The case was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on March 30, 2009. Here is a statement from Rodgers Forge Community Association President Janice Moore regarding the case, filed against the owners of a home on Lanark Road:
In October 2007, the owners of this property erected an elevated deck with a permanent roof, fixed iron railings and stairs, portions of which do not conform to RFCA guidelines. No application was received by RFC, Inc Board of Governors for the deck before work began. We received a number of complaints from neighbors about the deck. Members of the RFC, Inc Architectural committee tried to contact the owners to ask that an application be submitted. Letters asking them to bring the structure into guidelines were sent in October and November 2007.
An application was subsequently received. The Board of Governors denied this application on 28 January 2008 because;
- The deck was bigger than the permitted size of 10’ x 17’.
- The iron balusters and railings are not approved items for a deck.
- The roof structure was permanent. The guidelines allow for an awning.
- The deck included a projecting balcony beyond the stairway
RFC, Inc believes that every effort should be made to try to resolve cases by amicable means. Since the application was denied, RFC, Inc has made several genuine and honest attempts to meet with the owners in an attempt to work out a mutually acceptable solution. These olive branches have been met with silence. With great reluctance, we have therefore decided to pursue the only course left to us.
I spoke with one of the homeowners on the phone and he said he had no comment. He is circulating a petition among neighbors asking them to sign on in favor of his porch. I don’t know how many signatures he’s collected nor what affect that might have on the case.
Here is what the RFCA board is seeking, according to the court filing:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to:
A. Determine and adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the party with respect to the terms of the Deed and Agreement as set forth in Exhibits A, B and J as binding upon the Defendants
B. To find that the Defendants are in violation of the Restrictions and Conditions of the Deed by constructing a rear exterior deck and roof without prior approval by the Architectural Review Committee, or the Board of Governors of the Rodgers Forge Community, Inc.
C. To require the Defendants to remove that portion of the porch which is in violation of that part of the construction as set forth by the Architectural Review Committee in Exhibit J, in accordance with the approval of the Architectural Review Committee.
D. To award Plaintiffs all costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys fees and other relief as may be just and proper.
Wow! It’s a pretty structure and it sure looks expensive…just doesn’t belong in the Forge, or any rowhome community. With the high prices of homes in RF (thanks community association and neighbors who keep up/maintain their homes/yards) I fear more individuals will be of the mindset that they’re justified in doing whatever they please with their homes with no regard as to how it affects their neighbors. Being a part of a rowhome community, especially one as great as RF, requires every resident to do just a little bit more…like looking out for our neighbors (especially our elderly ones), shovelling out more than one parking place, making sure the backs of our homes are not eyesores (garbage stowed properly, no junk piling up, etc.) and simply being considerate. It’s a shame some of us just don’t get it.
Seriously? The purpose of community associations are to prevent residents from making their homes eyesores. How is this deck negatively affecting the neighbor’s property values?
From the denial of the application:
2. The iron balusters and railings are not approved items for a deck.
So pressure-treated pine is nicer-looking than iron balusters? Really?
3. The roof structure was permanent. The guidelines allow for an awning.
Because empty metal frames look great in the winter.
Agree with the requirements in the Architectural Guidelines, or not, they’re part of your deed and are legally binding. Don’t like that level of restriction, don’t buy a home there.
it’s their house. how can people be so snotty. let them do to their house what they please.
Wow Im just happy that the board is using OUR money to go after things like this rather than absentee owners renting their property and failing to maintain their property. I can think of many other more productive things to spent time and money on
I hope the homeowners win against RF. Sets a great precedent – I can expand my deck to my liking! RF’s arrogance needs to be kept in check. As for the “Architectural Guidelines” I don’t need another mommy!! I agree with the poster above – those green awnings are hideous…
RF should heed the words of our new president – “CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE”
I don’t really see how enforcement of your community’s covenants is “arrogance”. These requirements are widely posted and referenced on your website and newsletter, and are part of your deed when you bought your home -whether that was 60 years ago or last month. It’s the consistent, communal enforcement of such guidelines that makes RF such a pleasant place to live. Take at tour through any number of South Baltimore neighborhoods to see what a dense rowhouse / towhouse community looks like without such consistency. Living in a community with covenants is a CHOICE. You may choose to live with the benefits of them, but must also take responsibility to abide by them. You can’t have it both ways.
I wonder how the next door neighbors feel about it. It is attractive but oversized.
Hi! I come to this blog every now and then, mainly for the crime report, thanks for that…it’s a great service!…but this one post caught my eye…mind you, I’m not a big fan of big government, nanny-state stuff…I’m more of a libertarian (and no, I I don’t have a handle bar moustache)…and I NEVER comment on blogs, really, this is my first time…but I was really shocked by the comments of some of the posters re: the addition to the home on Lanark Road (face it folks, it’s an addition…not a porch, not a deck, but an addition.) The first comment seemed pretty reasonable…yes, we should all be thoughtful when it comes to being a neighbor and living in this community…and yes, there are some rules we must abide by. Small sacrifice really. If you don’t want to abide by the rules here, move to Riderwood or Lutherville. You get a single family detached home, you can do pretty much whatever you want with your house, and the prices are comparable…school systems are good too! So, if we take the attitude of “let them do what they please”, I want to “expand my deck to my liking”, or the incredulity of the poster who said “Seriously, the purpose of the community association…” and then went on to say something about “our money”…well, it’s probably why I never have posted to blogs…but this time it’s about MY neighborhood and I think people need to really, really think about what it means… Read more »
If you do not like the covenants of Rodgers Forge, than find another community to live in. The Association invests countless hours in trying to maintain the integrity of the community. The bottom line is, it is not allowed. I applaud the Association!
It’s nice enough, it just does not fit the style of the homes and therefore makes it an eyesore. You have to consider the context of what you’re constructing. Iron fences are great, when it fits.
I wonder, however, if they’re covenant is active or not. I know when we bought our house about a year and a half ago, no covenants or restrictions were mentioned. Turns out, our covenant had expired/never was renewed. I believe there are certain groups of houses who are no longer under an active covenant. With that said, it does bring the value of the houses down, to have mismatched style homes next to each other, so it does effect all of us. Do we really need anything else to help bring down the value of our homes in this economy?
I do agree that the green awnings are pretty ugly, and the bare metal even moreso.
This addition is way oversized and ostentatious. It looks like the residents are trying to open a restaurant with outdoor seating. But seriously, if I wanted to put a chain-link fence in my front yard, I should be able to? Like, no one can tell me what to do with MY property, even if what I want to do is ugly as hell? I don’t think so. That’s why we live here and not in the butt-ugly RF-like neighborhoods you can find all over Baltimore.
Regarding “Green Awnings”…Do you even notice the bare metal in the winter?!? I don’t. Point is, Lanark Road’s addition is awesome, it looks great! But what do you do if you live next door to them? I looked at the pictures…I believe they violated county setback requirements, so shame on the contractor (that’s another story)…and if you’re trying to sell your home next to the addition and a potential buyer comes in…sees the back deck…and then says, “This is the view to my right?!? How does it affect sunlight?!? Will I ever get a breeze on my back deck?!?” Well, I’d be a little intimidated as a buyer and I would probably move on and buy another house. And, thus, the owner of the house has to drop the price to finally make the sale…that’s how property values drop when homeowners go unchecked in rowhome communities… Oh, and by the way, the previous poster was right…they could have bought a home in Riderwood or Lutherville for basically what you could buy a home for here…and do whatever they wanted, without a homeowners association having to sue them, after they(the RFCA)tried to work it out amicably. I checked Zillow. Bottom line…as much as you like to complain about RFCA and “Big Brotherness”…it’s hogwash…these are volunteers who ask only for $20 from each homeowner in the community…it’s pathetic that we don’t have 100% participation. And, if you’re really upset about the RFCA…go to a meeting. I have, and they’ve always been willing… Read more »
AMEN to the rules about living in the Forge! I love it here and if everyone would just do that…well…maybe we can just spread the word!
why are we spending our time on this deck instead of on the REAL eyesores in the neighborhood? i have to drive past a backyard everyday on regester that is basically full of trash and junk! it would seem to me that they are also in violation. i’d much rather see that deck on lanark everyday than this yard.
I can’t wait to build my 6 foot fence to keep the nosey neighbors from peeking in my yard! I am all for trying to keep a nice, clean property, but do not need to have everyone passing by my property commenting and telling me what I should or should not do to my house. Having lived in and around the Forge for 35+ years, I am pretty sure that I know what a Rodgers Forge house should look like.
Personally, I think it looks great! I hope the homeowners win the lawsuit. I will sign that petition.
I agree with the Libertarian’s post. Normally I’m not for the government playing big brother, but in this case I have to side with the RFCA. Whether you agree with them or not, the rules are there and well known. That being said I think there may be some things we can update and change, but that’s another story.
I also agree with the post about cleaning up other eyesores in the neighborhood. I find it funny I have to get my front door color approved, but my neighbor can leave out kids toys scattered throughout their front yard with no problem. It’s horrendous, and I don’t see why parents can’t bring their big plastic toys in at night.
I think you get ugly out of place structures like this when you have an architecture committee that does not offer any options for approved structures other than wood porches. If RF Board would just face the fact that people want to add room on the back of these tiny homes and then come forth with some approved and architecturally appropriate options we wouldn’t have to put up with with the ugly stuff people come up with on their own. I also believe that in the long run, if the structures were nice looking and not over the top it would increase home value because more people would be willing to purchase a home with the prospect of adding a room. Look at Georgetown. It is a beautiful and highly desirable area of DC. Those homes look very preserved from the front, but they are almost all updated and added onto in the back. They are done in a nice way that blends with the area but they are updated for modern living. We need to look for options like this.
I agree with the posters asking everyone to “act neighborly” and to consider the effect on a potential buyer – “This is the view to my right?!? How does it affect sunlight?!? Will I ever get a breeze on my back deck?!?” The Rodgers Forge development was well-designed, taking into account views and breezes and sunlight. The covenants protect the design.
I completely 100% agree with Jeannine Fay. Many many people have the opinion that it’s not worthwhile to apply to the architectural committee for approval because 1) they have a history of denying requests and aren’t willing to compromise and 2) unless the alteration is very extreme, as in this case, they do nothing to maintain standards, so most people think what’s the point? The architectural standards need to be updated. Yes, people know that there are covenants when they move here, but the young families that move here (and need more space) also keep the property values up. Frankly, there are some pretty yucky, trash-filled backyards that are more offensive than this porch. Georgetown is an excellent example of how a beautiful rowhome community like ours can be updated to accommodate people’s need for more space and modern living.
Where do the neighbors stand on this issue? If that were next to me, I'd be pretty angry. Also, I believe the covenants exist for a reason & you signed them when you moved in. Maybe you didn't read it…but you signed it! RTFC! Like it or lump it.
I think part of the problem is that the owners violated so many of the design requirements. Had the deck been the size it was supposed to be but with a permanent roof perhaps it would not have been so “offending”. It is like the owners simply said “screw you” to the committee and the neighborhood by not even pretending to comply (application, materials, size, etc). It is a ridiculous sense of entitlement that has taken over entirely too much of our society. I sure hope they don’t have kids – great lesson to teach them – no need to follow the rules or if you don’t like them, change them in the middle of the game.
I hope the community association prevails.
It is difficult to understand why someone would want to move into a great neighborhood like ours, where the housing values have remained for the most part stable, its safe to walk, neighbors will still help each other,and then do their best to undercut the very values that have sustained this area for years, simply because they want what they want.How selfish and juvenile. Let everyone say “I will be a good neighbor if I can have my own way”. It just gets to me that in times like this when people should pull together, they act like this. Also, years ago my neighbors built a deck, and did not bother to consult us, when they walk up thier back stairs it’s as if they are walking into my dining room window. I have never said anything to them but have always felt bad about this minor loss of privacy. i can only imagine how these peoples’ neighbors feel. Hooray for the Assoc.
If the time and energy expended on this is justified, i would hope the the RFCA would start enforcing some of the other rules that are spelled out in the guidelines. For example, unapproved and ugly roofing shingles, replacement windows that don’t meet code, and most importantly, houses that generally are not well kept from a landscaping and general exterior appearance. It is ridiculous that I have to look at junk in my next door neighbor’s back yard, peeling paint around the windows and doors, and an alley full of junk and trash up and down my street. These issues are all crystal clear in the same book of guidelines. Personally, I’d rather have neighbors that seek to improve the external apprearance of their property versus the alternative.
Seriously! Maybe the guidelines should be re-evaluated. I would much rather see that “structure” than the delapidated back porches from the 40’s that have never been upgraded and are frankly dangerous. Not to mention – compare that back yard to the yards with clothes lines (think neighbors underwear) rusted junk and garbage in back yards and alleys. I think that deck looks beautiful and shows someone who takes great pride in their home. We could all use a bit more of that in RF.
We love clothes lines! Such an energy saver. If we didn’t have a huge tree that took up our entire backyard we’d have one.
Things like this will drive people away from our neighborhood and lead to negative relations between neighbors. You can already tell from the comments above that some people would like to see their neighbors sued over anything and everything. I never would have bought here if I had known one of my neighbors would be sued for a beautiful addition.
I would really like to know why this was not addressed in the community newsletter too! I’ve only seen it on here.
I don’t think anyone was quick to sue…the RFCA tried working with these folks for quite a while but were rebuffed/ignored and that forced the RFCA to file suit. Believe me, the last thing this community association wants to do is go to court. It’s costly and takes up a lot of time…time from volunteers mind you. The addition is beautiful, but it doesn’t belong in a rowhome community like Rodgers Forge and it violates the covenants. Sorry to say, but if you want to live here, you’re going to have to make some sacrifices/compromises because what you do to the exterior of your home has an immediate effect on your neighbors. As far as the eyesore back yards…that’s NOT the job of the RFCA, it is the Baltimore County Livability Code Enforcement Department that handles that…but I HATE the idea of neighbors reporting on one another to some government agency (unless there is criminal/dangerous activity taking place). So here’s a novel idea, try thinking of a polite way to talk to your neighbor about your concerns…remind them that dumpster day is coming and you’d be happy to lend them a hand if they wanted to clean up their back yard because you will be doing the same to yours. Might work.
Ahh yes…let’s compare Georgetowne to Rodgers Forge…it’s like comparing Guilford to Hampden. And try, just try, to get an addition to your home in Georgetowne without getting approval. Residents there wouldn’t dare! Besides the three to five agencies you have to go through, you spend upwards of $1,000+ in fees just to get them to review your application, not approve it mind you, just review it. If these folks had just simply had the common sense to realize that this type of addition, while beautiful in certain neighborhoods, is not allowed and inappropriate for the Forge…and, if they just played by the rules (with no fee mind you)…well, there wouldn’t be the need for the lawsuit. A previous poster was right…if you don’t like the rules of Rodgers Forge, you don’t have to live here. Seems to me these folks didn’t care that there are rules and did as they pleased, regardless of how it affects their neighbors.
What a polarizing issue! I think the covenants and the architectural guidelines are sorely in need of updating. While RF may be a community of similar-looking houses, diverse people live here. We aren’t pod people. Just because the homes look alike doesn’t mean we are alike. I realize the basics exist to encourage upholding the traditional Forge “look.” However, I think a fantastic covered back porch off the kitchen/DR is a wonderful way to extend living and entertaining space. While it breaks from RF tradition, the reality is – it’s not the first of its kind. Take a drive through the alleys and check out this addition’s ancenstors: mudrooms, porches, and covered decks of all ages jut off several houses. Did the RFCA sue those homeowners as well? And frankly, I’m much more irritated by the dramatic variations in fence height. I didn’t realize you could essentially erect battlements around your backyard, providing they are neatly constructed.
I have new socks on today.
Thanks for sharing!
I wouldn’t mind paying an actual architect to review possible additions to ensure that they are in line with the current style of the Rodgers Forge home and will blend nicely into the community. I’d rather do that than have an unprofessional group that just rubber stamps a rejection for free. Of course Rodgers Forge does not LOOK like Georgetown, that was just an example of a community that has allowed external changes to historic houses yet maintained it’s integrity.
The RFCA spends a great deal of time in court against homeowners. They lost a zoning case several years ago over an addition that was approved by the county, and lost every appeal. They claimed that the covenants gave them the right to decide about any changes to the appearance of any house in Rogers Forge, but chose to wage a losing battle over setbacks. This must have cost tens of thousands of community dollars. If there are indeed legitimate covenants, why wasn’t there a straight forward case proving they have this right of approval? I think the covenants, which gave the developer the rights claimed by the RFCA, expired years ago and the RFCA is lying to everyone. Why else would they spend so much money on a zoning battle when they could merely present proof of covenants, which they claim to have but refuse to produce?
Here! Here! I am familiar with the above-referenced case. The RFCA did indeed lose the case initially and lost every subsequent appeal. Are the people who pay dues to the RFCA aware of just how much of their money goes to these frivolous lawsuits?
Bottom line, the county approved the Lanark Rd. project and there are no covenants. Don’t believe me? Ask the RFCA to produce a copy.
Although it may be desirable to have guidelines in place to maintain the overall quality of a neighborhood, there will always be extreme cases that touch on nerves.
As far as having the option of selecting another community, not everyone is made aware of the covenant rules before purchasing. I was told about the covenant and given a copy of the community newsletter on the day of settlement, minutes after signing the papers.
My fantasy is to have Yard Crashers come over to give me a free ‘yard makeover’ (totally within the covenant rules, of course!).
1. There are no “covenants” in Rodgers Forge. Covenants are enforceable legal codes that you sign when you move into a community. There is no such thing for Rodgers Forge, just the guidelines that are in the directory. While the neighborhood association may treat these as covenants, they are not since no one signs a documents listing these when they buy their house.
2. Covenants or no, people absolutely need to realize that in a rowhouse community you need to make accommodations that you might not in another neighborhood. Not only in the modifications to your home, but how about dogs? If you choose to have several large, barky dogs and leave them out all day long and late at night this is just as (if not more so) obnoxious as having an addition that blocks your neighbor’s view.
Are you sure about that? I just checked my title paperwork and we signed the “Maryland Homeowners Association Act Notice to Buyer”sheet. It says, “By purchasing a lot within this development, you will automatically be subject to various rights, responsibilities and obligations, including the obligation to pay certain assessment to the homeowners association within the development. The lot you are purchasing may have restrictions on: 1) Architectural Changes, Design, Color, Landscaping, or Appearance (etc…).”
And by the way, I totally agree with the barking dog issue. I am so thankful we don’t really have to deal with that where we are. If I had a nearby neighbor with a dog that barked a lot, I think I’d go nuts.
There are still active covenants in some of Rodgers Forge. Some are different from others.
The covenants in the, "old section," everything between Hopkins and Regester from Pinehurst to York expired on December 31, 1960. (Several members of the community association strongly disagree.)
The rest of the Forge is governed by covenants begun in 1947 and later another set in 1955. They may be modified or annulled.
The 1947 covenants automatically extend for successive ten-year periods. A majority (50%) vote of the owners on one side of one block of the street may vote, "to change the said covenants in whole or in part."
The 1955 covenants require a vote of owners owning 60% of the land area in the tract. (Owners of end of group homes count more that center houses.) Owners may vote on covenants anytime.
If you want to know when your house was built, go to http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/rp_rewrite/
Choose Baltimore County, street address and then enter your house number and street name. Look in the lower left side of the Location & Structure Information section, Primary Structure Built.
If anyone purchased a house with active covenants and were not given the covenants at settlement, pursue that with your title company. They are required to inform you about your covenants.
The old zoning case [on Pinehurst], where the covenants are expired, was taken as far as the Court of Special Appeals. The Forge lost every successive time. It cost about $21,000.
Just to note, the people who owned the Pinehurst house that was the subject of the old lawsuit have since sold the house and moved. The current owner is not involved in any lawsuits (or home additions).
I think the covenants are a load of crap. The house I live in has been in my family since it was built and I have the original ded and covenant papers. SInce my house is in the older section, the covenants have expired. I love how the committe still tried to pass it off as the covenants are in effect for every house, when in fact, some have expired.
Oh, and I like the deck!
I agree. The covenants are non-enforcable. I just checked with some friends of mine (attorneys) and they found no metion of “said covenants” in my deed or his and one of his neighbors (all live in the Forge). The Lanark family will win the lawsuit and the Committee will lose again.
Good luck Lanark people!
Why does the house at 201 Dumbarton Road have a fence in it's front yard and side yards? Front yard fences are against the RFCA architectural guidelines.