Property for Sale near AT in Suches GA

[FatMan]

I have removed the property information as the discussion that follows has little to do with this particular tract, and more to do with WB members views on property owner rights, covenants and restrictions, square footage, enviros vs greed, mcmansions, mpg, carbon footprints, water and sewage. Have at it guys and gals.

Of course if anyone might like some pertinent information on this property, please pm and I will give you what I have.

[FatMan]

Recieved a question by PM about covenants and restrictions. C&Rs are filed with the property. The lots are to be used for residential only and with a size requirement of 1200+ sqft (?) per home. This property is not suitable for a hostel.

[modiyooch]

I like it better if it was 1-2 homesites and not 30.

[Lyle]

I hate it when they put size requirements on a home. We are forcing folks to build way more house than is needed. A single person can get along just fine with a 600 to 900 sq. foot house.

This type of waste, dictated by local law irritates me no end.

Ok back off my soapbox...

[EWS]

Square foot requirements are used, since discrimination based upon income is illegal.

[Suzzz]

Just my opinion but.... if you can afford 70K for a piece of land, chances are you won't be building a 900sqft house. Maybe I'm generalizing too much but it seems the more money you have the bigger your house.

[Lyle]

Suzzz,

May be true, but my point is that one does not have the option with restrictions like these. I, for one, would build a small home even if I could afford bigger.

[Smile]

--------------------

[chief]

Lyle, while you would probably build a nice small home, an asset to the sub-division. There are those who would park a trailor on the next lot, a party tent on another. Suddenly, your nice house's value would be crap. I've seen it happen many times. Restrictions are placed for a reason. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a 70,000 lot knowing someone could throw up a tiny little house next to me, guaranteeing loss of value!

[Lyle]

Bigger isn't better, just more wasteful and expensive.

[Jim Adams]

Lyle, while you would probably build a nice small home, an asset to the sub-division. There are those who would park a trailor on the next lot, a party tent on another. Suddenly, your nice house's value would be crap. I've seen it happen many times. Restrictions are placed for a reason. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a 70,000 lot knowing someone could throw up a tiny little house next to me, guaranteeing loss of value!

This is a beautiful and quaint area. To me the $70,000 would be to guarentee that it stays that way. There is no reason in this day and age with the condition of our environments for a two person household to be larger than 1,000 sq. feet.
With your attitude, I wouldn't want you building next to me in this area either!

gee

[Appalachian Tater]

Demographics vs. House Size

The U.S. Census Bureau has been collecting detailed information on household size since 1940 and tracking certain characteristics of houses since 1963. Data on houses were collected by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other agencies from 1940 to 1963. Average household size in the United States has dropped steadily from 3.67 members in 1940 to 2.62 in 2002. The average size of new houses increased from about 1,100 ft2 (100 m2) in the 1940s and 1950s to 2,340 ft2 (217 m2) in 2002. Factoring together the family size and house size statistics, we find that in 1950 houses were built with about 290 square feet (27 m2) per family member, whereas in 2003 houses provided 893 square feet (83 m2) per family member (NAHB 2003) -- a factor of 3 increase.

http://www.greenerbuildings.com/news...m?NewsID=28392

It is very possible to have restrictions on what is built without requiring a huge house to be built. 1200 square feet is fairly modest these days for a primary house. I would think in an area like this a smaller, quality house or cabin should be allowed.

[KirkMcquest]

All these restrictions make me sick. The concept of ownership in this country has really done to s#$t.

[FatMan]

A couple of comments in regards to the replies:

First, I am somewhat sorry that this has taken the tangent it has. Only posted the thread to let those interested in AT property know the opportunity exists.

Second, I too wish this was being sold in one or two parcels. But with smaller parcels going for 40-60K per acre in the area the current owner believes he can maximize his value by selling the tract off in as many lots as the code will allow (Union County requires 1.5 buildable acres minimum per lot. As for the definition of buildable, I have learned through personal experience that it is quite complex).

Third, nobody forces C&R's on anyone. They are a choice that people make when they purchase property. They are actually a property owner's right, and the current owner has exercised his right in establishing the C&R's as he believes they will bring added value to the property as he sells it off.


Fourth, in this area 1200 sqft is really quite small. I would say the 15 or so houses within a two mile radius range from 1000 sqft to 8000 sqft. My house is about 3500 sqft. The purpose of the restriction is to keep a group of hunters from getting together and buying multiple lots and putting in a series small bunkhouses creating a hunters camp. The property is surrounded by prime hunting area and this is a concern of the seller. He wants to keep the area a bit more residential and vacation oriented, which as a neighboring property I support. And, of course that is his right as a property owner. And, C&R's can be always be voted null and void by a pre-determined % vote of all the affected property owners if they choose to do so.

[Jim Adams]

I am familiar with the area and it is very pretty indeed but I myself would rather see it have the hunting camps as the whole area would still be inhabited less often than it would be as a housing developement or even vacation homes. Hunting season isn't that long.

geek

[Miss Janet]

We have a new "development" going up near the AT and locked into the Cherokee National Forest. It is a very rugged, steep area with dozens of creeks... and beautiful! The limit there will be 1,500 feet... on the first level! They are selling lots of 1/2 to 2 acres. Well, there will be lots of houses but not much mountain left. With over 30 septic tanks in a 60 acre mountain I worry about the water running downhill... into my water sources!

I have several friends who have built nice homes with required sq. footage only to find that they had rooms they never entered... rooms they never even furnished. It is so sad and says some really sad things about our society.

Most people who can afford to buy those $70, 000 lots and build $300,000-500,000+ homes are RETIRED people with GROWN families... so why do they need 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms?? What I hear is ... because "WE CAN"!

But should we??

And please don't feel bad about posting that the land is available. I am sure we don't mean to pick on you but I feel it is a very important issue. If we don't deal with it then our children and grandchildren sure will have to.

[Appalachian Tater]

1200 sq ft is really fairly modest, it's the same size as a three-car garage. Personally I would want something even smaller, but 1200 is not anything to get up in arms over.

http://www.amazingplans.com/catalog....&Submit=Submit

[Jim Adams]

If you really want to make the area a better neighborhood, don't limit minimum size, limit maximum carbon print!

geek

[FatMan]

If you really want to make the area a better neighborhood, don't limit minimum size, limit maximum carbon print!

geek

I do not know if that is directed to me or simply a rhetorical comment. If directed to me, let me clarify that I have no control over what happens with the property in question. My property is across the road and in no way connected to, or part of this property being discussed with the filed C&Rs. And as such I have no say in how this tract is developed.

As I mentioned above, I would prefer to see the tract sold in much larger parcels. But it is the seller's property to do as he chooses. And as a proponent of Property Owner Rights, I would be quite the hypocrite if I attempted to interfere.

[Appalachian Tater]

Fat Man, I don't think any of the comments are directed at you personally. This is just normal thread-drift and if it gets even one person to think about a smaller home, it is worthwhile.