Consolidating lots ? Rezoning lot size

[terracore]

I almost put this in another thread but realized it really deserves it's own.

If a person owns three side-by-side spag lots (house in center lot) what are the pros and cons of trying to get them rezoned into a single 9 acre lot?

A few I've thought of:

Property tax implication, however I don't know if this would be a pro or a con (would total taxes be more or less?)

Inability to sell one or two of the vacant lots if money needed later (con).

Higher resale value of house lot. May not be a pro (1 large house lot may be worth total less value than 3 separate lots, however one can get a mortgage on 1 large lot with a house, cannot get a mortgage on vacant land) Pro or con?

Having to deal with county frustration and expense for rezoning attempt (definite, huge, frustrating con).

Greater flexibility with AG operations if county ever decides to enforce rules regarding housing livestock distance to property line (current AG operations on properties) PRO.

Potential reduction in association road fees, depending on future by-laws or legal decision (PRO).

Consolidated properties have legal access to center lot power and cesspool(?) Pro. I mean, not really in our configuration but maybe?

As usual, any ideas/brainstorming, even thread hijacks or random haikus are welcome and encouraged.

As if that wasn't enough... what about...

Basically a spag lot is 9 times longer than it is wide. 3 lots together are 3 times longer than they are wide. What about rezoning the property into two lots? (Flag lot in the back). Two 4.5 acre lots. It would allow half the property to be sold at a later date (if chosen to do so) but also maintain a privacy buffer around the homes, and each lot would have more square geometry.

[leilanidude]

In some subdivisions, you can combine but still owe the annual HOA fee on all that were combined.

[geochem]

I would hold off on consolidating if I was you... There are discussions of implementing a process called transferrable development rights (it's complicated...) but the short version is that the right to develop (build) is given/allowed a market value independent of the land. As implemented in other jurisdictions, you can sell your development right separate from the land - but that land cannot be legally built on in the future. So, if you own three adjacent lots, you could sell the development rights on two of them and keep one development right for your (legal) house.

I pitched this idea to our brilliant mayor fifteen or more years ago when he was first elected as a means of reducing residential density in the high lava hazard zones (and well before the housing bubble increased the number of residences many-fold). Of course, he couldn't be bothered even considering that plan since he knew it was perfectly safe to have residential development on the most active volcano in the country... He had a house there, what could possibly go wrong?

I understand that the topic has surfaced again - probably at the point of a federal mandate that the county do something to reduce FEMA's exposure to future lava flow inundations... That, of course, is not to say that anything responsible or intelligent will get done while Harry is mayor - and I have little doubt that he will fight tooth and nail to prevent something like that from getting done because it was suggested by all these smart asses who weren't born here....

[kalakoa]

"Transferrable development rights" within our lifetime, and considering our current land-use is "grandfathered"?

Make realistic plans. I'm already considering consolidation as a tax-avoidance scheme.

[terracore]

The county has schemes. We have strategies.

[Mimosa]

One must petition Land Court on Oahu for this to be approved .
We have over many decades done this with several 20 acre side by side parcels up HamaKua side - so now dedicated to Ag have 3 - 60 acre parcels and much lower taxes. In addition can dedicate to conservation
and the tax is even lower for the 10 to 25 year dedication to Conservation Status.

Due Diligence can not be stressed loud enough ,

Mrs.Mimosa

[dan d]

U one smart cookie young lady, salmat
Aloha


HPP

[Midnight Rambler]

I don't think flexibility with ag operations or reduced HOA fees are going to happen (the former because it's not something that would be enforced on the internal boundaries, and the latter because they would still consider you owning three shares). You left out a big con - you would still only be allowed to have one house on the consolidated lot. If you want to force it to be that way forever then that's actually a pro, but if say you wanted to build a small cabin to rent out, you'd be out of luck (at least legally). Furthermore, you'd want any additional houses to at least have their own septic (electricity could come off the center house), which negates one of the other pros. Hard to see any real benefit except taking a chance on better taxes.

You could probably put something in the contract when you sell it requiring that all three lots be sold together going forward, if it's necessary for privacy of the house or because the power lines are connected.