1.cybercom.net) wrote:
>: what is a "flag lot" ?
>Something like this ...
>
>
> | |
> -+--------+-
> | |
> | | <- This is the flag lot
> | |
> +------+ |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | |
> | | |
> --+------+-+---
> Public ROW
I was wondering too. In Australia, they're called 'battle-axe blocks'.
Colin R. Leech
William Morse (wdm...@dreamscape.com) writes:
> Typically flag lots allow for lower installation and maintenance costs for
> public streets and utilities, by shortening the frontage per lot. For the
> homebuyer this may be offset by higher costs for the longer driveways and
> utilities required to reach the house. However many homeowners like the
> increased privacy offered by the long driveway. Some emergency response
> agencies (police, fire, ambulance) do not like longer driveways.
Hard to imagine any of these being a significant deterrent to flag lots.
--
##### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
##### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
##### > < Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.
##### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
TOWN OF CROMWELL
nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
>In article <51f754$n...@news.iastate.edu>, jo...@iastate.edu (John Hascall) wrote:
>
>> See diagram below:
>
>Thanks, John
>
>Nelson
>> -------------
>> | |
>> | Flag |
>> | Lot |
>> | |
>> |---------- | It sort of looks like a flag on a pole, hence...
>> | | |
>> | | |
>> | Front | |
>> | Lot | |
>> | | |
>> -----------------
>> street
>> -----------------
>>
>>
They're also called "pork chop" lots, but most people call them "rear
lots".
I myself don't understand why so many of my fellow planners hate rear
lots. Lighten up! So long as the lot has enough area, who cares how
much frontage it has? I know that police and fire folks hate them, but
we planners have already abrogated way too much planning authority to
those guys. If someone wants to put his house so far back from the
street as to make emergency response a problem, that's *his* problem. My
philosophy as a town planner is, it's my job to protect the community
from the damn fool, not the damn fool from himself.
Robert Cote
In article <51lgsu$j...@news2.ptd.net>, waki...@postoffice.ptd.net wrote:
> Beware of flag lots. They are the banners of bad planning. And
> they're the biggest loophole for developers trying to avoid building
> an orderly system of standard roads.
Opinion.
...
> Experience has found plenty wrong with flag lots:
>
> -- Flag lots can produce unsafe crowding of driveways along busy
> streets.
No, high density zoning causes unsafe crowding. Wait, every one in
a.p.u will tell you high density has NO negative effects. There
is nothing inherent in flag lots that changes crowding.
> -- Flag lots can result in maintenance disputes between neighbors
> sharing a private drive.
Sharing private lots is a contradiction. They aren't flag lots if they
share. Don't do this.
> -- Flag lots can bring on disorganized development that later will be
> difficult to reach with new sewer lines, waterlines and other
> utilities.
Why disorganized. Plan for it. Public interest is in delivering service
to the lot line. Everything is the private parties' problem.
> -- Flag lots can place homes in locations difficult for fire trucks
> and other emergency vehicles to reach.
Yes. No gates. No hidden drives. Clear signage.
> -- Flag lots can give developers a way to evade construction of
> standard roads, pedestrian paths and stormwater controls.
Absolutly. Less frontage, shorter roads, fewer intersection crossings
(albiet equivilant driveway crossings), less paved area requiring
runoff management are all no longer necessary. You call it evasion,
I call it unnecessary.
> Proponents of flag lots like to argue that the concept gives a
> developer a way to carve out a large "open space" lot behind the
> regular size lots along the road. But too often, flag lots are not
> significantly larger than the roadside lots.
Don't know what others say but shorter roads intrude into open space
less than do long ones.
> Even when flag lots are large, the developer often comes back to
> re-subdivide them. A development might end up with as many or more
> flag lots in the rear as standard lots along the road. In the
> process, the developer evades his duty to build a standard quality
> road tha would have served the new homes properly.
Don't allow speculative flag zoning. As per your suggestions below.
> Nevertheless, with strict controls, flag lots do have a place.
>
> It makes sense, in some cases, to allow flag lots to front on a
> turn-around circle at the end of a cul-de-sac (dead end) street.
>
> On a cul-de-sac turn-around, flag lots are appropriate only as long as
> municipal planners and decision-makers are certain there won't be a
> need to extend the cul-de-sac street. If a street is never going
> beyond the development, that street need not cut through the street's
> dead-end lots. The street can stop a little short, allowing the
> dead-end lots to become flag lots, with relatively narrow frontage on
> the cul-de-sac turn-around.
Private property does not exist to anticipate planners future whims.
> Flag lots on a cul-de-sac circle would be drawn like pie slices, with
> the larger area in the back wide enough to meet zoning requirements
> for minimum lot widths at the building line.
Again nothing unique about flag lots.
...
> 1. In general, any flag lot must have at least three times the land
> 2. The area of the access strip -- the flag pole -- must not be
> included in calculating the required lot area.
> 3. There must be no flag lot in any subdivision of four or fewer
> 4. No flag lot may be permitted in any subdivision if any of the
> subdivision's land had been part of another subdivision that produced
> one or more flag lots.
1-4 are arbitrary and capracious.
> 5-7 are various numerical guidelines, side lot, etc.
In summary the good points can be generalized by:
Preserve public interest and treat flag lots like all others and it
will turn out allright.
The bad points by:
It is easier for developers to slip through loopholes.
Colin R. Leech
Stuart Baker (pla...@littleton.nh.us) writes:
> The discussion in this thread has been very helpful thus far, but I'd
> like to see some more dialogue about the compelling public interest
> rationale behind Frank Warner's 10 recommended flag lot restrictions:
>
>>Frank Warner wrote:
>
>>Here are a few recommended flag lot restrictions:
>
>>1. In general, any flag lot must have at least three times the land area of the lot >area minimum normally required by the municipal zoning ordinance in that zoning >district.
>
> What is the public interest in requiring a larger lot size for a flag
> lot? If there aren't any natural resource constraints (geology and
> soils, water resources, fragile ecosystems, etc.), wouldn't this
> standard unnecessarily tie up otherwise developable lands?
Doesn't make sense to me either. Anyone else?
>>2. The area of the access strip -- the flag pole -- must not be included in >calculating the required lot area.
>
> Again, what is the public interest? Certainly frontage and front lot
> areas are included in the calculating the required lot areas of other
> styles of lot design.
The access strip isn't really "usable" space in the sense of a front or
back yard, or the square footage of the house. However, this does seem to
be an extension of #1 above.
>>3. The must be no flag lot in any subdivision of four or fewer lots. In
>>subdivisions of five or more lots, there must be no more than one flag
>>lot or a number >of flag lots amounting to no more than 7 percent of all
>>the lots, whichever number is >higher. >
Don't see why you couldn't have a flag lot behind every house or every
second house. It also seems like an ideal way to make use of the large
pie-shaped lots that tend to occur on dead-end courts in the corners.
>>4. No flag lot may be permitted in any subdivision if any of the
>>subdivision's land >had been part of another subdivision that produced one
>>or more flag lots.
>>
>>5. Access to the flag lot , that is the distance between the street and
>>the >building line, must not exceed 500 feet in length. The building site
>>must be shown on >all plans submitted to the municipality. >
This one seems reasonable, and plans should be submitted for all lots
anyway regardless of type.
>>6. The grade for a flag lot access driveway must not be greater than 10
>>percent.
> Clearly a public safety concern for emergency service providers.
Not any different from any other kind of lot.
>>7. No flag lot's driveway may be permitted any closer than 500 feet from
>>the >driveway of any other flag lot, whether the nearest other flag lot is
>>part of the new >development or part of an earlier development. >
>
> I'm somewhat stumped by this standard. I can understand this if the
> topography of the land is difficult, but is it a fair standard if other
> lot designs are not subject to the same condition?
>
>>8. Every flag lot must be deed restricted from further subdivision, and
>>must be >recorded with conservation easements granting a local
>>conservation trust and the >municipality the right to prevent further
>>subdivision of the flag lot. >
>
> Seems like this could be an unfair restriction of the right of a
> landowner to further subdivide. (Say it with me - taking!) What if the
> frontage provided at the base of the flag pole is sufficient to meet the
> local standards for creation of a new public or private road to access
> future lots?
>
>>9. Additional flag lots may be permitted on a cul-de-sac turn-around
>>circle, as >long as the municipality determines there will never be a need
>>to extend the cul-de-sac >street into the neighboring tract. >
>
> Seems reasonable.
>
>>10. Flag lots on a cul-de-sac circle must have side lot lines that
>>radiate from the >center of the circle, and must have frontage on the
>>circle no less than 33 percent of >the normally required minimum lot width
>>at the building line.
>
> What is the public interest rationale behind the 33 percent standard?
My overall impression of these rules is that somebody wrote them so that
they can point to their zoning code and say "See? We allow flag lots"
while making the conditions so restrictive that hardly any will actually
ever get built.
Colin R. Leech
Stuart Baker (to...@moose.ncia.net) writes:
> In the interest of stirring constuctive discussion of flag lot design, I
> offer two cons that come to mind:
>
> 1) Flag lot designs can increase the number of lots and driveways on a
> highway, thus resulting in the potential for higher traffic from local
> developments.
That's a con? The traffic is generated in proportion to the number of units
(population), not the size of the lot. The intensification (increased
density) means that you have a higher ratio of units to roads, meaning
that the cost per resident of the road is less.
> 2) Flag lots often result in longer driveways, which can be harder to
> privately maintain and consequently can create response difficulties for
> emergency services.
Really? You're trying to tell me that a poorly maintained driveway prevents
a fire truck from putting out the fire in the house? I've never heard of
such a thing being a problem.
Geenius at Wrok
On 21 Sep 1996, Colin R. Leech wrote:
> Stuart Baker (to...@moose.ncia.net) writes:
>
> > 2) Flag lots often result in longer driveways, which can be harder to
> > privately maintain and consequently can create response difficulties for
> > emergency services.
>
> Really? You're trying to tell me that a poorly maintained driveway prevents
> a fire truck from putting out the fire in the house? I've never heard of
> such a thing being a problem.
Maybe not, but it COULD prevent an ambulance from safely transporting a
household accident victim with serious internal injuries or fractures.
Bumpity-bump-bump ...
ED
In article <520c7e$l...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
For the most part, nothing in these standards is remotely rational.