Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Courtney is actually following this thread. I find it hilarious how posters are accusing her of things that never happened while at the same time praising things that she herself is leading the way on.

To be honest, she and other neighbors are not harassing the homeowner. They are asking the county to actually do inspections as they are supposed to. One of the inspections did find violations, hence the stop work order. The neighbors are not tying him up in litigation-the county, as it rightfully should, is doing ITS job to make sure codes and what not are being followed.

In the meantime, our county board supervisor is doing HIS job by addressing a serious concern from his constituents. He is the one asking the full board to consider code changes so as to avoid controversies like this in the future.

As I have said, if the county says this is all above board, there is little that can be done for this particular project. The ire is directed more at the county than the homeowner himself. That said, many of us continue to suspect this is illegal apartments and not “family housing”-if that actually happens, the neighborhood will be talking to every official we can to shut that crap down. Courtney and the majority of neighbors do feel like going through the County is the appropriate venue at this moment. We as constituents have that right to voice concerns and complaints. I don’t know where you get entitlement out of any of this. There are legitimate concerns about this structure and its impact on surrounding properties. When the county wasn’t even sending people out to inspect, the media was contacted. That is when action was actually taken by the county offices that were supposed to be tracking all of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't even being done by developers. A family is building it for themselves. For housing, not investment.

Aren’t they planning on three kitchens, one on each floor? Can’t imagine how they’re not building this for an investment/ illegal apartment complex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't even being done by developers. A family is building it for themselves. For housing, not investment.

It absolutely makes sense. It demonstrates what YIMBY hedge funds want to do to all working and middle class neighborhoods in the country. It is an example that is being bounced around the country of what YIMBY stands for and means.

Hedge funds want existing homeowners to build additions to house multigenerational families? Unlikely, but that seems fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't even being done by developers. A family is building it for themselves. For housing, not investment.

Aren’t they planning on three kitchens, one on each floor? Can’t imagine how they’re not building this for an investment/ illegal apartment complex.

Where did you see that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't even being done by developers. A family is building it for themselves. For housing, not investment.

It absolutely makes sense. It demonstrates what YIMBY hedge funds want to do to all working and middle class neighborhoods in the country. It is an example that is being bounced around the country of what YIMBY stands for and means.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't even being done by developers. A family is building it for themselves. For housing, not investment.

Aren’t they planning on three kitchens, one on each floor? Can’t imagine how they’re not building this for an investment/ illegal apartment complex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't even being done by developers. A family is building it for themselves. For housing, not investment.

Aren’t they planning on three kitchens, one on each floor? Can’t imagine how they’re not building this for an investment/ illegal apartment complex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't even being done by developers. A family is building it for themselves. For housing, not investment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw that the permit is on hold but I think there are lies on the application. Whomever certified that the addition "blueprints" blend in with the neighborhood should have their ass handed to them.

That's obviously a subjective statement. If the building materials and colors are similar to other homes, you could absolutely say it blends in.

Most people would also say there are upper limits on how big a house can be in order to "blend in" and in particular whether the bulkiest part of the house is right on the property line or close to the street, instead of set back on the property like other homes in the neighborhood.

I think that's what annoys me most about what has been done here. There were ways for this family to add the same amount of square footage without sticking a three story building right against the shared property line with their neighbor. It honestly feels hostile to have chosen this particular approach, and that's where I think zoning should have pushed back and noted that the location of the addition is totally out of character for the neighborhood and impose real burdens on the next door neighbor. If that 3 story addition was at the back of the property, it would still be hideous but would solve the worst of the problems.

And no, cost is not a reasonable excuse for doing this. Sure, it may have been cheaper and easier to design the addition in this way. Well it would also be cheaper and easier for me to put in a pool by sticking it in the front yard because it's bigger than my backyard and it would be easier to get the equipment in. But you aren't allowed to do that because front yard pools cause hazards and negative externalities for neighbors. You don't just get to do the cheapest, easiest possible thing with your property. There are some minimum standards.

This addition meets the "minimum standards." You just don't like the minimum standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't even being done by developers. A family is building it for themselves. For housing, not investment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw that the permit is on hold but I think there are lies on the application. Whomever certified that the addition "blueprints" blend in with the neighborhood should have their ass handed to them.

That's obviously a subjective statement. If the building materials and colors are similar to other homes, you could absolutely say it blends in.

Most people would also say there are upper limits on how big a house can be in order to "blend in" and in particular whether the bulkiest part of the house is right on the property line or close to the street, instead of set back on the property like other homes in the neighborhood.

I think that's what annoys me most about what has been done here. There were ways for this family to add the same amount of square footage without sticking a three story building right against the shared property line with their neighbor. It honestly feels hostile to have chosen this particular approach, and that's where I think zoning should have pushed back and noted that the location of the addition is totally out of character for the neighborhood and impose real burdens on the next door neighbor. If that 3 story addition was at the back of the property, it would still be hideous but would solve the worst of the problems.

And no, cost is not a reasonable excuse for doing this. Sure, it may have been cheaper and easier to design the addition in this way. Well it would also be cheaper and easier for me to put in a pool by sticking it in the front yard because it's bigger than my backyard and it would be easier to get the equipment in. But you aren't allowed to do that because front yard pools cause hazards and negative externalities for neighbors. You don't just get to do the cheapest, easiest possible thing with your property. There are some minimum standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw that the permit is on hold but I think there are lies on the application. Whomever certified that the addition "blueprints" blend in with the neighborhood should have their ass handed to them.

That's obviously a subjective statement. If the building materials and colors are similar to other homes, you could absolutely say it blends in.

Most people would also say there are upper limits on how big a house can be in order to "blend in" and in particular whether the bulkiest part of the house is right on the property line or close to the street, instead of set back on the property like other homes in the neighborhood.

I think that's what annoys me most about what has been done here. There were ways for this family to add the same amount of square footage without sticking a three story building right against the shared property line with their neighbor. It honestly feels hostile to have chosen this particular approach, and that's where I think zoning should have pushed back and noted that the location of the addition is totally out of character for the neighborhood and impose real burdens on the next door neighbor. If that 3 story addition was at the back of the property, it would still be hideous but would solve the worst of the problems.

And no, cost is not a reasonable excuse for doing this. Sure, it may have been cheaper and easier to design the addition in this way. Well it would also be cheaper and easier for me to put in a pool by sticking it in the front yard because it's bigger than my backyard and it would be easier to get the equipment in. But you aren't allowed to do that because front yard pools cause hazards and negative externalities for neighbors. You don't just get to do the cheapest, easiest possible thing with your property. There are some minimum standards.

Anonymous wrote:NP. I appreciate the folks who remodeled. They are doing a better job at exposing the YIMBY movement as a front for rapacious hedge funds than I thought possible. It’s interesting to see people I know who I have considered apolitical wake up to the gleeful destruction of working and middle class neighborhoods that YIMBY champions.