365 Round Hill Rd
365 Round Hill Road, asking $1.599. It’s on just 0.9 of an acre in the R-4 zone so thanks to our Planning & Zoning geniuses, you can only build a 2,700 sq.ft. home here (compared to the 5,292 sq.ft. the P&Z has determined is the “perfect size” for the one-acre zone, or the 8,820 sq.ft. home you’d be allowed in the R-20 zone), and it’s got a failed septic system, but it’s still an acre in a decent part of town. That’s if you can put up with the neighbors, but they’re mostly all out of town for indeterminate periods, depending on good behavior and appeals.
Dude –
Like we need further proof that we are becoming a Nation of idiots:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/facebook_experiments_with_satire_tag/
Maybe you should consider doing this on your blog. You dummy.
Your Pal,
Walt
what?
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/08/15/california-fining-ice-bucket-challenge-participants-for-wasting-water/
CF,
Would you educate an ignorant and do the math on FAR in this instance? At first blush a 10% reduction in lot size generates a 50% haircut on home size seems odd unless of course the lot is undersized and then you must beg to the town leaders to be able to have a house on the lot….
Because the P&Z makes no allowance for undersized lots, the maximum floor area for a house on one-acre lot in the four-acre zone is calculated by the R-4 ratio: 0.0625. Thus. 0.9 acre (43,560 X .9 = 39,204, x 0.0625 = 2,450 sq.ft..
That same 39,304 in the R-1 zone is treated to a different FAR ratio of 0.135, yielding a permissible house size of 5,293 sq. ft.
“Aha!” you cry, “if the P&Z has determined that a one-acre lot can accommodate a 5,293 sq.ft. home without crowding out its neighbors in the R-1 zone, why must it be shrunk to 2,450 sq.ft. in the R-4 zone, where homes are spaced so much farther apart?”
The answer, as explained repeatedly over the years by the RTM, our First Selectman and the Planning & Zoning commission, is “because”.
Hope that clears up your confusion.
I think the term “because” clarifies everything