Recent comments in /f/vermont

BudsKind802 t1_j7o7g6a wrote

A number of towns in VT have PUD density bonus for reaching a better environmental practices, public good projects, and even for more open space.

Developers need a carrot and stick method to "encourage" them to build denser housing. Otherwise they will keep building homes out of the reach of most Vermonters.

1

zombienutz1 t1_j7o6ke2 wrote

PUDs have lot size requirements and typically can't squeeze extra houses in or else they fall into a different zoning category that may not be available in that same area. I know several homeowners who have taken advantage of PUDs and added two 3-4 bedroom houses on 1/3 acre. Yeah, it may not make a big dent but there is no "all or nothing" solution so every bit counts.

Realistically all of the 1-2 bedroom apartments being built aren't needed as much as 3+ bedrooms. It doesn't allow for families to stick around here. Act 250 holds up development, increases costs of building, replacing a sign or something small on an existing structure can trigger Act 250 permitting. Yeah, a lot of developers suck but denser housing in downtowns, as you say, won't build itself.

2

BudsKind802 t1_j7o5yxt wrote

It's simple to say that regulation is stopping more housing stock from being built. It's also not based in reality.

Developers are going to build what makes them the most money, which are high end single family homes. Even building an extra 500 homes without regulation isn't going to help do anything but create more opportunities for out of state investors and pad developers' pockets, which is exactly why they're the biggest proponents of deregulation.

17

No-Ganache7168 t1_j7o2d84 wrote

Yes. There was a bad storm earlier this season where driving between barre and Waterbury at night no one was going more than 35 and lots of cars were stopped along the side of the interstate. It was covered with snow and visibility was very poor. Speed limit might be 65 but there are situations where going that fast is foolish.

4

canthaveme t1_j7o21yz wrote

When the conditions are decent enough that people who know how to drive are going faster and they come up on some crazy newbie swerving all over the road is dangerous. It's the interstate. Stay off if you're unable to control your vehicle

−1

BudsKind802 t1_j7o1qqo wrote

PUDs lower the cost for the developer, but that isn't realized on the sale price enough to make much difference for the home buyer. And maybe through bonuses developers can squeeze a few extra single family houses, but that's not going to put a dent in the housing crisis.

Building more single family homes sprawled out is a large part of the issue, and Act 250 at least keeps some of that in check. We need denser housing options in downtime or growth areas and encouraging public transportation to those areas. Otherwise we continue with the same failed "trickle down" method we have now.

7

WhatTheCluck802 t1_j7o1b82 wrote

You do need snow tires. “All Season” tires are a lie.

Practice in an empty parking lot. Turning and braking, and you’ll get a sense of how your car handles in snow.

Take it easy. Don’t accelerate or decelerate too fast. Generally better for your car to slow down from taking your foot off the gas and coasting, versus slamming on your brakes.

2

bibliophile222 t1_j7o05t7 wrote

As others have said, as long as you're on paved roads, 95% of the time the roads will be perfectly clear, but if you do drive in the snow, go slow, leave plenty of room between you and the car in front of you, don't rapidly accelerate or decelerate, and don't change speeds when you're turning. You might feel a little slipping/skidding when you turn or brake, like the car is wiggling. If this happens, don't slam on the brakes; gradually slow until you feel in control.

12