That makes MUCH more sense. Why not just buy elsewhere? Guaranteed even if they lift the rules for you (which I doubt), you'll still draw the ire of the neighbors for being a non-conformist.

Well...I'm sorta working in reverse from you. The area is a (mostly residential) ghetto and I want to put in a brand new shiny law-office with expensive cars in the parking lot and people in suits/ties coming going. I'm trying to improve the neighborhood vs. bring it down.

I built in a development like yours, with more restrictions than you could imagine, the most scrutinized is the house size. Some builders put living space in the basement, on the plans, to get approved by the review committee and never finished the basement. No one cared about most of the other restrictions, just don’t piss your neighbors off, out of sight out of mind. I live on 12 acres and break all the rules, no one cares there’s a backhoe and trailer in my field as long as they can’t see them.

One tried to change the deed restrictions, went to court with no luck. Just pissed the association off and the owners (your soon to be neighbors) paid to fight it in court

Das.

Good points. although i'm realiszing inproving/degradation is to much of a personal oppinion to argue either way. Those thugs are going to be PIST when there dealers house gets turned into a law office! ( being said with a smaile of course) haha.

Taking that into account, I do see where the restrictions are in place to make sure no hobo's move next to a 500k homesetead. Understandable of course. Good comments das. I think as long as I build a worthy home I will not deal with too many size issues. If so, I am building myself so adding on 800 sq/ft would not be too much of an issue if it came down to it.

Tim,

Basically that is what I would be doing. even standing at the road 7 months of the year the foliage is so thick no one can see 100 feet into my property.

the definition of LOT in the restriction is as follows( essentially this identifys what is being given the restriction to):

"D. "LOT" shall mean and refer to any numbered or otherwise designated plot of ground shown upon any final recorded subdivision map of the DEVELOPMENT or of any portion of the FOX RUN AT CHERRY CREEK DEVELOPMENT and any IMPROVEMENTS thereon erected, except that the term "LOT" shal NOT refer to any areas dedicated to and accepted by any state or local political entity or political subdivision"

I plan on going "clean and green" with the property, dedicating it to state public use for preservation and public enjoyment. This allows me to build a home on the property as well.

what are your thoughts on this? the lot would be "dedicated and accepted by the state" as a preserve. To me this satisfys this condition of the restriction essentially disconnecting me from the "LOT" definition as part of the development.

Before anyone jumps the gun!!!! I know this is not a legal forum, just getting some oppinions on some fellow P car'ers ;-)

This would seem to be a loop hole? no?

Why not just build a 2800 SF house? You could design it with inexpensive floor space, such as a large box of a living room. Or, have a steep-pitched roof with 'attic' space that could be counted as livable space.

Or, you could build a house with no garage, but have a wing with a concrete slab floor. Convert it to a garage after you move in. A 3-car garage could be about 700 SF.

Or: Can't you get a simple variance? If you show that the house will be attractive and an asset, then the small size could be overlooked.

The state won't allow you to build a home on dedicated land (most likely).

apparently there was an amendment to act 319 that allows any owner to erect a home on a property. The ground under the home may be considered part of the protected land as well if it houses occupants to maintain the land.

Im meeting again with the assessment office tom about the clean and green, i'll let you guys know how it goes.

CKIS:

I am leaning toward that option. As long as my home is of size. Most other grievances that might come up would be somewhat easily delt with.

Andrew D

I certainly wouldn't want the state telling me what I can do with my land. I see negatives to that option even if you could get through the loophole:

It's going to hurt resale value of the property.

No privacy, you don’t want bunch of bird watchers in your back yard (I have nothing against bird watching).

You will probably need to get every lot improvement approved by the state.

These are just a few off the top of my head, I’m sure there are many more negatives.


I wouldn't buy the property if you can’t build a house with the proper sf. Also you don’t want to come off as an a-hole to your soon to be neighbors. I would deal with the neighbors over the state

When I built my house one neighbor asked if they could still walk my property after we finished building. I certainly wouldn’t want them to have a right to walk my property.