Owners Had Sold Home To Serviceman And Were Living In Hotel

This is an interesting little story. A family had a house built in Haverford Pa. (suburban Philadelphia) and the builder screwed up and put it in the front yard setback so the township would give them a certificate of occupancy.

The family had made an early settlement on their house because the buyer was a family whose husband was going to be called up for service and they didn't want to inconvenience them.

So they had been living in a motel until the matter got straightened out.

ping

ping for pa.

Baseballmom this is especially for you.

God Bless America!
God Bless This Man!
Some of us VRWC volunteers think freedom is worth fighting for.

Please join us.

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

I live in this general area, and know that several townships have had repeated problems with builders making "mistakes" when building new homes or putting on additions, and then showing up at zoning hearings whining that it wouldn't be fair to sock them or the homeowner with $X0,000 (or $X00,000!) in additional expense when it was just an innocent little mistake. I'm afraid it's almost becoming standard practice, so I have some sympathy for the dissenting z-board member. Funny how these builders can get every other detail of the house exactly right, to the satisfaction of some very materialistic, picky rich homeowners, but somehow can't figure out basic measurements on the lot, which the little zoning dweeb then comes out and assesses correctly in 5 minutes.

And you thought you owned your property.
(Post the whole story; only WP/LAT stories need excerpting.)

Owners Had Sold Home To Serviceman And Were Living In Hotel

By Catherine Sutton-Martin
04/09/2003

The Haverford Zoning Hearing Board, by a 4-1 vote approved the
variance for a 3-foot front-yard encroachment of the new house at
754 Lawson Ave., April 3.

The dissenting vote came from zoner Steve D'Emilio, a United Republicans for
Haverford Township candidate for 1st Ward Commissioner. He said he would
rather see the builder, John J. Brady Inc., find a way to "bring the house into
codes."

"In my entire time serving (on this board), I have never been so disgusted" said
zoner Evelyn Yancoskie to Joseph Mattson, the attorney for the builder. She
noted Brady wasn't in attendance and told Mattson that if Brady ever builds in the
township again, he is to make sure his engineer not only puts in the property
corner markings, but also marks out the entire lot as to where the house is to be
built.

"I am not pleased but common sense says this is a very small variance," she
said. "I don't believe it was intentionally allowed to encroach."
She added, however, that she was voting in favor of the variance with the
conditions that the grading must be done and completed within accordance to the
permits and to the satisfaction of the township engineer, with no water runoff
creating an adverse impact on the neighbors.

Zoner Joe Celia, noting that he used to build homes, said he understood how
something like this could happen. He said he didn't believe the builder created the
problem intentionally, and gave his approval for the variance.

Zoner Lynne Cohen also voted for the variance saying it was a difficult case.

"I hope the Codes office imposes the maximum fines on Mr. Brady," said Zoning
Chairman Robert Kane. "I only wish this board had the authority to impose a
fine."

Rachel and William Strassheim, who purchased the house in January, have been
living in a hotel since March 20, because the township Codes Department would
not issue a Use and Occupancy permit because of a setback problem. Somehow
the new home grew from its original plan of 1,110 square feet to 1,367 square feet
and encroaches 3 feet into the 30-foot front yard setback.

They told the Zoning Board, March 19, that a week after they signed an
agreement of sale for the new house being built, they sold their home and would
be closing on it March 21.

Mrs. Yancoskie asked why they didn't renegotiate the closing on their home
when the problems arose. Strassheim said the buyer was a serviceman.
"He was called up to serve his country and the family wanted to move into the
house before he had to leave," he said.

He said that he wouldn't ask that of a man who was making that kind of sacrifice.

According to Mattson, the attorney representing the builder, only a portion of the
house -- the front "bump out" left of the front door -- is the only section of the
house that doesn't conform, therefore a minimum relief was requested.

The original house on the property was destroyed by a fire about four years ago.
John Brady, owner of the contracting company, bought the property December
2001.

On March 6, Brady testified that he has been building houses for about 20 years,
using the same blueprints, and has never had a problem like this happen to any
of the other homes, and couldn't explain the discrepancies.

"Someone evidently read the tape wrong," he said.

Brady said his engineer posted the four corners of the property and he and his
crew laid out the "strings" which showed the building envelope.
He said he was the general contractor, that he subcontracted the work and that
he wasn't on site all the time.

On March 19, Robert Wager, the engineer, testified that he prepared the
Sedimentation and Erosion Control (S&EC) plans for permits and that he drew
the dimensions of the house but mistakenly used the wrong house plans.

Brady admitted that he didn't look at the S&EC plans after they were drawn,
before he delivered them to the township.
Wager said that the problem of the encroachment came up when he did the
as-built plans and told Brady.

Brady agreed that it was Wager who told him about the encroachment, and said
he didn't realize there was a difference in house sizes until the March 6 zoning
meeting.
Wager said estimated the costs to correct the encroachment at between
$40,000-$50,000. He noted, however, he was not in construction. He said it was
physically possible to pick up the house and move it back the 3 feet but he
expected that would be cost-prohibitive noting that it would "more than double the
value of the property." He said the third alternative, demolishing it and rebuilding,
would also be a financial burden.

Wager said he was asked to put the property corner markers in, but was not on
site when the measurements were taken.

Brady testified that the two rooms affected were a 16-by-12-foot 7-inch living room
on the first floor and a 16-by-14-foot bedroom on the second floor. To make the
house conform the 3 feet, it would cost at least $50,000, he said, to remove and
replace footings, foundation walls, room walls, floors, roof, heating and plumbing.

To demolish the house and start over, he said, would cost double the original
price -- about $250,000.

To pick up the house and move it back 3 feet, he said, would roughly cost about
$150,000 but he wasn't sure because he has never done that.

"I did not intentionally build the house to encroach," he said. "This was an honest
mistake that has never happened to me before."

Fran Truax, a real estate broker/appraiser and sales manager for Century 21
Alliance which sold the property to Brady and sold the new home for Brady to the
Strassheims, told the zoners that an agreement of sale was signed Jan. 16 and
that closing was supposed to be March 18. He said that making the changes to
the house to bring it into conformity would "adversely affect the value" as the
rooms would be smaller and the architectural design would be altered. He said
after modifications, it would be worth between $299,000 to $309,000.
He said moving the home back would cause further problems. He said special
equipment was needed, that the house would have to be moved slowly "because
if it drops 1 inch it would cause tiles and walls to crack." He noted that the
process is mainly done "to preserve historical homes."

On March 6, Eighth Ward Commissioner Ken Richardson (URHT) told the zoners
he was against the variance.

"Once we start allowing encroachments, where do you stop?"

Fence

The zoners denied, 5-0, a variance for a 3.5-foot high picket fence within the
required front yard setback for Lauren DeFrancesco of 555 Willowbrook Road.
Their reasoning -- no hardship was shown.
Ms. DeFrancesco testified, Feb. 20, she wanted to install the fence down both
sides of her property to 1-foot from the sidewalk. She said that one reason for the
fence is curb appeal and the second, to curtail children from using her front yard
as a playground.
She told the zoners there were no fences in the neighborhood and one yard
blends into another. She said she and her husband had grown up with property
delineation, and wanted their property defined. She said they only wanted the
fence down the side yards, not enclosing the front yard.

There was no opposition and 2nd Ward Commissioner Joe Kelly said he had not
received any phone calls in opposition and he was in favor of the request.

Another case of "let the buyer beware."

Post the whole story; only WP/LAT stories need excerpting.

The good guys need hits too. :-)

While I agree about the hits, and frequently go to the sites to browse other stories, there are several recorded instances where either the story has been removed or the link dies or even that the premise in the original was changed. Keeping a valid copy keeps everyone honest, and also helps understand all of the ramifications of the story and not just the snippets retained in an excerpt. As I've written elsewhere, Property Rights is not just a Western Problem.

good point.