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.
Neighbors of 71-year-old Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring objected to her plans to demolish a house in the chique suburb of Knightsbridge, London which she bought in 1997 for £575,000 ($860,000) and build her dream home in its place. Her plans included an extended two storey underground basement incorporating a cinema, gym and a swimming pool. Her plans however were thwarted by local residents who objected on the grounds that it would cause too much disruption and could undermine the foundations of their own properties.
I know a landlord that did this in a college town. He owned 3 apartment buildings right on campus of a large university and wanted to make them nicer, larger, etc. Planning board denied him. He painted one purple with yellow poka dots, another yellow with purple polkadots, and the other purple with yellow stripes. Every person driving to campus sees the buildings. They are student rentals, so he doesn't care, I doubt the students living there care either.
His requests were reasonable, and he would have made more housing for more students. A approval or variance could have been easily granted.
Yes it was unreasonable that his request was denied. And yes, its unreasonable that he painted his houses that color. But that is what makes us human.
Soapbox....... I've say on planning boards before. Those people are pure evil. Control freaks. They deny based on their own personal feelings about a project and force the owner to sue the town, which the owner typically wins. Waste of taxpayer money on lawyers. They should be following the ordinances set forth, granting reasonable variances, and updating zoning as needed. Unfortunately its the control freaks who run for planning board and win because no one else wants to do it.
I know a landlord that did this in a college town. He owned 3 apartment buildings right on campus of a large university and wanted to make them nicer, larger, etc. Planning board denied him. He painted one purple with yellow poka dots, another yellow with purple polkadots, and the other purple with yellow stripes. Every person driving to campus sees the buildings. They are student rentals, so he doesn't care, I doubt the students living there care either.
His requests were reasonable, and he would have made more housing for more students. A approval or variance could have been easily granted.
Yes it was unreasonable that his request was denied. And yes, its unreasonable that he painted his houses that color. But that is what makes us human.
Soapbox....... I've say on planning boards before. Those people are pure evil. Control freaks. They deny based on their own personal feelings about a project and force the owner to sue the town, which the owner typically wins. Waste of taxpayer money on lawyers. They should be following the ordinances set forth, granting reasonable variances, and updating zoning as needed. Unfortunately its the control freaks who run for planning board and win because no one else wants to do it.
( last paragraph)
I currently serve on a planning board and vote ...no..on every variance unless the variance is asked due to an extreme hardship.
Neighbors of 71-year-old Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring objected to her plans to demolish a house in the chique suburb of Knightsbridge, London which she bought in 1997 for £575,000 ($860,000) and build her dream home in its place. Her plans included an extended two storey underground basement incorporating a cinema, gym and a swimming pool. Her plans however were thwarted by local residents who objected on the grounds that it would cause too much disruption and could undermine the foundations of their own properties.
The right-most red stripe needs to be finished (above the street lamp.)
It's not the stripes that are gruesome (they're rather fun) but the fact that the building is not owner-occupied. If she's not using it, squatters should be encouraged to move in. I'm sure there's a sizable homeless population in London.
I currently serve on a planning board and vote ...no..on every variance unless the variance is asked due to an extreme hardship. Ordinances are there for a reason
It is obvious that provision must be made for changing the regulations as conditions change or new conditions arise. Otherwise zoning would be a "strait-jacket" and a detriment to a community instead of an asset. Even the best zoning ordinances do become out of date. Periodic revision is essential if the ordinance is to establish and maintain a rational land use pattern.
My advice to someone seeking a different use.... would be advice on how to change the zoning law, not NO, NO, NO, goodbye as most planning boards would do.
If you think your job as a planning board member is to tell people "NO" your hurting your community.
It is obvious that provision must be made for changing the regulations as conditions change or new conditions arise. Otherwise zoning would be a "strait-jacket" and a detriment to a community instead of an asset. Even the best zoning ordinances do become out of date. Periodic revision is essential if the ordinance is to establish and maintain a rational land use pattern.
My advice to someone seeking a different use.... would be advice on how to change the zoning law, not NO, NO, NO, goodbye as most planning boards would do.
If you think your job as a planning board member is to tell people "NO" your hurting your community.
My job on the planning board is to uphold the ordinances .
From time to time the ordinances are changed or updated.
If being on the planning board means you are there to make friends with every Tom, Dick , and Harry by granting variances like a politician throwing out candy in a 4th of July parade, they had better replace me because it will never happen while I am on that board.
However, I agree with her neighbors that scooping out the house, excavating, and replacing the house is too risky to the adjoining houses. That is just common sense. Demolition contractors are not known for their precision.
However, I agree with her neighbors that scooping out the house, excavating, and replacing the house is too risky to the adjoining houses. That is just common sense. Demolition contractors are not known for their precision.
This type of excavation happens all the time in London.
They are experts at it.
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.
