So you limit height, now you cause buildings to be built deep. Result: more impervious surface.
So you limit setbacks so the houses can't be built deep. Result: less building space per lot.
Less building space per lot limits architectural design and LOWERS property values.
Seriously, what is that you want? Smaller houses? Legislate charm?
What if I think that the smaller houses should be demolished for larger ones; should I be able to tell people build big or move?
It is hard to believe any true liberal independent thinker would want to legislate creativity. Yes I believe that when a homeowner buys property in a single family neighborhood of homes, should be able to build/renovate a single family home as they see fit. This builds neighborhood diversity, promotes individual creativity and has proven be the most successful way to stabilize a neighborhood.
Imagine what is going to happen when the majority of ITB big fat and happy citizens arent big fat and happy anymore. I see a class action law suit coming.
Frankie, I don't know where you live. I have never stated you werent entitled to your opinion quite the opposite. I would fight for the right that you get to have an opinion. However, in a free society you shouldnt be able to legislate taste as the greatest artist might not have been. You "state you made an informed researched decision". If a property owner bought a piece of land with certain rights and the city takes them away without the owner asking for it that is Predatory Downzoning. Maybe if your foundation was not repairable and the only way you could stay in the area you have lived for over 30 years was to split your lot you would have a different view? Especially since your next door neighbor with the same size and shaped lot was able to do the same thing. You say "Best for the neighborhood" that was the same argument used in the 80s to prevent the 3 houses built on Royster all 2 story, all of which only enhanced the "Neighborhood" with wonderful, nice new families. Of course "neighbors" were going around saying that "condo's" were going to be built, property values would be lowered etc...just like now. Yet the reality of the situation was the exact opposite, another example of Neighbors lying to neighbors to get their own way.
You state best for the neighborhood. Name one thing that benefited the neighborhood? As it was proven the rezoning of the property could only affect her property. Are you just against building in general? Do you want architectural control of all renovations and teardowns? The only thing consistent about the fallon park area is that it was built predominately with single family homes in a low density area. The acreage range from .11 acres to over 5 acres per property, some houses have large font yards some dont, there are ranch houses and 3 story houses. According to AHA guidelines the whole area would be designated R-6 with exceptions of parts of White Oak Rd. and Lake Dr. You also state R6 might benefit you. There are only 4 lots in the area that was affected area with any major benefits and 2 have been renovated which negates any gain. It is easy to have grandiose views when it doesnt affect your QOL. One neighbor who was on your side right up until they found out that the ghost line lots they had might be taken away and they were planning on using that money for their childs college education.
My intention was to spread facts and point out that certain neighbors dont always have your best interest at hand. Reinforcing that civil liberties and freedom are much more important than legislating individuals views of taste. As long as you state generalities I will state the facts and ramifications to the individual homeowner. Someone has to look out for the small guy; as self appointed neighborhood leaders have proven they dont. As for painting you, I do not. I am just allowing you to paint yourself, as I point out the colors.
Frankie: You said it,, YOU "DON"T REALLY KNOW, Yet you rendered it your business. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but when you force someone from their home it has consequences. When you make ill informed decisions your credibility is lessoned. I signed the petition then found out the real story and asked to have it removed. However, I was told it was still on the document turned in to the City Council.
I gave you two examples 1. When a petition states "other subdivisions will follow" because of a precedent being set, it should be the truth. However that has been proven to be FACTUALLY INNACURATE. 2. People were told condos would be built to get them to sign a petition .
I gave you solutions to the tax burden issue, you ignored it. I answered all of your assertions with fact and you just move to another issue. Last but not least, it isnt my problem; it was my poor neighbor who suffers. I am considering selling my home because I dont want my children growing up in an area where neighbors lie to neighbors to get their own way.
Great lets review: First spot zoning is not illegal and it wasnt spot zoning. 2. the owner bought a home that was r6 zoned 3. The scale rep who sent out notes own the meeting even said the precedent that would be set would be limited to a small area. 4. Using that precedent not one thing would change for the entire area according to staff because of the self imposed conditions. 5. 2 small lots you speak of are larger than a lot of lots in the surrounding area in fact if you split them they would be in the top 3 for road frontage of the respective streets. (Not exactly out of character) As 2 houses would be placed across from 3. 6. As far as front and side yard setbacks go, they are all over the map in the area because of the curvy roads and DIVERSE designs. As the neighborhood was built to what in todays term be designate R6 the original zoning. Why do we need to make more non conforming homes? 7. You define a neighborhood by what? The situation you speak of was plagued with lies and deception. When a petition states "other subdivisions will follow" because of a precedent being set, it should be the truth. However that has been proven to be FACTUALLY INNACURATE. People were told condos would be built to get them to sign a petition about something that had nothing to do with their personal quality of life. So I guess in your eyes it is OK to tell Lies, distort facts and gang up on an older single woman because she wasn't part of the "new" click. This was an old fashion witch hunt,, glad to know you supported it! FYI 15 of the 20 closest neighbors supported her (Thats a 75% majority).. Glad to know that neighbors who live two miles away have more input than those within 200 ft. So now we have one McMansion going up which I have to look at. Thanks Frankie, you helped kick a women out of her house. But I will be getting new neighbors because a click had to have their way.
Frankie, I saw what the SCALE people did to the retiring school teacher. I listened to both sides. She bought a house that was zoned a certain way and people lied to her to get it changed. Then when the property couldn't be repaired and she wanted to stay in the neighborhood. Most of the neighbors rallied behind her. Yet the scale members went out covertly spreading inaccurate propaganda to the entire area because they thought she might be profiting from something. Meantime she was working with the bordering neighbors showing the height and size restrictions, she herself wanted to put on the property to protect the neighborhood.
Seeing what these people put that woman through sickens me. All I fight for is to be afforded the same rights I had when I bought my property as I should have now. Frankie, if you and others want to preserve character to your own perception and don't want change, get together and restrict your properties, you have that right. If you have the majority you want have to worry too much about over development will you? However, you dont have a right to put your perception of taste, character etc.. into legislation that will affect my property.
Frankie I did forget to ask. I am for supporting property tax limits for citizens who have lived in the same home for 15 years or more who meet certain income requirements. This would allow citizens who have been lucky enough to have good property appreciation not be burdened by excessive taxes. This is not a giveaway it is merely a progressive tax on an asset that has not been realized. Since you havent realized the gain you shouldnt be overburdened with it. Whats your take?
Frankie: The post is quite accurate and your spin does not make it true. Larger houses attract families which equate to more people. More People moving inward leads to less sprawl. I guess you ignored the post about bicket place, hayes barton pool and the area at large. Which makes me wonder how long you have lived here. Fact: your rights aren't in dangered, only your view of taste. 2nd: Historically the area was built without much regulation and 2 story homes were allowed 3rd forcing houses to be built lower and deeper causes large impervious surfaces which result in storm water run off problems.
Matt B. I know you want to be on the planning commission. so I guess it would be to your benefit to know that 5 pts east imposed an overlay with just over 50% approval limiting height and size.
If a neighborhood gets a 100% and wants to restrict itself, then I am 100% behind it. However if any property owner wants to be excluded he or she should be. Whats your opinion?
All Comments »
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation