UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

at least in my experience, is that it totally removes humans from the environmental equation. So the environmental math looks at a creek, a wetland, or a woodlot and sees value, and thinks that if a 20 foot setback can protect it, a 100 foot setback can REALLY protect it. So let's REALLY protect it. And that's probably fine in lots of instances, like say remote Wyoming or Alaska.

From a strictly residential perspective though, where these setbacks become problematic is when you are working within urban settlement areas (basically where people are or where they want to be). Developers buy land where people want to live. Duh. And when lots of people want to live in these areas, demand is high, so the land prices are high. So when the developer looks at their lot yields that extra 80 feet of setback around every environmental feature takes away from his developable area, that means he's losing 4-5 housing units per acre (on average) in a low density subdivision. That means all your fixed costs (land, external servicing, road improvements, etc.) get spread over fewer units, increasing the fixed cost burden on each house.

So what you've got is the environmental lobby saying we need to provide greater environmenal protections (often way more than even the science supports) just because, and then on the other side you've got municipalities and the public clammoring for more affordable (attainable) housing in the communities where they want to live. The environmentalists want the 100 foot setback because they only think of the environment. They aren't wrong. That setback really does do a great job protecting the natural feature. But they have no regard for the impact it has on housing affordability. That's someone else's problem. The human does not factor into their math. And that's wrong. At a time when homes are becoming less affordable we absolutely have to add humans to the environmental math. Most creeks, wetlands, woodlots will survive just fine with reduced setbacks. And those ephemeral streams that environmentalists scream to protect all get replaced by side and rear lot swales. That drain to stormwater management ponds. That discharge to the same downstream watercourses that the original ephemeral stream drain to now. That people want to protect ephemeral streams is just so silly. Their function is replicated in the completed community, on lots we get to sell. We do the science on every project to support this. When you factor in the benefits to housing affordability, it's honestly a no-brainer to reduce environmental setbacks to reasonable buffers.

And before anyone says all of the cost savings ends up in the developer's pocket and not passed on to the consumer, you don't know what you're talking about. The vast majority of home builders don't want to sit on empty lots trying to squeeze another few thousand dollars out of their purchasers. The extra few thousand dollars will get eaten up by the financing costs of a delayed project completion. If builders can move their units by pricing a little lower than then development beside them they will.

Thanks for reading. Hope that made sense.