I kind of figured this was going to get interesting;
The South Dakota Supreme Court says the owners of a controversial house in McKennan Park will have to rebuild their home to comply with historical standards.
In their decision, the state Supreme Court wrote: “This is a difficult case. Both parties presented compelling cases, and substantial harm will befall whichever party does not prevail. But the historic regulations apply to Sapienzas’ home, the circuit court clearly balanced the relative hardships, and it applied the required factors for injunctive relief.”
So I talked to a couple people who knew people that were close to the case so I could get some perspective (I read the 21 page decision, and was pretty confused). So here is the gist;
The fireplace setback was thrown out, because there was conflicting setbacks.
10 Feet will have to removed from the top of the house to come into compliance, but it seems the footprint is OK.
A historical façade (which was a part of the original plan) will have to be added to house to come into compliance.
The city will not be sued, simply because, as I understand it, the Sapienzas missed the filing deadline, and the SDSC ruled against suing the city.
I’m thinking since it will be very difficult to cut ten feet off the roof, and all the embarrassment from this ordeal, I’m betting the house gets sold on auction to someone who might want to move it, or salvage it before getting torn down.
As I understand it, the Sapienzas cashed in their Country Club membership recently and plan to move back to Philly. Not sure if this is true, but whether they stay or leave, hopefully they learned that East Coast Elitism doesn’t fly in our town.
I completely agree withe the decision of the court. This house should not have been built at this height.
It does tick me off that the city will skate away from this with no responsibility for allowing this to take place. The house was not built overnight. Where were the city inspectors during this process? An educated inspector/permit agent could not tell this house would be out of place while looking at blueprints which clearly shows the height of the building.
Jon, two words; Sanford Doctor
The city approved the plans. They should be responsible. Beyond city approval, how does someone know there’s an issue? Now I understand why people build out of town. Surrounding cities are competant. It’s why the Fire Chief and a third of city employees live out of town.
The timing of Ron Bell’s retirement was interesting!
Gives him more time to hang out in court rooms!
Maybe the Philly mob will burn it down for 50 percent of the insurance claim.
I predict the removal of that house will result in a Tesla recharging station being placed there to facilitate the local elite. The chargers will be hid by a tile and stucco structure or wall that is reminiscent of a 1920s Texaco gas station, with limited signage like they do at Carmel-by-the Sea and at Hilton Head…. And, although, not authentic to the location, the new construction will be meant to fit, in order to help strengthen and reinvent the historic statement there.
OMG Mr. Spin – “surrounding cities are competent?” atre following building codes and historical guidelines??? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ……….. My direct personal experience makes me ENVIOUS of the competence in SF – unlike my little toen where the “building inspector” is also pone of the largest contractors in town, and the “city administrator” has ZERO education in public admin. And finally – all but ONE of the current council were appointed by the mayor (not elected by the people) and the mayor hmself was appointed by the previous mayor. GET THE PICTURE?? Sioux Falls is the shining example of a competent, fully functional democracy – vs. SD’s “surrounding ciites”. SERIOUSLY.