In March of 1982 Escambia loop was a strip of mostly red clay even though the plat plan showed a nice road and a number of sold lots. Penny and I found one backing up to a green space which would insure no backyard neighbors and an opportunity for privacy to our RV’s rear. We thought it convenient that lots were laid out with slanted sidelines. It makes backing an RV into place easier. Later we noted that most of Land Harbor seemed to be laid out in the same fashion. Only several years later did we think there could have been other reasons for that feature. Just a year earlier we first contemplated the idea of a permanent mooring spot and visited Outdoor Resorts at Hilton Head Island. Affording those lots would have required eliminating a good deal of frivolous budget items like eating anything more expensive than gruel. Then we stumbled across and ad in Trailer Life and planned that March 1982 whirlwind trip. We bought the lot 2 days after seeing it and after reading the restrictions that applied.
We owned that lot until the mid 1990s and visited several weeks each year during different seasons. Quite early we decided that we’d retire early if possible and live in Land Harbor at least half of each year–the cold half. Thus I think Penny and I have "street creds" when Land Harbor matters become a topic of comment and debate whether at neighborly gatherings or committee and Board meetings. Thus when I first heard about site-built housing in Land Harbor I had an immediate visceral response–never mind exactly what it was. Then I decided that an issue that was destined to have a very large and very long impact on Spanish Cove, all of Spanish Cove, deserved careful thought and consideration and not a "knee-jerk" response. I decided to give the matter methodical consideration and list what I thought were the essential points.
- Permanent site-built homes will have a positive impact on the cumulative value of homes in Spanish Cove. That will benefit everyone.
- Insurance will be easier to find and most likely more affordable on a per thousand unit of home value.
- Permanent housing will likely have lower general maintenance cost.
- Heating and cooling costs per conditioned square foot would be lower.Homes on small lots have much less lawn maintenance.
- There are building techniques whose cost are nearly equal to frame construction that will withstand Category 4 hurricanes thus providing a measure of safety for those who cannot, for whatever reason, evacuate.
- Notwithstanding our recent experiences, permanent housing is likely to appreciate in value.
- Over the years we have learned that many people come to Spanish Cove as seasonal visitors and later decide they want to be permanent residents. Some have elected to settle in RV’s or park models only later to decide they fall short as full-time residences. As friends and neighbors we should help make the decision to move to permanent housing as easy as possible so long as it honors our various tiers of regulation. Many residents have long histories of friendship here and forcing them off their land and out of the Cove and away from friends because they can’t build a permanent home on land they own and where all the fees are already paid seems cruel. That’s especially true if someone can afford a permanent home here but not elsewhere because small lots are unavailable elsewhere and where lot prices have markedly increased. We have a chance to demonstrate the idea of community and shape the future. Let’s take that path and not one of obduracy.
I personally could think of nothing unfavorable with stick-built housing in Land Harbor. I do know that some might say, the homes will be small. Probably. But they are likely to be larger than RVs. I know we super-size everything from Big Mac to our automobiles but why is that a good thing if small is far more reasonable for those who prefer that? Some might say that they will not be attractive. Again, what is or isn’t attractive is a very personal matter. Personally I have found homes in the Cove, stick-built homes, that I think to be unattractive. So what! That’s not my business and if those who live in those home like them, that’s what counts. We don’t have an architecture committee in the Cove like so many developments do. That’s a plus and why the variety of housing makes our community seem more like a town with a history than some cookie-cutter suburb.
Since I couldn’t think of a reason to reject the idea of stick-built homes in Land Harbor I decided that I should look at what was possible there given the lot sizes. The majority of lots have 40′ fronts by approximately 80′ sidelines but they are parallelograms, not rectangles. I made some drawings of a few randomly selected lots and discovered that homes of 1100+ square feet would fit within the sidelines currently specified. The lots will permit the building of quite nice homes. I found many examples of what is possible on the Web.
There is one concern however, and it is a serious one. Setbacks of 7 feet at the side is not sufficient to park a standard size vehicle and leave room to exit the vehicle. It certainly will not accommodate an RV or most boats particularly if they are on a trailer. That means that apart from very small cars, scooters, golf carts and the like vehicles would have to park in the front setback. It is entirely conceivable that some may have a “C” class RV for travel and two autos. That would be a very tight fit and nearly obscure the front of the home. Is that acceptable? We must decide before we approve the the idea. If we don’t, I’m sure we’ll be headed to court in the future. My father-in-law was fond of saying, “Never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over.” That applies here. Let’s find the means to approve site-built homes but lets also include very carefully thought out and very specific conditions on parking vehicles of all sorts on the lots.
Solutions that come to mind include altering the setback on the same side of all lots on a particular block to 10′ on one side and 4′ on the other. That would maintain 14′ between adjacent homes. That would be my choice. Another solution might be to stipulate that only two licensed vehicles each with not more than 2 axels are permitted to be parked in the front setback. Perhaps homes would be required to provide a parking space within the largest available foot print of a home on each particular lot. Maybe no RVs or boats should be allowed. I don’t know what the solution is but I know it is a problem of large importance that deserves very careful planning to avoid an angry and divisive argument and legal problem later.
If the covenants are changed for site built homes to be built in Land Harbor would this not change the consideration for RV’s to have lots in in all areas of Spanish Cove? Seems like all is fair as to where and how one lives. Your thoughts?
Allowing RVs as dwellings in areas other than Land Harbor is not under consideration as part of the Site-Built Homes proposal, and although it could happen, I don’t believe it’s likely.
Site-built homes in Land Harbor are a natural extension and progression of changes that have been proposed and approved over the years (Park Model “RVs” and now Manufactured Homes). The proposed change also enhances the property owners’ ability to obtain mortgages and insurance; and allows them to have a more storm-resistant home.
To the best of my knowledge, RVs have never been permitted as residences outside of Land Harbor. Proposing that today, when everyone in those areas bought and built with the understanding that RVs could not be used as dwellings, would likely cause quite a stir and would be doomed to failure, in my opinion. That’s not to say it could never happen, just that I would be quite surprised if it did.
I live in Land Harbor, and I’m very pleased that the LH site-built home proposal is moving forward and will likely be presented to the Membership for approval. I think that RVs, Manufactured Homes, Modular Homes and Conventional Homes will coexist very nicely in Land Harbor. I just don’t see that same concept as extendable to other areas in the Cove.
Remember there are zoning regulations in place. LH is “zoned”(maybe deeded?) as a campground. I don’t believe any of the other sections of SC are?
Land Harbor is zoned R6, six units to the acre. Our Covenants designate it as a “campground”. No other area has that designation. All other areas are either R2B or R3. Bayside and Spanish Oaks is R2B, is moderate density with two units per acre. It could have manufactured or mobile homes, but our Covenants do not allow it except at the northwest area that is actually designated as Perdido Pines according to Spanish Cove maps. Perdido Pines is R3, moderate density, three units per acre and allows site built homes or manufactured or mobile homes. The zoning ordinances and maps are on line at http://www.co.baldwin.al.us. In all cases our Covenants trump any zoning rules. Any change to the covenants regarding the types of dwellings, i.e. recreational vehicles would have to be approved by a vote of the property owners. I can’t see that happening. RVs may be stored on a lot in the Pines, Oaks and Bayside, but only behind the 30-foot setback as stated in the Covenants. You may check all this information in the Covenants by clicking on “Documents” at the top of the page.
Thanks to all for your responses. You see, I love the RV life style and the freedom it brings. Going back to sticks and bricks is no longer in my thoughts. However, it would be nice to have a home base in the Cove that would provide my wife and I a covered RV port and a utility building that was large enough for a washer/dryer and full bath and maybe a small garden. To do that would require probably 3 lots which are hard to come by in the LH area. That’s why my thoughts went towards the Pines.
For those who may want to check out my thoughts, take a look at http://www.tgoresort.com under ports/resale. Thanks again.
Snowbird’s premise, equal treatment of lots in Land Harbor and elsewhere in Spanish Cove, is understandable but doesn’t fit the situation. The notion of “equalness” is revered in the United States but sadly is mostly a happy fiction except in mathematics.
Consider that two individuals might own adjacent lots of precisely the same size. Government might deny the right to erect a building exactly like that on the other. Why? One lot might have a large portion subject to wet-lands restrictions. Or, one lot might be located in an area designated for residential construction and the other commercial and the intended structure is a bakery. Likewise, two lots of the same size and physical characteristics might be located in different sections of the same community and one in the approach path of the local airport. That one might be denied the right to erect an amateur radio tower. Differential treatments of apparently identical entities is quite common and reasonable.
It is good to remember that land like time is an analog. Mankind inevitably imposes ownership on land and that ultimately involves some sort of parsing. The only way to do that is to impose some arbitrary boundaries. “Arbitrary” is the key notion. No one arbitrary method is inherently better than another but once we embrace the idea of ownership, it is necessary. Lands arbitrarily divided for our convenience of use can then be subject to rules and the rules have not much to do with the land but rather our insistence on the process of compartmentalization. Thus we can extend the parsing to impose different rules to seemingly identical portions of land. That’s what government has done and that’s what we have done in Spanish Cove.
Finally, let me comment on the proclamation of equalness. There is a document that says that, “All men are created equal.” If one has ever known a handicapped person one knows the proclamation isn’t true. Those who champion physical attainments knows that we can’t all run 4 minute miles. Teachers regularly claim that every child is different (but I think that unlikely.) And we all insist that our physicians administer differentiated treatments depending on severity of a specific illness. Perhaps that document should have said, “In the eyes of God all men are, at their creation, of equal value.” And perhaps we all should be more circumspect in our use of “equal.”
W Hodge
I like “Snowbird”‘s thoughts. I do think RV’s should have been allowed in the Pines for those who wanted larger lots. Most RV’s I’ve seen would look better in the Pines that some of the run down mobile homes (not many, but still, they look bad). There is also a place on Clubhouse drive that looks like it belongs in a low-income housing development.
I personally don’t have a problem with any type of dwelling/home someone chooses to live in as long as they keep it clean and kept up.
Patty, it would probably be less expensive to put a manufactured home on a lot in The Pines than an RV. “Park Models” are not cheap.
We have lived this way for 35 years in Spanish Cove with separate housing styles in different areas. Except to allow on-site housing in Land Harbor, I don’t think we need to change anything else.
Sally, I think Snowbird is thinking about a Motorhome or 5th Wheel not a park model. Patty, I am not at all in agreement with you regarding allowing recreational vehicles to be lived in in the Pines I agree that there are “homes” that are badly in need of appearance improvement in most, if not all of the different Cove Areas. However allowing RV living in the Pines is not a way to improve appearance.
If you are interested, I know of 3 lots that are for sale in Land Harbor. Ine does have a very nice Double Wide “Park Model” on it, hhowever. It is located on one of the DeFuniac’s
The Rules Committee meeting, scheduled for tomorrow, July 8th, has been canceled, due to scheduling conflicts and emergent priorities for Joan Fletcher, who as you know is now the POASC Board Chairman. She regrets the short-notice cancellation.
Current business for the committee is up-to-date. The second reading of the “Phase 1″ Site-Built Homes Proposal for Land Harbor will be conducted at the regularly scheduled July Board of Directors meeting.
New committee business, which will include “Phase 2″ of the Site-Built Homes proposal, will continue in August. The meeting date will be confirmed at the Board meeting.
We like some of those; about seventeen years ago when I had my house built(redid the house plans-blueprints), a friend was going to have a house built that was 600 square foot – no builder would give any bids. In today’s market conditions, I think things have changed.
Well, I might not be crazy about the outside design, but the inside wouldn’t be hard to take. However, I would have to hire a window washer.
Below is a link for cottages and houses up to 1,000 square feet, 25′ wide x 48′ long.
http://www.eplans.com/house-pl.....0/offset.0
Dick, I agree with you; looks like a shoebox or boxcar (or could be used as a Starbucks store)……..guess I like something more tradtional or “homey”. Would not work for me, but no offense on those who like it.
I’m no student of architecture. I just know what I like (also subjective). And I never did care for Frank Loyd Wright’s designs anyway. Even his more traditional designs had too many lines, too many angles, too much wasted space. Just another opinion.
Purely subjective of course but as any student of architecture would be aware it bears strong influences of the Frank Loyd Wright architectural style. From the caption information one would assume a high degree of energy efficiency.
What a chore to live in a home like the one Sir Steven showed us!
Plus (no offense intended, Sir Steven) it’s bug-ugly!
Not to mention bug friendly. Hmmm, who does windows? Shall we discuss tree frogs also? They are attracted to light, you know. I learned that the hard way after putting such cute little arrangements on the porch windows for them to live in. Don’t bother to look, they are no longer there.
Home pictures that would fit on a small lot.
http://realestate.msn.com/phot.....208cb0ba9f
I would suggest allowing higher roof height this would give a nicer look / greater architectural design.
Fire insurance should not be a problem, home subdivisions have 7 foot side set backs.
With a 20 foot front set back parking can be infront of the home.
There would have to be some further consideration for the height of such structures. I believe there is a cap at 15′ now. As far as parking, homes could be built on pilings with parking beneath.
Another consideration would be fire insurance with homes that close to each other.
Also, If I remember right, the set backs for interior lots were different for those that had “wilderness” to the rear. Seems like some were 10′ vs. 7′.
Standard setbacks from property lines in Land Harbor are 20 feet in front; 7 feet on sides and rear. If your rear property line abuts a “wilderness” area, the rear setback is reduced to 3 feet.
YES- Please allow building on one lot.
Beautiful!
Maybe in the future the cove can proportion some of its land for boats & trailer storage. Put up a fence & charge a small fee, this would add value to every one. Most of the Land Harbor residents are gone tell late fall how can we get better input from them?
I am in favor of stick-built homes anywhere in the Cove. If the Lot is not large enough to accomodate one’s belongings, then they should purchase a 2nd Lot or arrange for storage elsewhere.
I’m with Ben. They stand up to storms better, they appreciate in value, they are insurable and one can get mortgages on them. A nicely-designed model would fit anywhere in Land Harbor. I think one of the fears is that someone with more dollars than sense will ultimately build a McMansion in the middle of RVs and small manufactured homes and much lower-priced dwellings, and spoil the ‘flavor’ of Land Harbor. I’m not so worried about that. I think cost will limit such things. I’m more concerned about a home built by someone who has no sense of design or appropriateness, no carpentry skills and builds a house that somehow passes code but looks like it was made out of ugly sticks. Maybe there is a way to head off that eventuality, hmm?
Adorable Patio Homes Wally. We may have a few of those on the new part of Ridgewood. Take a look.
Seems one would need to purchase another of the small lots for other needs. Sheds, Boats,Trailers,cars etc..
I don’t have a problem with site-built homes in Land Harbor. However, I don’t see the need to change the side setbacks. When you purchase a lot to build a home, you have to make some choices depending on the size. If you want to store an RV or boat on the lot and you know the Spanish Cove rules about storing it behind the front setback, you make the decision to build your home accordingly.
I have no problem with autos parked in the front of a house. Even some homes with garages or carports never have parked cars in them. Site-built homes, yes; adjustment of side setbacks, no.
If an emergency occurred and we were forced to live in a more affordable section it would be nice to know that smaller stick built options are available.
Small, double-story, homes are very attractive and would provide residents with more living space.
http://www.architecturaldesign.....lan=5743HA
Are double-story dwellings included in the proposal?
I sure hope they allow two story homes in Land Harbor. There are some great small house plans that are two story.
Agree Patty, some of the two story plans are REALLY nice. Owners would have more options too.
Thank you for some good insite Wally. I do like the idea of the offset side setbacks, however I also agree with Dick’s comment concerning the very limited possibilities. That however, does not mean that it could not be utilized where it can be. I share your concern about parking, and maybe go one step further. I am concerned with the “overbuilding” on a lot in general. I do not think that much can be done about that where we are talking about building on a single lot, however I think there has to be some discussion when considering building a larger home on two lots. I applaud the Rules Committee separating the two aspects of the discussion. 1. The approval of allowing modular and conventional structures. 2. What size structure should be permitted when 2 lots are being utilized.
To add another discussion to the last item. I think that there should be at least some conversation about how much “structure” there can be on any lot in Spanish Cove. My main concern is that as we move more and more towards a mixed age community with more younger families and young children moving in, the development of noise problems. Youngsters and happy noises tend not to mix to well with the older peoples liking of quiet. We have situations in The Cove–I speak specifically The Pines where a back yard sits right under a bedroom window. The larger the house built, the smaller the backyard and the closer the noise comes to someone else. Density of construction, or population, is not limited to Land Harbor and needs to be considered throughout The Cove.
Dave: I believe the idea of limiting the amount of “structure” in ALL areas of the Cove is ADTF (Absolutely Doomed to Fail). Linking a change like that to the Land Harbor Site-Built Homes proposal makes the Land Harbor proposal ADTF. And I believe that Rules Committee has succeeded in crafting a change that may be acceptable to a majority of property owners.
You may want to float the idea at a Rules Committee meeting, but I’d be surprised (amazed) if it met with any approval.
Mr. Hodge, good article, and great idea on the link to the house plans. We plan to retire also to the cove (might be another decade; but many of our neighbors have asked why not sooner….I say JOB & KIDS). Mrs. W wants to put new park model or home that has has a front sitting porch (our patio is to close to the next door neigbor) on our present RV lot. Might be a tight fit with all the impovements and tropical plants we have done in the last two years when we come down to visit.
“Lots” to digest there, Wally. I agree with most of what you’re saying. Not too sure about the parking issue, though. The smaller (40×80) Land Harbor lots are generally pretty limited in parking area, which is why most folks end up parking their cars in front of their dwellings. Larger lots and double lots may allow more parking space flexibility. As for trying to change the side setbacks, I doubt there would be many folks who could take advantage of that, since most lots are already developed and are using up the seven foot side setback already.
Thanks for the sample house plans. I think there are many designs that will fit well on Land Harbor lots. A search of the internet will reap many additional results.
As was reported at the June Rules Committee meeting, there are eight property owners in Land Harbor who have already sought permission to build a conventional home on their lot and are eagerly awaiting positive action from the Board to allow a proposed Covenant change to go to a vote of the Membership.
So the Rules Committee is poised to present a proposal to the Board to allow Conventional and Modular homes in Land Harbor, in addition to the currently allowed RVs and Manufactured Homes. At least for now, existing restrictions will apply, namely 1,000 square foot maximum size, standard Land Harbor setbacks, accessory building limitations, etc.
A Town Hall meeting will be scheduled next month to air all concerns – pro and con – before any Board or general Membership vote. This forum is a great place to get discussion going, and I’m hoping more and more property owners, especially those in Land Harbor, chime in and make their voices heard.
Dick Junkins – 17 Buena Vista