John Rebchook is a former Rocky Mountain News reporter with more than 30 years of experience in writing and communications... Anthony Cooper, who lost his fight to stop a duplex from being built next to his home in northwest Denver, compared the city board that voted in favor of the developers to cats covering their mess in a litter box.
But Cooper, who fought against the proposed development on Raleigh Street at last Tuesday’s Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals meeting, said he hasn’t yet decided what his next step will be. For example, asked if he plans to appeal to District Court, he said he didn’t know.
Pressed by InsideRealEstateNews on his thought in the wake of his loss, he indicated that the board was pre-disposed to favoring developers. (For more on that board meeting, please read Board rules in favor of developers.)
“I think the board is comprised of people in the real estate industry, isn’t it? They made a decision and it is what it is,” Cooper said in a phone interview with InsideRealEstateNews late Thursday afternoon.
Can’t fight city hall
Cooper, an engineer for the City of Denver, said the board’s decision was similar to cops not giving fellow police officers speeding tickets or prosecutors ignoring evidence that could exonerate a suspect.
“I guess the old saying that you can’t fight city hall is correct,” Cooper said.
Cooper, who is prone to using colorful phrases, such as accusing developers as wanting to “rape, scrape and prostitute” neighborhoods and saying that the planned duplex next to his house will “fit the neighborhood about as well as galoshes would fit a duck,” kept the metaphors flying with his take on the board’s decision.
“They’re like cats in a cat box, covering up their crap,” Cooper said. “It’s like they’re covering for each other. It’s like they’re saying you lie and I will swear it is true.”
At the heart of the matter was whether the development team, which includes fledgling developer Rob Plimpton and One Realty Broker Jeff Plous, missed a 180-day-deadline to get their zoning permit before a moratorium on new construction went into effect on Jan 1. The permit was at first denied by the city, but then the city realized it made a mistake and should have issued the zoning to the developers when they first applied. Cooper, and some neighbors, contended that it was immaterial whether the city made a mistake, as it was incumbent upon the developers to correct it before 180 days passed. “They don’t get a redo,” he said.
Property rights protected
But because it was the city’s mistake, the 180-day-deadline did not apply, the board was told by zoning representative Jack Nolan and Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Welborn. Welborn also told the board that if the developers were denied the zoning, it likely would violate their 5th Amendment property rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
“That is an arbitrary and capricious interpretation,” Cooper said.
Plous, however, said he thinks one of the major reasons the board voted the way it did was because it did not want to face litigation that they likely would lose, and said Cooper’s arguments do not make a lot of sense.
“If you compare it to cops not giving cops tickets, then he should have won, because he works for the city,” Plous said.
Plous, however, did say that he is somewhat relieved that Cooper seems to be directing his anger more to the city than to the development team at this point. Indeed, Plous Plimpton and Cooper are on the same page in one respect: All three of them wish the city had a clearer procedure for dealing with complex dispute such as this one.”Believe me, if they had forms for us to fill out by certain dates, we would have done so,” Plous said.
Plous said that a demolition permit likely will be pulled next week and the home will be torn down in the coming weeks. The current tenants in the home must be moved. The two units on the site will be among the last three-story units in the neighborhood, as the City Council recently changed its zoning code that will basically prohibit them. Details such as what kind of materials will be used are still being decided for the units that will each have around 3,500 square feet of completed space, and likely will be priced around $650,000 each.
Despite losing at the hearing, Cooper said that he and his neighbors are extremely appreciative that two City Council members – Paula Sandoval and Doug Linkhart- publicly supported them in front of the board. Sandoval, who represents District 1 in Northwest Denver, spoke on behalf of Cooper and the neighbors, and read a letter in their support from Linkhart. Several observers have said it is quite unusual for a City Council member to take a side in a board hearing in this way.
“We’re not NIMBYs- Not In My Back Yard,” Cooper said. “We brought a petition signed by 83 people in the neighborhood who oppose it. Some of the people have lived in the neighborhood for less than a year and some have lived there for 55 years.’
But Plous noted that not everyone on the block is opposed to it. He said he received a call from a homeowner on Raleigh Street, whom he did not know, who congratulated him on his victory, and thought it was unfortunate the way some of his neighbors had treated Plous and the proposed development.
During the meeting, Plimpton said it was never his intention to upset people in the neighborhood, he said he truly believed he was “adding value” to the neighborhood by removing a functionally obsolete home that was in a huge state of disrepair when he bought it in 2008, and turning it into something that he thinks will ultimately help neighbor’s land values.
In the wake of the loss, Cooper said he would like to meet with Plimpton.
“I am going to give Mr. Plimpton a call and see if I can sit down with the man and talk about his plans,” Cooper said. “I do not dislike the man. I am just not pleased with his proposal. And as one person commented (on InsideRealEstateNews), it could have been worse. They could be building a geodesic dome.”
May be too late to hash things out
But the time for a pow-wow may have passed.
“Honestly, we would have loved to have sat down with them months ago,” Plous said. “If they had asked to sit down with us, we could have built something that might have fit the neighborhood a little bit better. We know we never could have made everybody happy, but I think if they tried to talk to us months ago, we could have avoided all of this ruckus.”
At this point, however, it is too risky to return to the drawing board and potentially jeopardize their hard-won zoning, he notes.
Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com or 303-945-6865.
This little whiner needs to get a life! Sore, sore loser….
I guess we should thank Tony for making zoning infinitely more interesting than usual. And special thanks to John Rebchook for getting the “scoop” and the real poop on the story.
“If they had asked to sit down with us, we could have built something that might have fit the neighborhood a little bit better.” This quote from Plous speaks loudly about why Mr. Cooper feels the way he does. It appears the developer knew he was building something that wasn’t a fit for the neighborhood. The use of bad judgment. What could have been a win-win in a transitioning neighborhood turns out to be an ugly fight and a nonconforming property. In the long run; a loser for everyone. Unfortunately, Cooper relied on the City to help preserve the value of his property rights. Not a good choice. Its time for the developer put some lipstick on the pig to help the situation. Surely, the City would listen if it would improve the neighborhood.
The biggest takeaway here, for me, is that we have a new council person just like the old council person. If a small group hollers loud enough they get a reaction. It’s the same process that finally got the weed filled lot at 44th and Tennyson cleaned up…not because it was right for the neighborhood (it sat for 2 years)…but because people complained loud enough. Constituents in District 1, if you want it done just be the one who yells the loudest. Seems to work pretty good.
Citizens need to hold the Government accountable. If the only reason the developer was denied the permit was due to the city making a mistake, the developer deserves a “re-do” and I agree with the outcome. I have no dog in this fight; I believe the outcome was justified. Mr. Cooper has been notified of the decision and should move on. How bad can a brand new structure next to his house be? He’ll be fine; it may end up being a net plus for the neighborhood. Maybe Mr. Cooper should politely ask that the developer consider his input on the project; he may be surprised to find more cooperation than he expects.
In this case, the squeaky wheel did not get the grease.