|
11-01-2007: Lewisville Garage Ordinance
The Lewisville Council is talking about restricting people from
converting garages to a living area. Basically they will deny a
permit unless a home owner can build another garage before converting the existing garage.
This will only be done with properties that have room on the property.
It will not affect those who already received a permit to convert their
garage in the past. I have heard pros and cons to restricting what
a home owner can do to their property. You still need a permit to
add on to the home.
I SUPPORT an ordinance of this type for the following reasons:
- In order to build a house in Lewisville it must have at least a
one car garage. The person who built it is the home owner until
they sell it. For a home owner to move in and the next day
convert the garage defeats the purpose of the ordinance in the first
place. I
moved into my neighborhood knowing that all the houses have a standard.
I believe that this standard should be kept the same. Removing a garage
is like removing one of the two bathrooms in a home to make it a storage
closet. In both cases it lowers the value of the house which affects the
others in the neighborhood.
- The building code ordinances to build homes in a neighborhood seem to
serve a purpose to protect other homeowners property values and keep the
neighborhood looking uniform. I can see the benefits of this
reasoning.
- The home was designed to be a set number of rooms with a
garage. A homeowner has to get a permit to add another room if
they need another room or sell to buy a larger home. Likewise, if
a family was living in an apartment and they needed another room, they
would rent a larger apartment.
- The neighborhood should be built to the minimum specifications as it was
intended to be. I assume that adding on to a structure has to be
approved with a permit which I hope would include the exterior look,
etc... In some neighborhoods, I have seen houses add a second floor – if
the neighborhood will absorb the look. - I understand the
concept that a person owns a house but they really do not as we seem to
pay taxes on it forever. The only
thing an owner has is a higher level of privacy. Besides, if the City
wanted to build a stadium for a sports team, then the home owners will
be evicted like Arlington and the new Cowboys Stadium. Another example,
if you are Jed Clampitt of The Beverly Hillbillies fame, you cannot
shoot a gun on your property. If the crude was bubbling out of the
ground, it belongs to the company that owns the mineral rights of your
property. As home owners, you might not own the mineral rights. - I
do not think my neighbor has the right to burn their house down either.
Nor do they have a right to demolish it. Allow the roof to cave in.
Allow goats to be raised in their backyard (yes, this was next door -
they had a BBQ and no more goat). - Though parking is
an issue in some areas of the City, it is not the main reason to have a
garage. Most people use their garage for storage anyway. I
personally do not care if they use the garage as a storage area, work
area, or a place to park the cars. I think that when they move out, it
should still be a garage as it was originally intended to be.
I do not want the outside changed. I also want Single Family
Dwellings to be just that. I did not move into a neighborhood that was
going to have houses packed full of people (families). I might as well have bought
a condo or moved into the budget suites apartments.
That's the way I see it - John Gorena |
