Start
This was a controversial issue and one on which reasonable people can and do disagree. In my view the board made the right decision in allowing the room addition to remain.
One forum member said he was glad it worked out this way but expressed concern it would set a precedent.
I replied:
It sets no precedent except one indicating the board's willingness and authority to make a final decision on such issues. This is no guarantee a similar decision would be made in the future. Each case stands on its own merits.
In this case, regardless of what Biancaniello did wrong, the board did the right thing by standing above petty emotional and turf-war issues, as well as authoritarian enforcement of arbitrary guidelines. The permit should have been granted originally since it certainly meets the guidelines requirements for an exception in that "it does no harm." If anything, the addition adds to property values. It certainly does not detract from them. For some reason Biancaniello was apparently not originally treated in a fashion similar to others seeking variances. Keep in mind this goes back to a couple of years ago, when, as Rakow pointed out during the meeting, there were ECC abuses.
Finally, I suggest any lot owner would be reluctant to go through a similar process at similar overall expense when the outcome is far, far from assured.
As I said, reasonable people can certainly disagree on this one. In my view the board did the right thing -- if the overall goal and purpose of the DRs and Guidelines is to protect property values, and if the board wanted to worry more about doing the right thing as opposed enacting punishment. Anyway, that's more or less the way I see it after sitting through any number of meetings where it was discussed. Others will have their own opinions, as witnessed by the 4-3 board vote.
As someone who is frequently critical of the board, I'm sure some association members will now be critical of me for supporting the board. 
