Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JZelle
"The county granted the couple new permits, then voided them and halted construction when neighbors pointed out the house was originally built seven feet too close to the street and two feet too close to the home of William Hamilton, an editor at the Washington Post, and his wife, Jane Mayer, a staff writer for the New Yorker."

I wonder if the seller knew this?

11 posted on 03/17/2006 11:32:42 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
Hmmm....

what did the seller's REALTOR know?

21 posted on 03/17/2006 11:34:52 AM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
I wonder if the seller knew this?

If the seller knew this and did not disclose this, wouldn't it be on the seller's head? When did the neighbors know this information?
76 posted on 03/17/2006 12:14:34 PM PST by hummingbird ("...and bless the inventors of Robitussin DM. Amen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
the house was originally built seven feet too close to the street and two feet too close to the home of William Hamilton, an editor at the Washington Post, and his wife, Jane Mayer, a staff writer for the New Yorker.

I guarantee if it were 7 feet too close to the street and 2 feet too close to John and Jane Smith, they'd be able to get a waiver.

106 posted on 03/17/2006 12:54:44 PM PST by AmishDude (Amishdude, servant of the dark lord Xenu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

It probably wasn't seven feet too close to the road until they widened the road. The two feet too close to the neighbor sounds like what got this going. My space, you're invading my space. Kids too? Oh no, can't have that.


112 posted on 03/17/2006 1:06:22 PM PST by printhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen; AmishDude; printhead; pointsal; hummingbird

It made no difference at the time of the sale that the 82 year old home's setbacks were less than the current code requires. All building codes grandfather building built prior to a change in setback (and most other) code specifications. The issue arose after they began construction on the addition, and discovered that they would have to replace more of the original exterior wall than originally planned, due to rot and termite damage discovered after construction began. When they exceeded 50% of the original wall, that eliminated the grandfathering and classified the whole house as "new construction" subject to current setback requirements (and all other code requirements). In other words, if they had left the rotten, termite-damaged walls the way they were, instead of replacing them with new, sound wood, they could have done the same addition without violating the code.

When it says they were granted additional permits, to continue with the construction after discovering that more wall would have to be replaced than originally planned, and that those permits were subsequently rescinded, it sounds to me as though some sane officials recognized how idiotic it was to dump an already approved and started addition, because the owner didn't want to leave rotten structural walls adjacent to the new addition, and approved the variance. Then some bigwig neighbors got wind of their opportunity to stop the construction (probably preferring that it be replaced with some McMansion, or perhaps the Post/New Yorker couple wants to buy the lot and raze the house so they can have more land and a better), and twisted the arms of local officials to rescind the sensible variance permit.

According to the letter of the law, once 50% of the original walls have been removed, there is NO way legally keep this house standing without a variance, as it can't stand up without the exterior walls that are within the current code's required setback, and it can never again be eligible for the grandfather clause, because it can never again have more than 50% of its original exterior walls.


131 posted on 03/17/2006 1:35:08 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

"the house was originally built seven feet too close to the street and two feet too close to the home."

I guess the fact that the house was built 82 years ago has no bearing on this, huh? Seems it should almost be on the list of "old places that are exempt from everything".


141 posted on 03/17/2006 2:35:40 PM PST by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

Or the Title company..


146 posted on 03/17/2006 4:21:27 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
The house was built 82 years ago. At the time it was built it met all applicable landuse, zoning and building regulations.

This is clearly a case of a "postie" spinning a story to the detriment of a young couple with children (and given the names, I'm guessing they are Catholic).

Fur Shur one thing "posties" hate are living children, especially not what they call "breeders" or "fish". Now if these people had aborted their kids, this Hamilton guy would probably be out there helping them rake the yard.

One thing you don't want in your neighborhood is a "postie" ~ I've never met one who could be trusted.

155 posted on 03/17/2006 5:11:15 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson