Here’s the story in the Towson Times. Interesting piece. I don’t see where it says which covenant the family was breaking by adding a roof to a porch.
Note: The sidebar has now been attached to the bottom of the main story.
Also, my new policy on comments is that I’m not going to accept any that identify individuals by name or by specific title. Those will be rejected. Thanks.
As a former resident for 40-odd years, it is sad that such a wonderful community is getting this negative publicity. Too bad the parties involved could not work this out amicably.
This is a real shame. It was a nice looking porch, and it only added value to the house. Something is wrong in Rodgers Forge when things like this are not allowed.
Why is the board driving people like this out of our neighborhood?
As a relatively new resident in the community, I do find the whichever-way-the-wind-blows enforcement of covenants troubling. What these residents built – a lovely capital improvement, if you ask me – was rather nice.
The homeowners should have gone to the board before construction started. If they have lived here for 12 years and read even one issue of the newsletter, then they knew what the proceudre was and they also knew that objection from the board was a possibility. I don't think either side is right or wrong and it is sad that the homeowners felt they had to move to solve the issue.
The board and the community need to sit together to create updated convenants, but that would require many hours of time that people do not want to commit.
I have lived in this community 30+ years and that is my choice. It is a wonderful place to live and grow up and I hope it remains that way.
I wouldn't trust the current gang sitting on the board to create "updated covenants" if this is the kind of thing that they object to.
Residents have to submit to an architectural committee to be able to make exterior changes to their homes. It’s not that tough. The majority of the people who settle here and love it here appreciate the benefits to living here far outweigh the trade off of having to submit a form for approval and comply. The majority of residents of Rodgers Forge appreciate the “distinctive and original architecture” and the historical tone of the neighborhood that which the board continues to protect. As a 23 year resident I appreciate Janice Moore and the boards continued efforts on many issues they work on in this community that don't make the headlines.
RF is a traditional and historic row house community- educate yourself before buy and if you don’t like history and traditional architecture then you may want to reconsider if this is the right neighborhood for you.
I have never been on the board but I have been to the meetings. The work that is done that does not make the headlines is tremendous. The board has a strong voice in the community and among public officials and I appreciate that. They represent well and work hard to maintain this community with high regard and really minimal expectations on residents. A little community fee, keep your property up, don't rent to more than 2 unrelated people, and submit for architechural changes. Its just not that hard to enjoy living here.
If I were them I would probably move too. Though I am sure the board is loving the fact that all the upgrades (including the porch) this couple put into their house, helped their house sell for a pretty penny. All of which helped property values in the area.
What a great deck the new owners got! Lucky them.
OK, a couple comments about what has been said so far: People here have said "What's the problem? Just go to the board for approval ahead of time." But, clearly, the answer in this case would be "no," since the board decided to sue these people after the porch was put up. So it is not as simple as "submit a form and comply." (Unless, of course, you sit on the board and you get your changes without needing approval.)
And let's not get too righteous about "history and traditional architecture." It's not like we're living in Federal Hill. These rowhomes (especially the one in question above) were built in the 1950s — come on. Historic someday, perhaps. But right now we just have run-of-the-mill suburban Baltimore rowhouses.
What makes RF special is the connectedness of the community. Which, of course, is threatened by stuff like the controversy above — not by "unapproved" features.
"Distinctive and original architecture"? You mean like the original metal rusty stoops that are still on the backs of many of the houses? You can keep the historical integrirty of a community while at the same time allowing for more modern changes. Why don't we tear down all of the nice wood fences and go back to chain link everywhere if we want it to be original? This deck was a major improvement to the home, and being able to make major improvements like this only increases the value of our houses.
Quote:
And let's not get too righteous about "history and traditional architecture." It's not like we're living in Federal Hill. These rowhomes (especially the one in question above) were built in the 1950s — come on. Historic someday, perhaps. But right now we just have run-of-the-mill suburban Baltimore rowhouses.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
To the above poster, I know for a fact that Board members submit applications for renovations. And contrary to what you have stated, some have been denied their application. Therefore, your facts are wrong.
I applaud the Board for their actions. Honestly, I think that porch does not match the traditional architecture of the homes. I know that if I lived next door to it, I would not like it. I love living in Rodgers Forge, and will continue to do so- with the rules I accpeted upon moving into this fine community.
"Honestly, I think that porch does not match the traditional architecture of the homes…."
Does a split-rail fence match the traditional architecture of the homes?
Yes, a split-rail fence does match the traditional architecture of the homes.
My husband and I were thinking of looking in Rogers Forge…never mind.
I don't want to live somewhere where I might not be able to put up an awning or have to jump through hoops to put a pergola in my backyard for some shade. There are enough hoops to jump through in life without having to deal with neighbors watching my every move and a board with all the decision making power on vague covenants.
Just so you know, some of the residents might want to get together to work with the board and clarify the covenants.
This is going to affect YOUR property values.
everyone stop paying thier dues, this is insane
the board does NOTHING about falling apart rental propertys, trash etc
With no money they will have no power
Any particular reason you didn't post the companion article to this one in the Towson Times?
It's interesting that you had a personal "snarky" comment ("I don't see where it says which covenant the family was breaking by adding a roof to a porch") in your introduction of this article, but completely failed to post or even mention the other article in the Towson Times
Hmm. Are you biased?
I see you removed pfrommer's comments? Why?
Was there a reason you posted them in the first place? Would you have left them if no one called you on it?
It's unfortunate that it happened that way. There's no telling how many people saw his comments, and by simply removing them you give no one a chance to address his "claims". He (and by implication, you) get away with saying nasty things.
Sad.
Here's the deal with Karl's post. He has shown me docs to back up what he said but I just don't have time right now to review it all so I temporarily took down the post. So far, though, I have not seen Karl post anything false.
Anyone have a link to the TT sidebar? I can't find it.
The board did pass a rule that board member's architectural changes do not have to be approved by the board if they were approved by the Architectural Committee. It's in the minutes. I believe it was in 2005. I have the minutes The sidebar article is actually damning of Janice Moore and the board. There is no reason to suppress it. Please read the last three paragraphs. "Moore acknowledged that there are structures not in compliance, but she said it's impossible for the current board to determine which porches were approved by Keelty Co., by previous boards or by the county during the last 70 years. The board believes, "it is not in the position to instruct homeowners to remove a porch, deck or fence that was built years ago, even if it is violation (sic.) of today's standards,, she said. "Nonetheless, that does not mean that the board is powerless to enforce the guidelines and covenants for external changes that occur on its watch." Ms. Moore admitted that, according to her, "today's standards" are different from yesterday's standards. Not so. Covenants are covenants. Their standards can not be changed without due process and agreement of 51% of the neighbors in the same plat . The "guidelines" did not appear until 1993, 55 years after the covenants were written. Guidelines are not binding. They are an invention of the board. Why can't the board "determine which porches were approved"? Because records were not made, are lost or are being hidden… Read more »
That structure on Lanark was NOT what I define as a porch. Give me a break! It was an additional room…
The board did the right thing by pursuing a suit against the owners. GOOD JOB BOARD!
My dictionary says that a porch is a "covered shelter that projects from a building." I don't know what your definition is.
Why is OUR MONEY being used to punish neighbors for putting up features that increase the value of the home? BAD JOB BOARD!
This whole thing is silly.
These comments are silly.
Do any of these people posting comments even do anything about it–other than just post comments? I doubt it.
And I'll bet all these comments are coming from two or three people–hardly a good cross-section of Rodgers Forge.
Hasn't Pfrommer even moved from the neighborhood? And he's still the #1 commentator! Ha. Proves my point!
Is Karl Pfrommer an attorney?
So you took down Karl's original comments. Fine.
But you also removed all comments written by others that were written in response to his comments. That's not fair.
If Karl wrote something false, misleading,libelous,or injurious then fine, remove it. Removing the other comments is poor form.
Can we try to stick to debating actual issues rather than attacking each other?
I read this blog every day, and for the last few months every post that Karl Pfrommer has posted, he has singled out specific people with whom he has grudges. KARL is the one who is attacking others. Yet, he always gets the floor..what gives?
The issue was a homeowner added an addition onto their home without approval of the Board. The Board took action. Where is the debate?
That's a good question Kris. This is really THE hot button issue in the Forge it seems. One side always plays the "love it or leave it" card and the other makes the board out to be "Big Brother". Is there a middle ground on which some dialogue can take place? Sure, but it ain't gonna be easy…..
Does anyone ever talk about the things the board approves?
I have had them approve a fence and a backyard patio project. No issues.
As a matter of fact, they offered some good advice that made the finished result much better than I had planned.
My issue is with the arbitrary nature of the rules the board has implemented. If you bought a home in Rodgers Forge in 1995 and had read both the covenants attached to your deed and the guidelines published in the RF directory and had driven around the neighborhood, you would think you could have screened-in porches. Then in 1996 you would receive your new directory and see that one line had been added: "Screened-in porches are not allowed." Perhaps the guidelines published in the 2010 directory will forbid decks? Who's to say? Why is it so many people are allowed to put up roofs that don't conform to the guidelines? I see it all the time. So, we spent probably twice as much as we had to on our new roof because we followed the rules, while the guy around the corner from us didn't follow the rules and nothing happened. How is that not arbitrary? It's that arbitrary nature of it that gets to me. I am all for covenants and rule following. But when the rules change constantly, it's a bit hard to swallow. I think the Lanark case was a difficult one. The homeowners were indeed required by the covenants to seek approval from the board before beginning construction, and they did not. Yet what they actually wanted to build (and did build) was not actually in violation of their covenants. So, they needed to ask the board to approve something that for some reason the board… Read more »
The sidebar to the story is now attached to the bottom of the main Towson Times article.
Interesting conversation going on here. I bought in the Forge 7 years ago. Over the course of 7 years, we have redone a fence ( with approval), installed a patio ( with approval), and made other improvements to our home. My lawn is mowed, flowers are planted and our exterior looks great. The colors of my home are correct, and everything that we do is within the "confines" of covenants and rules. I think my home is wonderful and I do not feel deprived of the freedom to modify my home within reason. I enjoy my neighborhood, and love that the majority of my neighbors seem to as well. Am I "Polly Anna"? Maybe, but I love the fact that I do not WANT for more, and am happy with what I have. I will happily continue to follow the rules set out by a terrific group of people- the BOARD.
I don't think the Board is arbitrary; I think that the Board has limited resources and is therefore forced to go after egregious exterior changes to homes.