Community Chat

[croemer]

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

On 5/1/2014 straykatz said:

I don't know why they wanted to build such a modern home in an older preserved neighborhood other than to make a statement with their modern home design and they are now getting more than they bargained for. Even a NEW modern home can have historic curb appeal if they had tried.

Historic neighborhoods are preserved for a reason.....I come from a town that has a beautiful historic downtown section with several streets lined with 100+ year old victorian style homes.....there is no way a new modern design would have ever get approved to be put on one of these streets.

My thoughts are if you like modern then look for a new modern neighborhood!!!

I totally agree with you stray.

I do as well. I have seen this happen in other areas and to me it does look like an eye sore. To each their own but if I lived in an Historical area...I would not be happy either if someone came in a went so far off the path.

I think the word ""procedural"" would have made me get that in writing...common sense says: there could be a problem down the line. Who has never read about other instances like this?

[straykatz]

As a person who loves to draw/design and once thought of becoming an achitect I would have blended old with new on the outside and then designed my interior ultra modern.

[croemer]

On 5/1/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 5/1/2014 croemer said:

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:

<em>"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."</em>

croemer -

City planning exemptions are common. If they were told it was acceptable, that's it legally.

Actually, I hate it that exemptions are so common. Especially those that exempt size and residential regs.

Not sure I understand Noel...no where did I see they got an exemption? Did you?

[croemer]

On 5/1/2014 straykatz said:

As a person who loves to draw/design and once thought of becoming an achitect I would have blended old with new on the outside and then designed my interior ultra modern.

Exactly!

[Emma bunting]

On 5/1/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 5/1/2014 croemer said:

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:

<em>"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."</em>

croemer -

City planning exemptions are common. If they were told it was acceptable, that's it legally.

Actually, I hate it that exemptions are so common. Especially those that exempt size and residential regs.

except they were also told that an appeal to their exemption had been filed. Everyone knows that decisions can be overturned on appeal. They should never have proceeded until the appeal decision was rendered.

Their gamble. Their potential loss.

[NoelSeven]

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

On 5/1/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 5/1/2014 croemer said:

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:

<em>"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."</em>

croemer -

City planning exemptions are common. If they were told it was acceptable, that's it legally.

Actually, I hate it that exemptions are so common. Especially those that exempt size and residential regs.

except they were also told that an appeal to their exemption had been filed. Everyone knows that decisions can be overturned on appeal. They should never have proceeded until the appeal decision was rendered.

Their gamble. Their potential loss.

And apparently they were also told to go ahead, the appeal was just procedural. But you're right, they did gamble.

[adelle38]

On 5/1/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

On 5/1/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 5/1/2014 croemer said:

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:

<em>"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."</em>

croemer -

City planning exemptions are common. If they were told it was acceptable, that's it legally.

Actually, I hate it that exemptions are so common. Especially those that exempt size and residential regs.

except they were also told that an appeal to their exemption had been filed. Everyone knows that decisions can be overturned on appeal. They should never have proceeded until the appeal decision was rendered.

Their gamble. Their potential loss.

And apparently they were also told to go ahead, the appeal was just procedural. But you're right, they did gamble.

They were told the appeal was procedural but they were not told to go ahead with the construction. That was their decision.

[RainyDayGal]

I'm really tired of this mentality that just because you want something you can have it regardless of the impact on your neighbors. The home does not belong in that neighborhood and they know it. They knew it all along. I hope they have to tear it down.

[croemer]

On 5/1/2014 RedConvertibleGirl said:

I'm really tired of this mentality that just because you want something you can have it regardless of the impact on your neighbors. The home does not belong in that neighborhood and they know it. They knew it all along. I hope they have to tear it down.

BRAVO...agreed.

[Emma bunting]

On 5/1/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 5/1/2014 Emma bunting said:

On 5/1/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 5/1/2014 croemer said:

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:

<em>"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."</em>

croemer -

City planning exemptions are common. If they were told it was acceptable, that's it legally.

Actually, I hate it that exemptions are so common. Especially those that exempt size and residential regs.

except they were also told that an appeal to their exemption had been filed. Everyone knows that decisions can be overturned on appeal. They should never have proceeded until the appeal decision was rendered.

Their gamble. Their potential loss.

And apparently they were also told to go ahead, the appeal was just procedural. But you're right, they did gamble.

I didn't read anywhere where they were told to go ahead. But I might have missed it. I think they heard what they wanted to hear when they were told that the appeal was procedural. I doubt anyone actually said it was "merely" procedural. My bet is that they are adding that to bolster their case should it come to that.