April 9, 2004
Crime and Punishment
The Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals recently denied a homeowner a variance for a bit of building that offended our setback rules and ordered him to tear down a shed and his brand new deck. This is one of our town’s most sensible boards (a distinction it does not share with its lesser sibling, the Planning and Zoning Board) so it is illustrative to see why imposed such a harsh remedy. The answer it seems, is that the homeowner indulged in that all-too-human fallibility, procrastination. When his extra-legal building activity was discovered and he was ordered to correct the situation, he ignored the demand in the hope that the entire unpleasantness would go away. I am entirely sympathetic to that reaction but unfortunately, it’s not a wise course of action when dealing with governmental bodies (the IRS, for instance). What he should have done was, when his violations were first discovered, to immediately apply for a variance; the Board would probably have granted one because, as I’ve said, they’re a pretty reasonable bunch of people. What he did instead was to force the enforcement officer to take progressively harder steps until, finally, the whole matter ended up in the quasi-judicial “courtroom” of the Board of Appeals. They saw the matter as one of defiance rather than wistful thinking and lowered the boom. I do not advise flouting the law and performing midnight construction projects but, were you to do so, you might take some comfort in knowing that there’s a statute of limitations of six years on such activity; don’t get caught and you’ll be okay. But if you are caught, play by the rules. Apply for a variance and, while there may be some finger wagging in your direction, you’ll probably get away with it (assuming a modest transgression). However, not withstanding the Navy’s adage that it’s easier to receive forgiveness than permission, I’d suggest that you approach your building project the right way and, if you need a variance to add that deck, apply for it before setting shovel to dirt.
The Market
A very busy week. Forty-eight houses sold, twenty-five went to contract and one hundred and four new properties came on. 4 Waterfall Lane, which I mentioned last week, went in eleven days. 209 Taconic, at $9.8 million, took a year but, lest you think all big-ticket homes take that long to sell, 55 Baldwin Farms South, asking $5.95 million, went to contract in four days. Hectic.
Classics of the Week
There were two of them, in my opinion, but I’m a sucker for gracious old houses and these may very well not be your taste. With that caveat, the first is Aja Ohman’s listing at 29 Pine Ridge Road (off of Stanwich) for $3,450,000. This is a beautiful, 1928 house that was renovated in 1999 with a big new kitchen and updated baths. Not really a rambler, but plenty of rooms spreading in both directions for great entertainment or privacy. 4,645 square feet (with plaster walls), a heated pool, over an acre of land (with Pinetum nearby) and gardens. Just a great house in every way.
And further up the price scale is Ann Simpson’s listing at 152 Indian Head Road in Riverside. Another old (1915) house that’s been completely redone without destroying what made this so good to begin with. Direct waterfront facing west over the harbor, an acre and a half plus of lawns, 7,711 square feet, a million bedrooms, wine cellar, pool, high, high ceilings and so on. Asking price is $12,500,000, a figure that seems about right: 58 Dawn Harbor (right down the street) sold in October for that sum and, while that one was new and this one is renovated, they’re both beautiful waterfront homes. You worry, no doubt, that a nice young family will have to scrimp to afford this but I’m sure that, as I write, some Wall Street tyro is busy trading ahead of his customers, scraping up the down payment.
And Another One
It was built in 1998, not pre-war, but Barbara Mckee’s listing at 25 Fox Run Lane might still be considered a classic. This one’s on just under two and a half acres, with the requisite heated pool but what sets it apart from most houses is its design: the listing sheet describes it as a Normandy with a “traditional” floor plan but it’s much more interesting than that; go see for yourself. $4,495,000 which seems right to me. Nice place.
The Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals recently denied a homeowner a variance for a bit of building that offended our setback rules and ordered him to tear down a shed and his brand new deck. This is one of our town’s most sensible boards (a distinction it does not share with its lesser sibling, the Planning and Zoning Board) so it is illustrative to see why imposed such a harsh remedy. The answer it seems, is that the homeowner indulged in that all-too-human fallibility, procrastination. When his extra-legal building activity was discovered and he was ordered to correct the situation, he ignored the demand in the hope that the entire unpleasantness would go away. I am entirely sympathetic to that reaction but unfortunately, it’s not a wise course of action when dealing with governmental bodies (the IRS, for instance). What he should have done was, when his violations were first discovered, to immediately apply for a variance; the Board would probably have granted one because, as I’ve said, they’re a pretty reasonable bunch of people. What he did instead was to force the enforcement officer to take progressively harder steps until, finally, the whole matter ended up in the quasi-judicial “courtroom” of the Board of Appeals. They saw the matter as one of defiance rather than wistful thinking and lowered the boom. I do not advise flouting the law and performing midnight construction projects but, were you to do so, you might take some comfort in knowing that there’s a statute of limitations of six years on such activity; don’t get caught and you’ll be okay. But if you are caught, play by the rules. Apply for a variance and, while there may be some finger wagging in your direction, you’ll probably get away with it (assuming a modest transgression). However, not withstanding the Navy’s adage that it’s easier to receive forgiveness than permission, I’d suggest that you approach your building project the right way and, if you need a variance to add that deck, apply for it before setting shovel to dirt.
The Market
A very busy week. Forty-eight houses sold, twenty-five went to contract and one hundred and four new properties came on. 4 Waterfall Lane, which I mentioned last week, went in eleven days. 209 Taconic, at $9.8 million, took a year but, lest you think all big-ticket homes take that long to sell, 55 Baldwin Farms South, asking $5.95 million, went to contract in four days. Hectic.
Classics of the Week
There were two of them, in my opinion, but I’m a sucker for gracious old houses and these may very well not be your taste. With that caveat, the first is Aja Ohman’s listing at 29 Pine Ridge Road (off of Stanwich) for $3,450,000. This is a beautiful, 1928 house that was renovated in 1999 with a big new kitchen and updated baths. Not really a rambler, but plenty of rooms spreading in both directions for great entertainment or privacy. 4,645 square feet (with plaster walls), a heated pool, over an acre of land (with Pinetum nearby) and gardens. Just a great house in every way.
And further up the price scale is Ann Simpson’s listing at 152 Indian Head Road in Riverside. Another old (1915) house that’s been completely redone without destroying what made this so good to begin with. Direct waterfront facing west over the harbor, an acre and a half plus of lawns, 7,711 square feet, a million bedrooms, wine cellar, pool, high, high ceilings and so on. Asking price is $12,500,000, a figure that seems about right: 58 Dawn Harbor (right down the street) sold in October for that sum and, while that one was new and this one is renovated, they’re both beautiful waterfront homes. You worry, no doubt, that a nice young family will have to scrimp to afford this but I’m sure that, as I write, some Wall Street tyro is busy trading ahead of his customers, scraping up the down payment.
And Another One
It was built in 1998, not pre-war, but Barbara Mckee’s listing at 25 Fox Run Lane might still be considered a classic. This one’s on just under two and a half acres, with the requisite heated pool but what sets it apart from most houses is its design: the listing sheet describes it as a Normandy with a “traditional” floor plan but it’s much more interesting than that; go see for yourself. $4,495,000 which seems right to me. Nice place.
posted by Chris Fountain at 9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home