Aye, that kind of thing. [Davie, FL.
](Davie, Florida - Wikipedia)
I understand that now they’ve designated part of the town the Western Theme District and the requirements are restricted to just that part of town, but back in the 1970s and '80s IIRC it was the whole town.
Ditto.
As I said, I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but I don’t know what the law says.
I’m also not exactly sure of the timeline of events, either. From the 2nd linked article, it sounded like she saw the renderings before construction had begun or as it was beginning. But then from the other article it also sounded like construction had been going on for months and months and was almost complete when suddenly she had a problem.
Well, how dare they use brick! That is soooo 19th century…
But for an appeal process to be fair to the builder, the builder has to know about it. If you apply for a building permit, and receive the permit, what are you supposed to do? Delay building, just in case someone files an appeal against your house?
The first thing to note, in this case, is that it was not the city itself that heard the appeal and made a move to stop the construction. While the permits were originally approved by the Raleigh City Council, with the input and support of the Raleigh Historic Development Commission, the appeal was heard by the Board of Adjusters. Not only that, but the Raleigh City Council, according to this article, filed an appeal against the Board of Adjusters decision, arguing procedural irregularities and that the Board overstepped its authority.
Furthermore, if this letter sent by the builder to the city council back in March is to be believed, the city itself never actually informed him that the appeals process then underway could threaten the very existence of his house.
You can read the rest of the letter at the link provided above.
Whether or not you like the style of the house, and whether you think that the woman leading the charge against the house is a valiant crusader or a fucking nutbar, it seems to me that these people have been caught up in a legal and bureaucratic net that was not of their own making. If they have to tear the house down now, i think it would be a fucking travesty.
ETA:
I would add, by the way, that the New York Times article linked by the OP does not really do a very good job of explaining the situation here. It’s long on generalities and outrage, but short on the specifics of the case.
Wonderful post (and cite), mhendo. Thanks.
I agree that once the permit has been issued and construction has begun, the permit should not be overturned except under extraordinary circumstances. As a general rule, people should be able to feel that an issue has been settled.
The builder is only presenting one side of the story, and a carefully-spun one. The notice issue is definitely important, but the letter never says when they actually received notice. In any event, despite the newspaper article trying to present the appeal as odd or rare, the Board of Adjustment’s website contains a standard set of procedures (including notice) for RHDC appeals and a checklist to ensure that they have been followed. It will be easy enough for the reviewing court to determine whether the appeal was properly noticed.
Besides, the builder’s letter admits that they kept going with construction after learning of the appeal, which ought to strip them of much sympathy. They say they did so based on conversations with the city, but that’s meaningless. As you noted yourself, the appeal is not administered by the city but by a wholly separate Board. Why should they think that the Board would be bound by what the city said about the appeal, especially when, as you also note, the city is an interested party to the dispute? Put another way, the builder is arguing that Wiesner’s rights in the process should be forfeited because of conversations that took place between her opponents. That makes no sense to me, and I’m hard pressed to think that the reviewing court will give it much traction.
Personally, I also think it strains credibility that a sophisticated builder would be so ignorant of the law governing its operations as to think that a building permit cannot be substantively altered or revoked on appeal. That’s obviously just speculation on my part, though.
I see that the Board’s website contains a document describing the law governing the appeal process, which contains this language: “(c) Interpretations. The decision may reverse or affirm wholly or partly or modify the order, requirements, decision, or determination appealed from,” but it’s not clear to me that this provision applies to precisely these appeals, and a non-lawyer homeowner can hardly be expected to go digging through this document.
Procedural back-and-forth aside, I have doubts that Wiesner will or should win in court on the merits. The guidelines for the historical district seem very vague, such that it seems hard to say with any certitude what is permitted and what is not; in that situation, I don’t know what basis the Board could have for concluding that the RHDC got it wrong. On the other hand, I suppose Wiesner might try to argue that this house is so modernist that no matter how vague the law might be around the edges, clearly it was meant to forbid this one.
What a hideous house.
Covenants can be quite reasonable. The Community Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R) in my area are about a page long, and they make reasonable restrictions that may restrict how I use my property, but also insure that my neighbors can’t do the same and impact my quality of life. The restrictions are things like a prohibition of backyard foul, property line setbacks, and restrictions on the type of fence you can have in the front yard (nothing too tall and opaque, but a white picket or short chain link fence would be okay). I’ll take covenants over a HOA any day of the week.
Doesn’t look that way to me. Sure, it’s larger than the others but it’s in the same post-war style whereas the new house is more of an early '60s suburban style.
Better point: those houses are all ugly as fuck and there’s no value in preserving the character of that shitty neighborhood. Though Tom Tildrum raises a number of issues that are not apparent from the news articles.
You want to talk out of place? Compare this McMansion to its neighbors!
Disagree. There might be plenty of reason why a permit could be issued when it shouldn’t have been (issues overlooked, mistake, city very supportive of a project consequences be damned, plain corruption…) . Injured third parties must be able to have it cancelled (and the permit issuer held responsible for the monetary loss).
My thoughts exactly.
It’s amazing what pops into your head when you’re sitting at home on a Friday evening. I remembered this case, and decided to see what came of it. Initially i couldn’t even remember which state it was, or how long ago it was, so it took a bit of guesswork in my search terms, but i finally found it.
Long story short: after tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills, the home builders are not going to have to demolish their home.
The legal ruling was that the woman seeking to challenge their permit did not have standing under the laws of the state and prior rulings of the courts. I’ve read through the 26-page decision (PDF), from February this year, and pulled out some quotes that i think give a pretty decent sense of how the final chapter went down. In this case, the house-builders are the Petitioners, and the woman seeking to stop them is the Respondent.
Weisner, in an appeal asking to be allowed to supplement the record and demonstrate standing, also had the hubris to argue that the notoriety of the case, for which she was largely responsible, had caused increased traffic in the area, and thus impacted her property values.
The court was not persuaded:
There’s a whole page here that details almost every twist and turn in the case in the two years since this thread was opened.
Wow, the block parties there are sure going to be awkward.
Seriously, I can’t imagine living across the street from someone so hateful. People living that close have all kinds of ways to at least try to make your life miserable. I’d sure be tempted to put the house on the market as soon as it was finished, even if it was at a loss.
Id forgotten this story too, but am grateful for the update.
As Roderick Femm said, it’s going to make for awkward relationships and neighbors.
There’s a historic homes district not too far from my mother’s home. For many years there was a large empty space on a corner, where many years ago a small hospital once stood. The space was divided into two lots and two houses were built on them. But the houses were built in the same style as the original turn of the century homes, so they don’t stick out like sore thumbs.
Ah yes, “standing” is where so many cases die. People don’t get that just anyone can’t simply go up and say “Hey, that’s just wrong, do something about it!” even if it ***were ***wrong.
Y’know, I’ve been looking at the Street View of the block in question and the pictures in linked pages. I honestly don’t see what’s wrong with the house that this would depress property values in that neighborhood or “ruin” it somehow. ISTM Wiesner was just butthurt that she formerly fronted open green space from her home which she built with with short setback, and now she’s fronting a 2-story home that does not blend into the woods. Well, the courts have ruled that was not a vested right of hers and it’s not a damage that it happened.
One more reason (as if I needed any) never to consider living in a historic district.
Between the neighbors and the people overseeing the rules, it’s like an HOA on crack.
Congrats to the homebuilders on their Pyrrhic victory.