In our case, what usually happens is that the city will “annex” the land, as city zoning regulations allow more homes on smaller lots. Then they also get the extra revenue, as residents will pay city AND county taxes. Seems they always find a way around everything, eventually.We move from our last house because acres and acres of open land adjoining our property was rezoned to high density cluster housing when the township lost a law suit the developer filed. Originally it was zoned for single family homes with minimum 3/4 acre lots. The developer's lawsuit was that the township didn't have it's 'fair share' of high density housing. So we moved.
There was about 300 acres of fields and woodland abutting the 'new house'. Eventually that was all developed two but it was single family residence with minimum of 1 acre lots. And most of the homes were built on even 1 1/2 to 2 acre lots.
Also, I’m really alarmed that a developer was recently given the green light to start building on a potentially contaminated site. This particular site is on the other side of the county, but I used to work on the adjoining property that was (and still is) a super fund site. Monsanto had a massive phosphorus/chemical plant there for years and years, and there is no way I’d want to live on any of that land close by. I guess I should have been worried just working there, but it was actually the most enjoyable job I’ve ever had. LOL. I wouldn’t want to be doing any of the contstruction, either…lots of exposure to some potentially awful stuff. I really hope there are laws that require real estate companies to disclose such things. I guess there are loopholes in real estate disclosures like most other things these days - I haven’t really tried to research it. It just seems awfully shady.