|
ihe 3d¢w "Ae�kiv¢ �.duii" �o�as��g
<br />continued from page 19
<br />dwelling units. Compared to tradi[ional
<br />single-family detached subdivisions,
<br />,active adult communities leave more open
<br />' pace for a given number of dwellings.
<br />ISSUES FOR PLANNERS
<br />Active adult communities are not sim-
<br />ply subdivisions with homes owned by
<br />empey nesters. They are in fact a different
<br />foxm of development that carries some
<br />imporeant implications and issues for
<br />planners and land use regulators:
<br />Age-�testricted vs. Eige-Oriented
<br />Age-restrzcted communities require
<br />irnposition of a restriction on the deed
<br />record for the property (or in the condo-
<br />minium declaration or articles of incorpo-
<br />ration) that the home can only be sold to a
<br />household meeting the stated age require-
<br />ment. Age-oriented communities do nat
<br />have such restrictions and, in theory,
<br />homes can be sold or resold ta anyone.
<br />However, developments with the design
<br />and planning features (including small
<br />common-area yards) associated with
<br />•,active adults are not likely to attraet fami-
<br />_ �es with children.
<br />- - -' Age-oriented communities are tl�us
<br />relying on ihe market response to their
<br />design to achieve their xnatuxe market ori-
<br />en[ation. Some municipalities, however,
<br />want these communities to adhere to spe-
<br />cific a ge restrictions. Interestin gl y, most
<br />developers do not like age restrictions.
<br />They woutd rather not prevent a viable
<br />prospect (such as a 52-year-oId childless
<br />couple) irom buying their product. Mare-
<br />over, they believe that the features of the
<br />developrrcent wiil be effective in focusing
<br />the market on 55-and-overs. Also, some
<br />po[ential buyers may be concerned as to
<br />the resale potential of their house if they
<br />can't seil it to anyone who can pay the
<br />price.
<br />IDetached Condominiu�$�
<br />vs. Subdivisi�aas
<br />Developing a community of detached
<br />homes as condominiums can require
<br />some mental adjustments on the part of
<br />bath buyers and local governments.
<br />[omebuyers may readily embrace the
<br />idea of handing off their lawn mowing
<br />and maintenance to the conclo
<br />association, but �zay have to come to grips
<br />with not having a back yard in which to
<br />plant a vegetable garden or do what they
<br />please. Simiiarly, while local governments
<br />may embrace not having to plow the
<br />new streets or extend new sewer lines,
<br />they may feel uneasy about the condo-
<br />minium association functioning in ways
<br />that resemble a separate community
<br />govemment.Z
<br />REGULATORY ROADBLOCKS
<br />For the E�iscal reasons noted earlier,
<br />active adutt coramunities can be quite
<br />attractive eo upscale, low-density subur-
<br />ban jurisdictions. However, these are fre-
<br />quently the very same jurisdictions that
<br />have implemented minimum lot size
<br />res[rictions or other zoning regulations
<br />that prevent higher densiry developmene.
<br />There is a presumption behind such regu-
<br />lations that higher density equaEes to
<br />lower values. Sircce active adule communi-
<br />t i e s a r e t y p i c a l i y h i g h e r d e n s i t y / h i g h e r
<br />value propositions, they may be at odds
<br />with restrictive zoning.
<br />For example, setback and minimum
<br />Iot size reqr�iremenrs can prevent the type
<br />of active adult housing described in this
<br />article. in addition to the maintenance
<br />benefits for homeowners, one reason
<br />developers have used the condominium
<br />£orm of development (instead of setling
<br />individual houses on fee simple lots) is eo
<br />circumvent rnunicipal setback and znini-
<br />2 While it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss
<br />[he growing impacts oE private community associa-
<br />tions, one should note their rapidly increasing num-
<br />bers, ln 1970, under 3% oE U.S. housing units were
<br />pat[ of a community association {including condo-
<br />miniums, cooperatives, and pla�ned communities).
<br />By 1998, [his had Fnashroomed to nearly 15°,b oF all
<br />housing units. Condominiums represent over 30% of
<br />community associations. Comtnunity Association Fact-
<br />book (Commvnity Associations Insti[caEe 1999).
<br />mum lot size requirernents. In some areas,
<br />however, this creates further problems as
<br />regulations designed around multifamily
<br />condominium bail.dings fit poorly when
<br />applied to single family detached hotnes.3
<br />In other areas, these developn�enks
<br />make use oE "plan�3ed unit clevelopment"
<br />or "planned residentiat development" pro-
<br />visions of the local zoning ordinance,
<br />which a11ow znore flexibility in site layout
<br />and design, and also permit ehe clustering
<br />of housing units on certain portions of the
<br />site. Just as often, however, communiries
<br />that have [avored large lot development
<br />have resisted cluster-style zoning.
<br />Si1MMTNG UP:
<br />Demographic trends underlie an
<br />increasing demand for "active adule"
<br />housing des'tgned to meet the needs of
<br />mature, chilctless households, age SS and
<br />older. This can be a very attractive form of
<br />development for local eommunities. It is,
<br />however, a specialized type of housing
<br />with a unique combi�aation a[ opportuni-
<br />ties and constraints. Local zoning lativs,
<br />site planning standards, and approval pro-
<br />cedures may have to be updated if your
<br />comtnunity is to participate in this new
<br />wave of housing developnnent. �
<br />Wayne Lemn�ort is a reai � w,�
<br />�J
<br />.�, �; `.
<br />estute mnrhe[ e�oiiomist with � � �
<br />.oi� � . . .,;. 5.
<br />a degree in architectuie frozn ��
<br />Cornell Untversity, nnd '�r = R d`�
<br />� �� �.
<br />urban planning from the City ��
<br />Coliege of New Yorh. He is � ya; �,���� �
<br />DirectoroJ�Nlar�heCResearcJ� ,� ;�,'��"°°`-- �
<br />�. �.. �
<br />for Bnher Reside�itinl, a lccrge E
<br />homebuilder oper-ating fro»i tRe Piiiladetphia to
<br />the Hat-tford metropoIitan areas. Lelnmm� is nlso «
<br />member of tlie PCJ's Edrtorint Ac�visory Board, and
<br />autho�•ec� "Tiie AiTti-Sprawl Maiitra" in PCJ #37
<br />{wnter 2000),
<br />3 ln some cases, dimensional requirements contained
<br />in local zoning or subdivision regulations, which may
<br />apply to individual lots, do not apply to condominium
<br />developments. Same localities also have specific regtt-
<br />]ations applicable to condominium developments,
<br />such as parking and bedroom count standards, that
<br />appiy poorl}' to single-Family rletached archi[ecture.
<br />• •
<br />�� ���'�� � � �
<br />.�.�z.' r,::. �;�.Y�-.�� �
<br />o�urn� ;
<br />,� ��� �--;.� � �-�_ �
<br />�� r�, � ���
<br />PLANNI[�tG COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 51 / SUM[vIER 2003
<br />����
<br />
|