Columbia couple told siding is in violation -- 16 years later
30-year residents preparing for hearing March 4
By JenniferBroadwater
Posted 2/24/09
(Enlarge) Jim Rose stands outside his Long Reach house. In August, he and his wife, Susan, were notified that their siding violates village guidelines because the style — they replaced their vertical wood-style siding with horizontal vinyl siding — had been changed without approval. (Staff photo by Go Takayama)
What has them baffled is why they’re just now being penalized for siding they installed on their Long Reach house in the early 1990s — siding, they add, that is not opposed by their neighbors on Wingborne Court in Phelps Luck.
“Why, 16 years later, do we hear from somebody?” Jim Rose said. “These people, I guess, are doing their job and even though it’s 16 years late, we need to get it right.”
In August, the retired couple were notified that their siding violates village guidelines because the style — they replaced their vertical wood-style siding with horizontal vinyl siding — had been changed without approval.
What’s stunned the Roses even more is that their attempt to set the record straight has been rejected. Their request is set for an appeals hearing next week.
All Columbia property is subject to covenants that govern the appearance, use and upkeep of property. Covenants vary in each of the town’s 10 villages and are enforced by advisers and architectural committees composed of residents.
After receiving the notice of violation in August, the Roses were directed to submit an application to receive retroactive approval for the change.
Their application was denied in January. The committee stated that the change from vertical to horizontal siding on the house “made it stand out as inconsistent and not compatible” with neighboring homes.
Owners ‘incredulous’
Jim Rose said he doesn’t believe the siding to be incompatible with other houses on the street since a few others also have horizontal siding.
“I am incredulous at these people,” he said of the village’s architectural committee. “The long-range effect of what they’re doing, I think, is misguided. Sometimes the application of these rules becomes arbitrary and that’s a hard environment to live in.”
Susan Rose said she is dismayed village officials are not more willing to work with residents.
She said she and her husband just wanted to install a higher-quality, lower-maintenance siding. They found the original vertical siding made of “pressed cardboard” to be problematic, because the vertical design, paired with the lack of an overhanging roof, meant that rain water would pool along the baseboard, rotting the siding and fostering the growth of unsightly green fungus.
Weary of the amount of time and money it took to clean the siding and have it repainted every few years, the Roses decided to switch to horizontal wood-textured vinyl siding.
The Roses said they are unsure who lodged the complaint against them since such complaints are kept confidential, and wonder why so many years passed before it was voiced.
In preparation for his March 4 hearing before Long Reach’s architectural committee, Jim Rose visited each of the houses on his street and collected signatures from all of his neighbors in support of his application.
Complaint-driven process
Maryann Cohea, one of Long Reach’s covenant advisers, declined to comment on the particular case, but said covenant enforcement in general is a complaint-driven process. Her office receives hundreds of applications for architectural alterations each year; only a handful are appealed, she said.
“We’re bound to enforce (the covenants),” she said. “They’re an agreement between the original developers of Columbia and every person who buys property in Columbia.”
If an application is rejected and the homeowner had already made the change, as the Roses have, the covenants allow village leaders to force the homeowner to reverse the change or pursue legal action against the homeowner, Cohea said.
A violation of village covenants also could make the Roses’ house harder to sell down the road, since the village keeps records of compliance.
“It’s not impossible, but it makes it more difficult,” Jim Rose said. “In a buyer’s market, they pay attention to these things.”
user comments (12)
user dbloom4866 says...
Get a life and leave the couple alone. At least they are taking care of THEIR property.
Posted 11:20 PM, 02.26.09
user ppenny says...
I just don't understand this board. When I moved to a townhouse in Oakland Mills, the board (who act like they are stalking you) told me that I had to get rid of some rug that was on the front porch when I moved in. Now, I don't know why they didn't raise the issue with the landlord. The landlord has had the porch area like that for years before I moved in. This board needs to answer to a higher authority. They have the attitude that they are closely connected to God or something. All their rules really don't make any sense.
Posted 3:22 PM, 02.27.09
user formerres says...
As a former resident 26 years in Columbia. These "watchdogs" can go to far. Here is a bit of advice. THEY HAVE NO TEETH. Just ignore they will go away. There is no money for this type of enforcement.
Posted 11:29 AM, 02.28.09
user jimrose says...
I want to thank the Flyer, and especially Jennifer Broadwater, for the article about my engagement with the Long Reach Architectural Committee. It is an article which is essential reading for Columbians and for those who might have decided to reside here. I want only to add a footnote, but one which contains an ominous message for our future. Disapproval or denial of improvement requests often (or always) is cause for the Columbia Association to refuse to issue a "letter of compliance". The lack of that letter is sometimes a barrier in selling a property in Columbia. Whether intended or not the consequences of this disapproval are of concern to members of this community. While the absence of a "letter of compliance" is a barrier to selling a property it is not a barrier to renting that property. That is precisely what happened at 5452 Wingborne. That barrier is likely to be the cause of the eventual decline of owner-occupied dwellings and the creation of absentee landlord neighborhoods. There is no one in my neighborhood who wishes to see that happen.
Posted 7:22 PM, 03.01.09
user independent says...
I visited a military base yesterday and was struck by the neatness and compliance to order. The MPs were very nice and helpful, the atmosphere was cheery. I visited a Columbia Village center during election time and found the questions to be intrusive and many, inappropriately directed toward me personally. It was an atmosphere of control and power pushing.
Posted 7:01 AM, 03.02.09
user formerres says...
Jim, Your comment on decline of owner-occupied dwellings is so true. We had experienced this back in the 90's in our neighborhood in Owen Brown. These rentals declined in appearence each year and little if anything was done about it. We had made a wonderful upgrade to the rear of our house, nice brick ground level patio, we just did it. When we sold it was discovered and this same issue was brought up. We had a contract for the house, the patio was just approved and on went the sale. We feel the real spirit of Columbia ended in April 1996 with the death of Jim Rouse. EVERYTHING seemed to change. When we review the Howard County Police daily reports we get very sad to see the environment that has continued to develop and grow in a very negative lower quality of life. The local shopping areas are getting less safe and don't start me on the pathways. We have moved to a small western NC town and have found that same spirit again. Good luck with this challenge.
Posted 7:52 AM, 03.02.09
user commonsense1 says...
How many votes are needed in order to abolish the Columbia Association?
Posted 6:07 AM, 03.03.09
user gratefolks says...
To address formerres question, indirectly, the most effective means to deal with the issue - in my opinion - would be to incorporate into a city. This effort, however, has already failed before. I'm all for it, but the end result could be more costly and problematic than the current situation. I find it ironic that someone in Howard County has ignored all of the "Choose Civility" bumper stickers and went behind the Rose's backs. We have experienced similar actions out of vindictiveness. How unfortunate.
Posted 6:22 PM, 03.04.09
user captainjeff says...
That's the job of the board - enforce the rules. As the article says, it is a complain-driven process. No one complained for the past 16 years. Now someone did. So it needs to be looked at. When the house was bought, the covenants are provided. To buy a house in Columbia, you need to agree to abide by them. There is nothing hidden at all about this. Bottom line is that the siding was changed in violation of the covenants. Permission was never asked for, as is required by the covenants. The homeowner broke the rules. Now he's getting called on it. Yeah, it's been a long time. Yeah, it seems very weird to be enforcing it now. But, the rules were broken and such a violation cannot be enforced until someone complains. Someone now complained and the rule violation is being addressed. Just because you got away with something that is clearly against the rules for 16 years, does not mean it should be allowed now.
Posted 11:31 AM, 03.05.09
user prickleypaw says...
Interesting opening to the letter "As 30-year residents of Columbia, Jim and Susan Rose are very much aware that covenants and architectural guidelines are part of life in the New Town." If, Mr. and Mrs. Rose were familar with the covenants and architectural guidelines then how come they did not apply for the siding when they originally put it up? They as the arcticle indicates, were aware. These "boards" which everyone is heated up about enforce rules; rules which keep columbia a nice place to live. It keeps the community well maintained and in accordance with the original plan for the community. Mr. and Mrs. Rose chose to break the rules. In Mr. Rose's (assumption UID jimrose is the actual homeowner) footnote he mentions a similar house on 5452 Wingborne. As I read his comment, it would appear that the only reason it is a rental property is becasue it too was denied for being in compliance with the covenants. As a neighbor who lives very close to Wingbourne ct. I feel this is preposterous. In the footnote, he fails to mention that the "for rent" sign went up long before the application for the changes was submitted, let alone approved/denied. It did not appear to ever be the intent of the home owner of 5452 Wingbourne ct. to live there. They were looking for an investment property and chose the siding that was the "cheapest" and it shows. Mr. Rose and the Jenifer also fail to mention that the contemporary houses in that neighborhood, my neighborhood, are for the most part vertical sided homes. I feel this adds to the natural look of the homes in the environment and is a primary reason to purchase these homes. As they move to horizantal siding they loose their contemporary feel and begin to look like "tradditional" homes which defeats the entire look and feel of the immediate neighborhood. This is why I am gald we have a "board" that can control these changes. Each home that deviates from the original plan of the neighborhood (in this case veritcal to horizantal sinding) makes it easier for the next house to get approved - its a snowball effect that would evidentally change the entire neighborhood; which I for one am against.
Posted 11:58 AM, 03.05.09
user givemeabreak says...
regarding the comments made about the decline of Columbia due to renters, it is 100% true. if we really want to live in the Columbia of old, the only thing that we need to do is send the subsidized renters packing. they don't care about the community at all, and I think that it is rediculous that some ghetto POS can move to Columbia b/c of government handouts. these people cheapen our town, while their children terrorize the neighborhoods with criminal activity and drag down the test scores in our schools. get rid of the ghetto renters and the problem clears up overnight.
Posted 3:50 PM, 03.05.09
user prickleypaw says...
givemeabreak - I couldn't agree with comments more. In fact, I think this was the intent of 5452. Just to clarify, my comments were in reference to the "letter of compliance" I don't feel that the fact of having one or not effects the renter/home owner statitics. Many people rent in compliance, many rent out of compliance, many own in compliance and out of compliance. If you want to rent you would do so regardless of the letter and the same if you want to own.
Posted 11:00 AM, 03.06.09
related articles
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement