Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But every one of those sentences say compatible with size, shape massing, etc. Except for the very last one, none of them dictate the actual style or look. And even the last guideline does not really say anything about the look, just that the structure is compatible with others in the area. People are going to see what they want to see and this would keep someone from building a full modern house with steel exposed and full height windows wrapping it, but its still a pretty typical sized house with typical windows.
It's either that or have a city government that puts you on the hook you pay for their mistakes in much larger sums, so which do you prefer, to make payments on that (taxes) or to let them send you a bill for half a million bucks? The citizens pay for city government one way or another, I just don't think any one person should be on the hook for epic f____ups like this one.
Isn't that kind of what taxes are? An insurance policy against government stupidity.
Holy, moley. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin in Oakwood? Wouldn't the obvious answer be to let the house go to completion now? Not only is a tear-down an expense that taxpayers don't need, it is an environmental insult. Preservation is great and neighborhood ambience is great, but only to a point, and this situation has long passed that point. Time for a little common sense to intervene . . .
But every one of those sentences say compatible with size, shape massing, etc. Except for the very last one, none of them dictate the actual style or look. And even the last guideline does not really say anything about the look, just that the structure is compatible with others in the area. People are going to see what they want to see and this would keep someone from building a full modern house with steel exposed and full height windows wrapping it, but its still a pretty typical sized house with typical windows.
As I said, guidelines are open for interpretation. The question is, by whom and who has the responsibility for final decision making on what is compatible or not. In your mind, steel exposed seals the definition of incompatibility (or is an example of it at least)... to someone who has made up their mind that this does not constitute incompatibility, it may not seem like a problem.
I personally am of the opinion that common sense goes a long way, and thus my comments about the idiocy of the homeowner. But that does not mean I think he is on the hook for the mistake.
If the city is the one who creates the guidelines, and the city is the one who ultimately approves or disapproves of the design, then it is their own problem, and a huge one, for something like this to have been approved initially and later overturned. It's a problem they need to pay for.
All of this assumes that some step wasn't overlooked by the homeowner, or some aspect rushed before all the paperwork was in. If he did something like that, and I missed it, then I would say responsibility is on him.
Holy, moley. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin in Oakwood? Wouldn't the obvious answer be to let the house go to completion now? Not only is a tear-down an expense that taxpayers don't need, it is an environmental insult. Preservation is great and neighborhood ambience is great, but only to a point, and this situation has long passed that point. Time for a little common sense to intervene . . .
Oh, if only common sense had been present to begin with, we wouldn't be dealing with a stupidity cleanup effort. Do we need to impose a tax on stupid in order to incentivize thinking ahead a little?
A teardown isn't to do something to the environment that wasn't already done during initial construction. Were you there waving flags preventing him from building at all and preserving the plants?
I would be perfectly in favor of a solution involving salvaging the construction already there, and finding a way to make it comply with all guidelines.
The ones with a dog in the fight are the homeowner, the nearby residents and the city, and they should be the one to derive a workable solution, not you or me. I just mentioned demoing the place for simplicity sake.
I'm with the let-the-guy-finish-building-his-house contingent. If he ever lives there, though, I'd be he'll have some "neighbor issues" he could start threads about on here.
I'm with the let-the-guy-finish-building-his-house contingent. If he ever lives there, though, I'd be he'll have some "neighbor issues" he could start threads about on here.
It looks like it was inspired by porta potty design.
This discussion reminds me of Cary instituting "Anti-Cookie-Cutter" façade ordinance a couple of years ago, whereas Hysteric Oakwood wants to keep the cookie cutters sharp and ready.
The building project applied and received the appropriate permissions. It is unconscionable to attempt to halt the project based on subjective interpretations of aesthetics.
The owner should not have to suffer financially because of this nonsense.
If the neighbors have an issue they should work towards future change and accept that this situation slipped through whatever crack they think was left unguarded.
As I said, guidelines are open for interpretation. The question is, by whom and who has the responsibility for final decision making on what is compatible or not. In your mind, steel exposed seals the definition of incompatibility (or is an example of it at least)... to someone who has made up their mind that this does not constitute incompatibility, it may not seem like a problem.
I personally am of the opinion that common sense goes a long way, and thus my comments about the idiocy of the homeowner. But that does not mean I think he is on the hook for the mistake.
If the city is the one who creates the guidelines, and the city is the one who ultimately approves or disapproves of the design, then it is their own problem, and a huge one, for something like this to have been approved initially and later overturned. It's a problem they need to pay for.
All of this assumes that some step wasn't overlooked by the homeowner, or some aspect rushed before all the paperwork was in. If he did something like that, and I missed it, then I would say responsibility is on him.
The homeowner went through the prescribed process, including submitting initial plans to and then going before the Historical Commission at a hearing where members of the community had prior notice and attended, making comments for and against. The commission then considered those comments and recommended changes to the design. Those changes were incorporated into the design prior to resubmitting to the HC and getting approval before submitting for and receiving the permit.
Doesn't really sound like an idiot homeowner to me. Which honestly I would expect given the homeowner's 30 plus years experience as an architect in this area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
