Part of our charm is that we don't look cookie-cutter. Don't do away with that by restricting what should be up to property owners as part of our property rights.Property rights aside (as important as those are), this ordinance is too complex. It’s mix of specifics, subjectivity, & vagaries make this ripe for abuse & an enforcement nightmare. For example – the use of the word “typical” implies that there may also be atypical examples that qualify, i.e. just because something doesn’t meet a “typical” characteristic doesn’t necessarily disqualify it, so it falls to opinion on whether something meets the criteria or not. This subjectivity will inevitably cause inconsistency & unfairness in enforcement as well as a drift over time because small differences that are allowed will gradually become more common which will result in more differences, & so forth and so on. This creates another unfair situation because a particular architecture may be rejected at one time only to be allowed later.
Part of our charm is that we don't look cookie-cutter. Don't do away with that by restricting what should be up to property owners as part of our property rights.Property rights aside (as important as those are), this ordinance is too complex. It’s mix of specifics, subjectivity, & vagaries make this ripe for abuse & an enforcement nightmare. For example – the use of the word “typical” implies that there may also be atypical examples that qualify, i.e. just because something doesn’t meet a “typical” characteristic doesn’t necessarily disqualify it, so it falls to opinion on whether something meets the criteria or not. This subjectivity will inevitably cause inconsistency & unfairness in enforcement as well as a drift over time because small differences that are allowed will gradually become more common which will result in more differences, & so forth and so on. This creates another unfair situation because a particular architecture may be rejected at one time only to be allowed later.