Why Do We Oppose the New FAR's
We believe that the FAR regulations implemented on Nov. 17, 1998 by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
        Decrease Home Values- This has already been seen in the repricing of some real estate transactions, by several thousand dollars, that were already in progress.  This is in effect a taking or confiscatory action.
        Have No Public Benefit- The Commission is empowered to legislate in the public interest.   In this case there is little public benefit in terms of health, safety, or public welfare in prevention of the perception of "Oversized Houses".  No data or information was put forth by the Commission to support this concept. 
        Not Address the Problems They Were Meant to Solve- The goal was to affect "streetscape" and "the environment" as stated by the P&Z Commission.  Under this legislation if someone wants a house to look big they can have a large front profile of the house and build huge porches to add scale.  The entire house could be built with cathedral ceilings doubling the height of the house.  To gain more living area a carport can be used rather than an enclosed garage and we believe that this will lead to unsightly homes.  The entire home could be built on one floor and then the entire lot paved as driveway and this would be detrimental to the environment.  So this legislation was not thought through all the way.
        Conservation and Architectural Review Commissions Requested Delay- The P&Z did not listen to requests from their own fellow commissions to delay implementation until a comprehensive plan was available.  So why should we expect them to listen to taxpayers? Because we pay taxes!
        Numbers Based on Admittedly Faulty Data- The Town Planner and an assistant spent over a year analyzing FAR numbers calculated for every house in town.  The data they used was the assessors records.  Several real estate people spoke at the public hearings that the records often were inaccurate and may not include attics and basements (especially in the 2 and 4 acre zones).  Diane Fox admitted this at the public hearing on Nov. 10 and said they used "What was available".  From this data they calculated a number of houses that would be made nonconforming by this regulation and the Commission based its vote on making small (1-3%) new nonconforming lots by their new regs.