Community Chat

[straykatz]

Should a couple be forced to tear down their modern under construction home because it is too modern for the neighborhood?

Modern home divides historic Southern neighborhood

http://www.pantagraph.com/print-specific/pantagraph/ragged-body/modern-home-divides-historic-southe...

[NoelSeven]

I don't see how it can be torn down if it was approved by the planning commission.

There could be a giant legal suit if it was forced, and rightly so. It may not fit in the neighborhood, but the blame goes to those who approved it.

[brii]

It should not be torn down.

If they had a problem with the design of the home, why did they approve it in the first place?

[Emma bunting]

Bottom line (to me, after reading the article) is that the couple gambled building the home while there was an appeal pending.

They might lose that gamble in the end and be forced to tear the home down.

[occasionalrain]

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

Bottom line (to me, after reading the article) is that the couple gambled building the home while there was an appeal pending.

They might lose that gamble in the end and be forced to tear the home down.

That was my interpretation of the article. An architect should have known this house didn't fit in with the neighborhood and probably did. It's not even an attractive house.

[Marienkaefer2]

I agree with Emma hunting.

It always puzzles me why people choose a certain.neighborhood and then.want to do.things that go against the grain in that neighborhood.

If they wanted to.build a more modern type house, why not choose an area where that design is prevalent and will more likely be accepted?

[brii]

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

Bottom line (to me, after reading the article) is that the couple gambled building the home while there was an appeal pending.

They might lose that gamble in the end and be forced to tear the home down.

But the City advised them to proceed, citing the appeal as "procedural."

[Emma bunting]

On 5/1/2014 brii said:

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

Bottom line (to me, after reading the article) is that the couple gambled building the home while there was an appeal pending.

They might lose that gamble in the end and be forced to tear the home down.

But the City advised them to proceed, citing the appeal as "procedural."

That is what they are "saying"......I have a feeling they don't have this in writing, which could be problematic.

At any rate, if the appeal is upheld, I see a huge, drawn out lawsuit in the future.

ETA: just reread the article. The homeowners said that the town told them the appeal was "merely procedural".....but the town did not tell them to proceed with construction. That was their decision. And who knows if the town really said "merely". Someone could have told them it was procedural.....and they added the merely to make their case sound better. At any rate, it is obvious to me that they don't have those words in writing....so they might not have a leg to stand on.

[brii]

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

On 5/1/2014 brii said:

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

Bottom line (to me, after reading the article) is that the couple gambled building the home while there was an appeal pending.

They might lose that gamble in the end and be forced to tear the home down.

But the City advised them to proceed, citing the appeal as "procedural."

That is what they are "saying"......I have a feeling they don't have this in writing, which could be problematic.

At any rate, if the appeal is upheld, I see a huge, drawn out lawsuit in the future.

True

I think the home is beautiful. I still don't think it should be torn down.

[croemer]

This in the guidelines stands out to me...therefore...yes they have a problem. It would be a shame but... the guidelines were clear in this paragraph. As emma said they gambled and may lose:

"The guidelines clearly state that any home, any new construction in the historic district should blend in and not stand out," he says. "And a home whose very intent is a living piece of art is intended to stand out."