Posted on 06/03/2006 9:42:31 AM PDT by khnyny
A Chevy Chase couple has been ordered by the county to demolish their partially renovated home — or to move it 1.7 feet back from the property line.
Marc and Marianne Duffy believe they are victims of a backlash against oversized homes being squeezed into small lots in older neighborhoods. They say they are being punished for a county agency’s mistakes.
Neighbors who opposed the construction believe the Duffy’s problems are their own creation.
Marc Duffy, an attorney, and Marianne Duffy, a stay-at-home mom and former attorney, served as their own general contractors on the project.
‘‘Three times my husband and I relied on the county’s advice,” Marianne Duffy said. ‘‘When we needed advice, authorization or information about county laws and county permits and county processes, we went to the county.”
(Excerpt) Read more at gazette.net ...
Isn't it nice that the government can financially ruin a young family like this due to the county's own incompetence?
This is just one more example of the People's Republic of Montgomery County at work.
Check this out too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611733/posts
So, a silly question; who has the responsibility to obtain a survey to verify that the home meets Montgomery County, city and local housing laws and specifications? The answer is "The Builder". If these people had done some very basic fact checking and work; they wouldn't be in this situation. The laws are enforced equally, and across the board; which is the way things ought to be.
WHO DID THAT HOME INSPECTION?
A HOME INSPECTOR should have been able to detect MOLD!!!
They're lawyers. My sympathy is shallow, at best.
I made some guy down the street put back the sidewalk he tore out based on assurances from some city employee. (He also but a big boulder right at the new end of the sidwalk blocking my sled riding path, the bozo.)
IANAL either.
The department sent out a building inspector to take a closer look at the project and issued a temporary order halting construction. Duffy went to the department and filed for a new building permit, which the department approved on June 9.
Case closed.
Don't worry, I have not seen Marv around lately.
but --> PUT. Being a dyslexic typer is interesting.
Indeed. They've certainly gotten a raw deal, but they are both attorneys. They should have known that relying on that advice won't give them a legal leg to stand on. Dumb.
On June 10, a county zoning inspector issued a second stop-work order, informing the Duffys that the department had erred in issuing the new permit because the house must conform to new zoning laws.
So, they bought a house for $700,000 and found damage/mold such that the walls would not bear adding a second story; they then leveled the home. At this point, the house will be totally 'new'; thus the 'new' house must meet the 'new' zoning regulations. Looks like these lawyers did not perform 'due dilligence'.
No survey was required because the building is on the same footprint it was on for 82 years. The dispute is about some vindictive neighbors (also lawyers) and how much old wood could be re-used in the remodel.
They shoulda got a variance, which don't come from the building dept. I don't believe.
This is just another example of "Private Property" not being private at all. You do not own your p[roperty...you are a serf on it just as in the days of old. This is a mistake and though an avoidable one and and idiotic one its a mistake. To command people to do this because a code says so is proof that the property is not yours to do with as you wish. Therefore...if you do not own it...why should we even have to "buy" it?
I know there is such a thing as code, but much of it is problematic and the permit process is foisted upon all of us because of the few who kill themselves or others. The bad thing about most of this is that it was a "requirement" under survey and one which was most likely to have to have been signed off for upon survey inspection as well as site inspection so the government failed here as did the builder. FINE, make the two of those idiots pay a fine but not destroy a homes foundation becuase of retards who we have to submit to because we do not own our land anyway.
Sounds innocent so far. No problem.
"By the time the demolition was complete, all that remained of the house was the first-floor fireplace."
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Who are they kidding with what they wanted to do all along?
What do they say about lawyers representing themselves in court? Something about "a fool for a client"?
"Neighbors who opposed the construction believe the Duffy’s problems are their own creation."
After reading the entire article, I agree.
Not true. Once you remove the walls, the building is non-habitable. Now all you have is an old foundation. The 'new' building must be built taking into account the current building codes, rules and regulations; not regulations and codes from 80+ years ago.
For example, I made a bid on a home on 1 acre of land in Austin,TX. My inspector found a problem with the septic. End of story, I could not simply modify/repair the problem; I would have to remove the entire septic system and update the entire system to meet current building codes ($50-85,000). Yep, this was a deal-breaker. Too bad, I'd have loved to have that lot.
If that is the case, then the city should advise its staff not to issue any papers that someone can reasonably reply upon as representation it was OK to proceed - as a building permit most certainly would be considered.
Marc Duffy, an attorney, and Marianne Duffy, a stay-at-home mom and former attorney, served as their own general contractors on the project.... When we needed advice, authorization or information about county laws and county permits and county processes, we went to the county.”hmmm,..... what's that old adage about attorney's and fools??
In any case They are it - bwaahahaha. oops sorry I couldn't control myself.
I've been in Commercial Construction since 1970 and have been involved as a Project Manager on everything from a stinking strip mall to a 58 story Hi-rise - and I wouldn't be my own G.C. building a house. And I sure as hell wouldn't rely on the numb-skull Neanderthals who issue permits for any "advise" - as most can barley read 'Dick & Jane' books.
Ergo, they got what they deserve - rip it down Einsteins.
ps: I'd sue your attorney and GC. Oh that was YOU wasn;t it. hahahahaha
If you live out on a farm; and want to build your house 'your way' and arrange it 'your way' and paint it 'your way', and pile trash in the front and back yards; that's fine with me.
But, if you live next to me; I have an issue. When your rights trump my rights; or 'your way' makes the value plummet on the single largest asset I own; I have an issue. That's why we have community covenents, deed restrictions and require survey's on each and every lot before the first square inch of cement is poured. That's why financing must be pre-approved and construction must have a clearly defined start and stop date.
Now, if you want to live in an area; by yourself, in which your lifestyle doesn't impact your neighbor's ... knock yourself out.
"The laws are enforced equally, and across the board; which is the way things ought to be."
I really would beg to differ.
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20051106-112137-2824r.htm
and
http://www.neighborspac.org/code-breaches-a-pattern.htm
[The Civic Federation issued the report after a monthlong study prompted by the widespread violations at Clarksburg, where more than 500 homes in July were found to have been built too high or too close to the road.
Planning Board staffer Wynn Witthans was found to have falsified a site plan last fall to try to cover up the violations. Mrs. Witthans, a 17-year Planning Board employee, resigned in May.
The county inspector general and the state special prosecutor are investigating.
To produce the civic federation's report, about 24 volunteers worked for the past month to collect and copy site plans, building permits and other documents integral to the planning process, Mr. Humphrey said.
Mr. Humphrey said the federation "did not think that an investigation by the county government, which was largely responsible for the problem, would help to restore citizen confidence." ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.