Smaller lot sizes a hot topic

We weren’t at the most recent meeting of the Custer County Planning Commission, but from what we have been told it was as lively as a committee meeting you will ever see. Why? Because the commission was discussing the possibility of allowing smaller lot sizes on which to build in the county. Currently, the county does not allow subdividing land for construction purposes to less than an acre. From the sounds of things, there was a small army of people against it who came to that meeting, and all of them were against the proposal. It appears now it is dead on arrival.
The issue was first raised at the Aug. 21 meeting of the Custer County Commission, when the commission heard from county planning director Terri Kester, who presented the county planning commission’s recommendation to the county to do a statement policy for high and low-density subdivisions, which would steer county policy should the commission decide to lower the lot size required for development.
At that meeting, an audience member reminded the commission that implementing the policy would open the entire county up to subdividing to half an acre, which he said would change the landscape of the county across the board. Kester said at that time there were two subdivisions asking to go under an acre per lot.
“Part of the reason this is being looked at is affordable housing,” commissioner Craig Hindle said at that meeting. “There’s nothing people can afford. You can’t afford a quarter-million dollar piece of property when you aren’t making that kind of money. It would be nice if our kids could afford to live here.”
Commmissioner Mike Busskohl said the value of the land does not drop just because there is less land being purchased, but Hindle said it does lower how much is being purchased.
“You’re getting less land for a higher price per square foot,” Busskohl said.
The commission said at the time it sought feedback from the public, and boy did it ever get that—in spades.
It is no secret there is a lack of housing in this county, and it’s a problem that is not going to go away anytime soon as more and more people move to the area, hoping to enjoy their little slice of God’s country. There is absolutely a demand for more housing, but this was a proposal that fell flat as to how to create that housing.
Busskohl is correct in that smaller chunks of land won’t make land any cheaper, you just won’t get as much bang for your buck. Homes would be much closer together, and there could be a bevy of unintended consequences if such a plan were to unfold. At the very least, a great deal more of study would need to be done before such a drastic measure is tried.
It’s our belief some day the school, county, city, etc., will have to join forces to build multi-unit housing options that people can afford. Where those will be built is anybody’s guess, but it seems the public has spoken on this most recent proposal.