Judge John Pekas just sent McKennan Park homeowners Joseph and Sarah Sapienza a big home renovation project: he ruled this morning that they have to rebuild or move their house to comply with historic district standards:
“The court finds that a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the Sapienzas have violated historic requirements in the McKennan Park Historic District, which disrupts the character of the neighborhood and does not fit the size and space requirements under current regulations,” Pekas wrote.
…The decision, if it stands, would require the Sapienzas to reduce the height of their home by more than 8 feet. They would also have to relocate the home so that the McDowells could use their fireplace.
“The house undermines the entire historic district,” Pekas wrote. “A monetary award would not remedy this and the Sapienzas ought to conform their residence or rebuild their residence” [Jonathan Ellis, “Judge: McKennan Park ‘Monster House’ Must Be Rebuilt or Moved,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2016.12.28].
Recall that Pierce and Barbara McDowell sued for this decision after the city ordered the McDowells not to use their fireplace after the city permitted the Sapienzas’ house to be built within the ten-foot safety zone for fireplaces.
Hey, I hear Chuck Brennan has some property for sale around town. Maybe the Sapienzas can move their house to one of those lots!
Update 17:33 CST: Scott Ehrisman has posted Judge Pekas’s ruling at South Dacola. See McDowells v. Sapienzas and City of Sioux Falls, 49CIV15-001320,
You wrote about this a few years back and provided some pics, if memory serves.
Besides suing their builder and the city, the Sapienzas should sue their feng shui advisor too. The house wasn’t as well harmonized with its environment as promised. The court is at least correcting that problem for them.
I agree Rorschach – bad Feng Shui was done there somewhere.
It would make a cool video for someone to take a chainsaw and lop off the north x number of feet from the house to ensure the proper spacing for the McDowells’ fireplace. If the joists run front to back they could probably do that without Copper Lounge-ing the place. Lowering the roof 8 feet will take more than a chainsaw.
An architect may be able to make this a story and a half house compliant with historical neighborhood guidelines cheaper than tearing the whole thing down and starting over. Regardless of which way this goes, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Sapienzas left South Dakota looking for better feng shui elsewhere.
What, Ror, low taxes won’t keep them here?
Feng shui: I have to admit, while I agree completely with the ruling on the simple math of the setbacks and the idea that a new resident shouldn’t be able to build a new house that forces the neighbors to shut down their fireplaces, I find some of the aesthetic arguments annoying. Consider this line from the judge’s Factual Background:
Hmm… does that statement mean that if the McDowells ever stop using their fireplace, I could take them to court for depriving me of the comforting view of their smoking chimney as I jog through the neighborhood?
That passage to me does not sound like an argument so much as an example of how an out of code house burdens the public in addition to the neighbors. The same could be said for homes with refuse strewn about their yards, which similarly burden the public as well as the neighbors. Codes apply to the rich as well as to the poor.
And if you really want to see the McDowell fireplace in action, wait until the Sapienza house is 10 feet away and knock on the McDowells’ door. They will probably be glad to fire up the fireplace without you having to sue anyone.
Three cheers for Judge Pekas, public safety, and private property rights.
I had no idea that Mr. H jogs through that neighborhood but I, for one, think anybody who builds a giant house like that and doesn’t follow the rules needs to have some real bad things happen to them. I wouldn’t be surprised if all the neighborhood kids throw eggs at the big yellow dwelling and wrap the trees in tissue paper. Maybe the offended neighbors who have the sun blocked and cant use their fireplace should get to have giant super bright floodlights pointed from their house into all the windows of the monstrosity with the electricity plugged in at the yellow house and switches controlled at the brown house.
Although I agree with the Judge’s decision, I’m obviously aware that the Sapienzas will appeal the decision and this will drag on for quite some time. The design of the home is such that lowering the roof height eight feet will be extremely difficult as it would impact the pitch of the roof and require the gables to be either removed or modified. That part alone would be very expensive, very time consuming, and the end result will most likely be even more unattractive than the house already is.
Then you have the issue of “moving” the house. In this case they may not have to move the main story and instead would just need to push the second floor and roofline back five feet to accommodate the setbacks required for the fireplace. The problem here is that losing five feet of interior space likely impacts the interior layout. Imagine losing five feet of a bathroom or a bedroom – it could require the entire upper floor to be redesigned.
Moving the entire house really isn’t feasible since it is located deep within the city and is likely too large to even move along those streets. Picking it up and moving it over a few feet isn’t realistic either as that would result in them not having a driveway or access to their garage located in the rear of the lot.
Basically this entire mess is a result of the Sapienzas not listening to the original designer and deciding to pack 10lbs of house in a 5lb bag. The house is simply far too large for the lot they opted to build upon, and frankly it isn’t even an attractive home. It is essentially a very large yellow box that doesn’t blend into the surrounding neighborhood at all. I’d blame the designers and architects, but it sounds as if the Sapienzas modified the original plans based upon their wishes so the final result is exactly what they were looking for. Needless to say I hope the Sapienzas enjoy their day jobs because they most certainly don’t have a future home design.
Of course there is a side issue at play here and that is how negligent the city has been. If they approved the plans that showed the height over 8 feet taller than it should have been, and if they passed all of the inspections without registering any complaints then the Sapienzas may have a claim agains the city, which means in the end our tax dollars end up paying for the home as the Sapienzas walk away to build their dream home in some other part of town.
What a mess.
I’ll admit that i don’t know a whole lot about codes and setbacks and that sort of thing. I’ve never built a house. But it boggles my mind that the city could allow a gigantic house to be constructed so close to an existing home that the existing home could no longer use its fireplace. If a fire started in the Sapienzas’ house, it would likely consume the McDowell house and move right down the block as firemen struggled to keep the blaze contained. A lot of people were not thinking straight to allow that yellow monstrosity to happen.
Craig – it wouldn’t be too difficult to move that beast out of there. 2nd Ave., the street it sits on – and my one-time daily walking route to and from Longfellow School many years ago – is wide enough, with a touch of tree trimming. It’s about 4 blocks South to 26th – also sufficiently wide, where-on the house would move West for 3 blocks – to Minnesota Ave. for North and South options out to the burbs where it belongs.
In fact, IMO, moving the over-sized one out onto a new foundation somewhere, demolishing the existing foundation and building a foundation in the appropriate location on the lot and starting over going up, would probably be the best approach.
Sounds like demolishing the garage and moving the house to the rear would make the most sense. Which planet did these people come from to begin with?
If Richard is right and moving the house is feasible, might a smart house mover profit by bidding the job at a loss and reaping the publicity of successfully moving “The Monster House”?
But what’s going to look uglier: the house or the hole it will leave?
Doug – moving the house on the same lot wouldn’t solve the Federal and State Historical code violations.
At the end of the day, Pekas had little choice but to rule as he did lest building codes and neighbor’s property/encroachment rights have no meaning in the future whereby instead of getting permits, one could just build what you want where you want and codes/neighbor rights be damed.
Additionally, it is my understanding that getting permits is not a safe harbor from liability but only a mitigating defense. The consequences still reside with the individual(s) which in this case is the Sapienzas.
Finally, the entire thing should have been avoided from the beginning. Just because a person has a right to do something doesn’t mean they should do so without regard to those they live amongst. I know of a situation where a homeowner put up a fence, etc. within code and did so without regard to impact on the neighbors/neighborhood. The result was the fence went up but the neighbors made the homeowners a pariah in the neighborhood. After two years of overt unfriendliness and noncooperation (ala joint snow-blowing, trimming trees after the ice storm, non-invitation to block parties), the couple moved. And the new home-owners bought the supplies while the neighbor men re-built the offending fence. It’s no fun living where one is not welcome.
Sidenote: I suspect that Pierce & Barb’s gentle and kind demeanor was misinterpreted as weakness and a lack of resolve.
Craig: good summary.
Recall this is what happens when government fails to GOVERN.
Troy: spot on – that the neighbor’s gentle and kind demeanor was misinterpreted as weakness. That demeanor, aka, Minnesota / South Dakota “nice”, with its roots from the Scandinavian ‘logam’, in modern times morphed into ‘Jantelaw’ by the 1933 fictional writing of Aksel Sandermose. It is often in practice a deep cultural flaw, sometimes a near-fatal social flaw, rather than an asset. Minnesota / South Dakota “nice” is a cultural flaw when one forces another to ‘read ones mind’ for context, for resolve. Often direct speaking, brandished with likely consequences, resolves issues prior to escalating fights or court action. Then again, some folks will ignore direct speaking and approaches to try their luck with judicial roulette.
That’s two costly disasters in Sioux Falls where the city could have played a more assertive role or the primary contractor seemed to lack common sense. The other is the Copper Top Lounge cave-in. Both were completely avoidable, yet … people dropped the ball.
Troy and John offer interesting observations on the perception of gentleness as weakness. That’s why we have codes and laws, so we can live gently, confident that most of our neighbors will do the same and that the wolfish minority will be checked by our collective force embodied in law.
CH,
Not quite sure the connection between “perception of gentleness as weakness” and having codes and laws but also not sure why it is important. I think they are separate matters because the laws/codes and processes are the same for the brash and gentle.
But anyway, my point was the defendant may have thought the plaintiff’s gentle demeanor was a sign they wouldn’t pursue it. If they reached that conclusion, they made a grave and expensive error.
The connection: when we know words in law books mean something, we don’t have to be as aggressive in defending our life, liberty, and property, because those meaningful, toothy laws will be enforced. We can trust that most potential violators will not risk legal consequences, and the remaining few who do will not be allowed to get by with their violations due to their wealth and power or the government’s laxity.
If the city approved the plans and passed inspections, etc., this isn’t the homeowner’s problem. You all may not like the house, but blame the city. I think this house isn’t going anywhere. I would like to see a photo of the McDowell home. Someone was prepared to purchase it for over $900K…higher value than this yellow house. Was this a tear down/major remodel as well?