In the land use world, moratoria are what you do when nothing else will suffice to meet an unanticipated crisis (i.e., COVID tenant evictions, fracking bans). In Boulder County, home design, location, materials, colors and size have been closely regulated since 1993. Neighborhood “compatibility” was the objective and, initially, it was a pretty fuzzy concept.

In 2009, the County adopted rules to constrain home size based on floor area. Homes within 1,500 feet of a particular lot, whether on lots less than 5 acres or greater than 35 acres in size, were deemed the “neighborhood,” even if separated by deep canyons or tall mountains — seasonal cabins included.

The Presumptive Size Maximum (PSM) was deemed to be 125% of the median home on a list of homes within 1,500 feet of a particular lot (i.e., if 13 homes are within 1,500 feet, 125% of home #7 on the list is deemed the PSM). Some flexibility was allowed — it was a “presumptive” size maximum, after all. Having one home on an adjacent lot that was larger than the median one could justify a larger PSM (subsequent code revisions now require two adjacent homes and the average of the two determines the PSM). Underground square footage, visibility from open space and public streets are considered mitigating factors.

Anyone who has been through the county’s current Site Plan Review (SPR) process will tell you it was no walk in the park. Dream homes sometimes became nightmares.

It is fair to ask what the substantial and legitimate governmental interest in limiting home size might actually be. Reducing property values can’t be the reason. Avoiding highly visible homes in prominent locations seems reasonable. Use of non-glare windows and downlighting, too. Mitigation of environmental impacts also matters: energy-efficient design, natural materials, renewable power sources and colors that blend into the surrounding environment all make a difference. In Boulder County, LEED Platinum and Living Building Challenge rules — the gold standard — are the price of admission. Technology will continue to evolve and Boulder County’s building code will continue to mandate best practices.

What our county needs is affordable housing on and along well-served transit corridors (think village centers at 36 and Neva Road, Hwy 52 and the Diagonal, 75th and Hwy 66). Beating landowners until morale improves is not the answer.

Ed Byrne, edbyrne@smartlanduse.com

A Boulder County Commissioner recently told the Daily Camera that applications are now coming in for up to 14,000 square foot homes.

First, if you are reading this and you want that kind of space, I heartily encourage you to give generously to the many deserving organizations in the Boulder area that work to help find housing for those who need it tonight.

Second, if you are reading this and the enormous embedded carbon emissions associated with the materials needed for the estate — along with the energy needs to heat, cool and power that manor — do not dissuade you, then I strongly recommend you also contribute mightily to programs that help equip mobile home communities with heat pumps and improved insulation.

Third, if you live in the 80510 zip code in northwestern Boulder County, recent research has revealed that you are the winner of the “largest per-capita climate impact” contest among zip codes across the nation. If you are reading this and you live in 80510 and you have a palace over 10,000 square feet, I emphatically urge you to combat inequality by bequeathing funds carefully to those who live in the most polluted zip code in the U.S. which is 80216 in nearby Denver.

The moratorium was passed on Tuesday night. It is a temporary moratorium lasting six months, with a possibility for extensions. There are several exceptions too. While this moratorium on large Boulder County homes has been voted in, none of my three strong recommendations offered above can be found in the deliberations or the decision. Instead, there is modest guidance to merely build less gargantuan homes through mid-July.

My take: this decision to pause on Boulder County mansions is clearly good for our community. This pause helps address an often under-considered dimension of the larger problems facing Boulder County. Mega mansions blotching the Boulder County landscape breed isolation and contempt. They also contribute to ongoing challenges involving income- and wealth inequality, lack of affordable housing (near where people work in Boulder), and the need for greater housing density in neighborhoods as well as infill projects that then lead to improved public transportation and protected bike routes. Modest dwellings — not massive estates — help make our community vibrant, strong, resilient and desirable for everyone.

Max Boykoff, mboykoff@gmail.com

Over the past few decades, homes in unincorporated Boulder County have grown significantly. Newly built homes are now averaging more than 5,000 square feet. The county’s concern is that these oversized homes are changing the fabric of neighborhoods and contributing to affordability issues. When a large home is built or sold, its sale price becomes a comparable (“comp”) for assessing neighboring properties. Even if nearby homes are smaller, their property values — and consequently, their taxes — can increase because appraisers use these sales as a benchmark. This means that even if you’re not building or buying a large home yourself, the presence of these luxury properties in your neighborhood can cause your taxes to rise, making it harder for middle- and lower-income families to stay in their homes.

Larger homes have a significantly higher carbon footprint, consuming more energy for heating and cooling. A CPR study found that a ZIP code in northwest Boulder County had the biggest per-capita climate impact of any U.S. ZIP code studied. With this in mind, the county is looking to mitigate these trends by pausing the construction of large homes.

The moratorium is a short-term solution but could harm local builders, architects, and property owners planning their homes. Boulder County should explore flexible, long-term solutions. Requiring large homes to meet net-zero or near net-zero through updated building codes would directly address environmental concerns. Additionally, flexible zoning and design guidelines — focused on building height, setback rules and exterior materials — could ensure new homes don’t overshadow or change the feel of a neighborhood. This approach still gives homeowners flexibility, while addressing concerns about oversized homes affecting property taxes and pricing people out of their communities. The county could also implement size averaging, where homeowners can build larger homes but must meet higher environmental standards or contribute to affordable housing for every additional square foot above the neighborhood’s median home size. These strategies balance the impact of large homes on affordability, protecting both neighborhood character and the financial well-being of residents.

The moratorium is a starting point, but more nuanced policies could ensure that growth aligns with the county’s values while allowing flexibility for homeowners and builders.

Hernán Villanueva, chvillanuevap@gmail.com