Quote:
Originally Posted by AUM
Wentworth,
I understand what you are saying and your points are very valid. In most cases many people would default to similar finishes and materials.
Perhaps architectural controls could set a minimum standard in a community, but if they allowed people to go above that minimum standard I don't see where the issue would be.
So as an example let's say a family in Cranston wants to remain in their current community and wishes to convert their single family neo-traditional home into a more contemporary home. Why would this be an issue? Would the guidelines allow this? As mentioned above if there was a minimum standard to materials that had to be used and the family maintained setback and height requirements why should they not be allowed to do so? I think if the guidelines could allow for a little more variation while maintaining a minimum level of requirements it could possibly create a more dynamic character to an often repetitive situation.
I'm posing this question in place of just saying the suburbs suck and they are what they are. I think by questioning and challenging things we can create opportunity for positive changes and perhaps making static situation more dynamic.
|
The restrictive covenants regarding architectural controls typically expire after a few years. On my title, it was 5 years, but I believe even they have been found to be not enforceable when taken to court, so they really only pose an issue when you are initially building the house. I know of at least one home in my neighbourhood where the owner has modified the home immediately after taking possession.