Comments on: DEVELOPER SAYS MASSIVE TOWNHOMES BUILT ‘BY MISTAKE’

By: A. Klaassen

A. Klaassen — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:42:02 +0000

The developers seem fairly confident of the outcome, since they have these units for sale on their website.

By: onliberty

onliberty — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 02:20:34 +0000

GREAT reporting Bill! It’s moments like these when reporters truly shine and we’re all grateful for what you do.

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:37:06 +0000

If the developer doesn’t move these monstrosities or rebuilds them to the development plan, then each and every homeowner on Whereabout Court and Many Springs Drive that is affected should be compensated for their loss of “reasonable privacy” (say at least $250,000 each). The buildings do sit above their privacy fences, you can see that in the photos. Then later when the neighbors get flooded due to poor slope drainage they can sue the developers again.

By: George A.

George A. — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:23:59 +0000

Ask the head of Regional Building who the inspectors were on the project and see why they signed off on the townhomes…….I bet there will be a couple openings in the Building Department soon.

By: Alexandra V.

Alexandra V. — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:25:04 +0000

A clear representation of Colorado Springs citizens (above) have spoken overwhelmingly on this issue – and it’s all vehemently for making the builder and the city comply with what was initially approved. If the city government waivers even slightly on this then they are clearly ignoring and not representing the populace and local opinion. This is a LANDMARK precedent setting case and should be watched by all!

By: Roy

Roy — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:29:28 +0000

I’m not surprised. Look what city planning did to us on the west side – Darby St and Centennial. That town home development by Douglas Creek blocked all view and deleted all privacy from inside of the existing homes. The developer won and city planning helped them throughout the process.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:46:27 +0000

I watched those units being built up. They were an eyesore from the get-go. The sizing just looked ‘off” and the colors used on the buildings and fencing do NOT match the surrounding homes.

That final eyesore will hurt home values in that area.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 19:36:24 +0000

In southern California, a developer violated the site plan and built multistory apartment buildings over 20 feet higher than allowed by site plan. They were built at the base of a steep hillside. The top floor of each building looked into the neighbor’s backyards and blocked what was a beautiful view.

They also claimed it was an honest mistake. They offered impacted neighbors a cash settlement which they refused. The developers had to bring buildings into compliance before they received an certificate of occupancy, which they did.

The developers broke what was essentially a contract between them, the city, and their neighbors. I don’t know if it was intentional or not. Either way, the neighbors should not suffer and the developers should not be rewarded.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 19:03:01 +0000

I’m really interested to see how this will turn out. Given situations of which I am aware, in which private individuals built unapproved stuff, the solution is to enforce removal.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/villa-36928-city-house.html

I am aware that the building department and the planning commission both have authority in permitting, but refuse any liability when consequences occur.

In this case, all involved seem to have been affected by compounding mistakes, leaving the existing neighborhood to bear the burden. I cant think of any analogous situation (contract, taxes, insurance, …) where one could screw up like this, and change the rules after the fact to make everything OK.

By: PurpleMartin

PurpleMartin — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:24:09 +0000

hmmmm. How about let the building stay, but the homeowners below get all the profits, plus a moderate additional penalty?

Contractor loses money but not nearly as much as if forced to tear down and start over, so doesn’t benefit from what was either trying to game the system or gross incompetence.