HOW will it reduce your value?!! You have no proof of that and are assuming. You think because something looks bad TO YOU it will negatively affect you and others around you. The only reference you gave is house size in relation to yours or others. Has it occured to you they do not want a large wasteful house? We are building a new house next year, and the plans are done. We could afford 2x the house we are building, but its wasteful and foolish on many levels in our opinion. But I wont go knocking on some big home next to me about how I think their house isnt right. Get a grip, chill, and read all of the responses to your thread already...perhaps we are all on to something...
And I also do not think you have the right to post someone else's house on a forum so you can bash it. I dont care if they pitched a tent beside you, its their house, their land and their right. The board approved it, so obviously they felt it fit the requirements.

I don't understand the reason for your post. Do you want affirmation of your very rigid design aesthetic? You're not going to get much support on that. Most people would rather have hot steel poked into their kidneys than have some committee tell them what color they have to paint their house. People who are building a home generally want it to express their personality. Very few people are beige all the way through.

Do you want suggestions as to how you can make the HOA change their mind? That won't happen. Construction has already begun. If you disagreed with their decision, the time to lobby them about it was while it was still on the table.

Do you want suggestions about a suit againjst the HOA? A local lawyer would be a better consultation, and he'd tell you that you are really suing yourself since you're part of the HOA.

Do you want commiserations and pats on the back saying "there there, I'm so sorry you have to deal with this huge wrong" Emotional support on this issue would be best provided by your family, neighbors, and therapist. There aren't enough people on here that agree with you that you've suffered some kind of injury. You havent't lost a loved one, or a limb, or your job, and no natural disaster has taken your home, which was built exactly as you wanted it to be.

If you want more control over others, then run for a position on the HOA. Unless lots of other people share your gripes, you won't win a seat. If you are elected and take a big hardline, be prepared to lose your seat. More people can be united against something they consider an irritation than can be bothered to break their apathy to just rubber stamp approvals.

So again, I don't understand your post here.

thanks for the info about posting photos--

So it is selfish to build what you want with your money without consideration of the neighbors. But how does building what the neighbors want while using your money constitute a morally-higher situation? Exactly how much control of our lives do we want to surrender to others? I think the process has gone much too far.

"How do I take a photo from MY desktop and add it here?
to post a shot of the house in question"

If someone did that - post a photo of MY personal property without my permission - lawyers would be involved!
Seriously, you have no right to do that, and the fact that you want to speaks volumes....

Loves2read, I understand how you must feel if your neighbors are building a home that you find terribly ugly and strongly believe will negatively impact the value of your home. And I feel for you. Truly I do.

Whether you are correct in your evaluation of just how ugly the house is, is a matter of opinion. None of us on GW has yet seen what you're looking at so we're not even qualified to express an opinion. And, even if you post pictures, all you'll be getting is our individual opinions. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

Whether the new house ultimately does or does not have a negative impact on your home's value will however eventually be a matter of fact. If you try to sell your home and multiple potential buyers basically tell you, "well, we love your home but don't want to be in the same neighborhood as that ugly, "twisted" house at the end of the cul-de-sac," then it will be a fact that the house impacts your home's value. But, unless you are currently trying to sell your home, that potential impact is way off in the future somewhere.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your future neighbors really are building a eyesore and let's assume that it really will have a negative impact on the value of your lot. Just for convenience sake, let's refer to your neighbor's home as "the eyesore."

Now, the question is: what if anything can you do about it?

You say your neighborhood architectural oversight committee signed off on allowing the eyesore to be built. Most architectural committee's require a site plan to be submitted along with the blueprints, and it sounds like yours required a site plan on the eyesore too.

If your neighbors have not followed their site plan in situating their house, you can probably get an injunction to stop them from building it and ultimately force them to only build according to the approved site plan. It'll probably be expensive to do but, with a good attorney you have a chance of succeeding. But that is ONLY if the eyesore IS NOT situated according to the approved site plan.

If the eyesore is actually situated as indicated on the documents that were approved by your architectural oversight committee and the build is otherwise being built in accordance with properly obtained approvals, there is probably nothing you can do that will ultimately stop the build.

You could go to court and get a temporary injunction. But, once the court determines that the house is being built according to the approved plans, the court will lift the injunction and throw your case out. Going to court will cost you money, will cost the eyesore-owners money, and will forever poison your relationship with your future neighbors. The eyesore-owners could even decide to sue you for abuse of process in interfering with their home build without just cause. And, while you might delay their build in this way, you WON'T be able to stop them from building the house.

You could bring a suit against the architectural review committee members for negligence in approving the eyesore. I doubt you would win but you could bring suit. Again, this would cost you money. It would cost the members of the architectural review committee money and could cost your home owners association money because the HOA is probably contractually obligated to undertake the cost of defending the architectural review committee in the event of this type of lawsuit. Nothing like having your own dues be used to hire an attorney to fight against you! And again, because you would be suing neighbors, the suit would not make for pleasant neighborhood relationships. Worst of all, even if you won a negligence suit against the architectural oversight committee, I can tell you absolutely that the court would not then make your neighbors tear down the eyesore.

The bottom line is, if it is being built according to duly approved plans, you are stuck with the eyesore. No matter how strongly you believe that the plans should never have been approved in the first place, they were. You can only make a bad situation worse.

While some of the comments here are, IMHO, unduly harsh, I think those writing them were trying to make you view the situation from the eyesore-owner's point of view. No doubt, THEY think their new home is going to be lovely. THEY are pleased as punch that they managed to figure out a way to situate the house on the lot so as to maximize their privacy in their backyard. THEY think the house looks fine from the street and that, if it didn't, the architectural review committee would never have approved it in the first place. If they get wind of your displeasure, they're going to think you're just a meddlesome, quarrelsome neighbor who wants everything his own way.

If you sue them, THEY're going to think "We got approval and now, along comes this neighbor and wants to set himself up as a second oversight committee with the power to veto our design. Just who the H... does he think he is? What gives him the right to do this?"

And, if you think about it from that point of view, you'll realize that you would have felt exactly the same way if, after getting approval for your own build, some neighbor had come along afterwards and tried to tell you that you couldn't build the house that the architectural review committee has already approved because they didn't like some aspect of your build.

I truly am sorry that you're dealing with this and I wish I could offer you some better solution but it sounds as if the eyesore builders are within their rights so, as much as their home may offed your sensibilities, you're just going to have to find a way to live with it. Or, put your home on the market now, sell and move somewhere else.

If someone did that - post a photo of MY personal property without my permission - lawyers would be involved!

luann: I'm sorry I should have considered the request and potential privacy issues before posting the instructions (although a forum search could have revealed the same info.) What I was thinking was that if the OP posted a pic of the home under construction, I could do a mockup with some landscaping that might alleviate concerns. I guess I'm always holding out hope that there's a peaceful, even friendly, solution to neighborhood angst. Sigh. "You May Say I'm A Dreamer..."

Nonsense! You can stand on the street and take a photo of any thing that you want and post it on the internet. You can call in all the lawyers you want, but there is nothing illegal about it.

Loves2read - I feel your pain. I don't know how much you can do at this point, but I agree with you. One awkwardly-situated house on the block is going to affect the look of the whole neighborhood.

ok, this thread is acting strangely. There are 23 follow up posts, but if I actually count them, I am the 18th post. What happened to my previous post?!?! It wasn't offensive! Hope it didn't get deleted for a reason!
Anyway, hope we can all 'play nice' and not resort to name-calling. Plus, I actually don't think it's illegal currently to take a photo of something and post it on the internet. Otherwise, how could Google have my house and backyard visible in all its spendid dirt-filled naked glory?

the house to the left of the vacant lot where the new build is has two car garage in the front/top corner and third bay on the rearmost/top corner

The front door of the new build will face right into the 2 bay garage with about 6 ft of lawn (including the sidewalk) between the new build front and the driveway

Here is a link that might be useful:

The other photos I took with my phone of the house are accessible from same link
should have taken one from farther down the court but was barefooted and it was hot--

I appreciate the tact that some of you have posted with--
I do understand (which I stated before) that we can't stop this build since the ARC did approve such a lop-sided orientation...and we can't sue for damages because currently we can't prove we have suffered financial loss since none of us are trying to sell our homes...
but let any 10 RE agents view this court before and after this new build is finished and all of them will say that damage was done...
and that selling the new house and ones on either side will be MORE difficult because of this awkward orientation.

I understand that these new owners are perfectly happy with this house--but that does not mean it was a good decision ultimately for them or us--
just because people want to have a baby does not axiomatically make them good parents as recent news stories amply demonstrate...

We ARE running other people against the current HOA board--although the current president tried to (illegally) prevent them getting on the ballot so hopefully new leadership more amenable to the HOA in general will occur.

I don't appreciate the vitriol other posters showed, however. I thought this forum had moderators to supervise content and enforce the rules of polite discourse. They certainly ran off other posters in years past for comments less critical than the ones made to me.

If you have experienced problems with HOA oversight or city zoning problems before--that was not me, guys--so don't take out that residual anger on me...
and whether you want to acknowledge it or not there are positive reasons to have HOAs --unfortunately MINE likely had an ulterior motive for ok-ing this build that none of the neighbors within sight of this house would have approved...

Just curious, what was the ulterior motive the HOA had in okaying this house? It looks like a beautiful home. I wish them the best!

I am truly surprised by the tone here. The house site is awkward. The problem really stems from using a stock plan or a custom one with no consideration of lot shape and desire for a significant backyard

The ARC has really failed you and I wonder what they think of the build now?

I think the new house fits in just fine. The whole development looks extremely cramped - if someone failed here it's the city's zoning department that should have required much lower lot coverage.
The immediate neighbor to the offending build looks like it's 90% house and 10% yard.

Im finding it hard to believe that any of those homes were allowed to be built on such small lots. Crammed in there like sardines. For larger homes such as those in our area, the zoning/ lot size requirements is minimum 2-1/2 acres.

some people decide orientation based on the sun
in my climate building with house facing west will
cost more to heat and cool. best orientation is n/s
what matters to one person changes to the next.
building a home that is affordable is one thing,
building a home that is efficient is another.
I've seen many a beautiful home that the homeowners
paid a huge utility bill.
people just have different agendas.

rather than building to satisfy some hoa, building
to satisfy the person paying to build is often the
criteria.

I don't see why folks want to control every aspect
of the people building near them. But this is why
I live in the country.

you'll get lost of support from likeminded people here
and the ones like me will just shake our heads.

guess I'll just say..
best of luck.

I don't have anything really new to add, except that I'm glad I don't live in an HOA neighborhood. I hope the new home will look much better completed and it won't cause you and your neighbors too much anxiety!

The one of many advantages to building on property is as stated by E.R. above is placing the home for maximum efficiency. I realize it's all about layyout, floorplan, overhangs, etc, but when you have a chance to work with the sun, breezes, shading, etc, it should be taken advantage of.

In HOA controlled sardine can subdivisions, your options are limited to a handful of yahoos sitting around a desk.

To each their own!

in my area-- DFW metroplex--there is wide range of what a city will deem acceptable when it allows a new subdivision to be developed--

A neighborhood like this is not unusual--more par for the course for homes in this price range and age
Same is true for most large towns IN Texas--land is expensive

...one reason why homes are two story vs one...
And the developer COULD have had larger lots--but the city was interested in turning this area (an in-fill build on some property with flood zone issues and changing elevation) into more taxable property--
So it was amenable to having lots of this size--in close proximity--
(that builder has lot of clout with cities in this area--has been around for decades and developed lot of taxable properties)

Finding a large lot to built an independent project on is very difficult in DFW unless you are willing to move outside the developed metroplex--

infill building on tear-down lots does not work in most older neighborhoods because the lots are small and the value of the homes in subdivision won't support new construction costs--even if the design would work...

IN the Metroplex a "good" lot of .5 acre or so will cost at least 100K and maybe 300K in high$$ home area

even the RE crunch has not dropped the price of raw land like it has tract homes in overbuilt areas--people with land just held on to it if they could not get their price.

In neighborhoods in Westlake for example--a high wealth enclave of a town where homes start at 1MM--acre lots are "small" because the houses are so large--

Vaquero is very exclusive gated subdivision there where the Jonas brothers have a house, along with several pro athletes, not to mention business owners and just wealthy people in general
And the homes there do look "crowded" eventhough they are very expensive

Some cities are taking only projects that have new homes on acre lots or maybe a zero-lot development of very custom homes--to preserve the home values for the city overall...but some cities like Fort Worth have open land and will probably take developments in any price range because of the needs of the people who live there

There are a few towns that will not zone for apartments within their city limits. One town east of Dallas doing that was forced under court order to allow a developer who bought land KNOWING no apts were allowed (period) and then sued to get the zoning rules changed--to build apt complex-

He did it so that he could build apts that will have section 8 clients and thus qualify for special grant money for development--the fact that the dynamics of the area (more rural than urban) don't really support that type of renter or apts in general did not matter--he was only interested in subsidizing his costs...

My neighborhood has over 100 homes and most of the lots are .20 with problems with elevation changes between lots
This new house is on one of the largest, flattest lots--but it has irregular shape and backs to a city ball field with big lights
Their design choice just forces a square peg into a round hole--IMO of course--

Here is a link that might be useful: Westlake homes MLS

Ulterior motive--inferred--not documented--

the head of the HOA is also the head of the ARC plus two other HOA board members

He and the woman who is the neighbor of this new build have been at odds for more than a year because the ARC turned down a house design submitted by friend of this woman...

house would have been nice 4000 sq ft/two story--
one of the larger in the subdivision so it would have increased property values in general--

plus would have taken up one of the 18 vacant lots we still have in this subdivision 9 yrs after it opened...

Supposedly the design would have put the house 14"--not ft- too close to the property line of the house to the left--
which just happens to be the house of the HOA/ARC president
which is also a smaller 2800 sq ft one story house
but which is CENTERED on its culdesac lot

That new design would have had NO windows on that side to "overlook" his house

He voted no to a variance to allow house to be built that close--another person on the ARC voted yes to allow it (there are over 70 variance approved out of the 80+ homes in subidvision.)

The 3rd member of the ARC did not want to cross his friend the HOA president so he abstained--so it went to the HOA board. The HOA president has clique of his friends on the board--so the design was voted down and people told to resubmit after reworking the plans--

They had already spent 4K and declined to rework/resubmit them--
Frankly I think THEIR architect was at fault--
the HOA ARC requirements/rules were readily available--
we certainly knew what they were when we were trying to design house for this same lot several years ago...
so I can't say what was so special about that house design that they turned it in still needing that variance--

and I guess they thought that by having no windows on that side that the issue of privacy and being too close was resolved.

But there have been other issues in the past year or so that have increased the tension between those two people--
that is why she thinks this design was approved--because he knew it would effect her house more than the others--
certainly not his-- which is completely across the subdivision--

so she is taking it very personally as some other people in the subdivision are who are at odds with the HOA guy...She says she is considering suing him vs the ARC/HOA-

but I don't think anything will come of it because it would be very expensive and likely go against her since she technically has suffered no financial loss yet and can't really prove malicious intent unless she gets ahold of some self-incriminating emails or something...

I agree that the new build will look 'different', but not *awful*. One way it will differ is that it will have some 'yard'.

Just out of curiosity, what is the FAR in your neighborhood? (Floor Area Ratio: Percentage of lot that can be covered by building 'footprint'.)

Land costs are relative. I live north of Chicago. You can build a 5-6K sq ft house here...if you have an acre (and can get approval from the city's Building Review Board). A desireable acre lot runs $1M.

Sorry, I really do not find the layout bad, and certainly not justifiable to your reaction. And no, its not because I have disagreed with you from your very first post, but that is what I, as a design professional, believe. It is hard to tell exactly how it fits the site from front elevations, but once it is completed I am sure it will be fine. I still do not buy into your assumptions of property value loss. The current market will hurt the values of these houses 10x what this new one will. In Fact I would not be surprised if this new house's value is pretty high in comparison to sqft due to the fact they WILL have yard space compared to most of the insanely cramped houses in that development.

"Nonsense! You can stand on the street and take a photo of any thing that you want and post it on the internet. You can call in all the lawyers you want, but there is nothing illegal about it. "

THIS.

Why do you even have an idea that posting a picture of a public view could be cause for ANY action.

Some localities have aerial photos of the whole county online, and Google earth has covered a lot of territory from the ground by driving down the street and matching the location to overhead using GPS.

The street view of every house in my neighborhood is on Google Earth.

I agree the house sits awkwardly on the lot in such a tight subdivision. And, the fact that your HOA approves so many variances makes your ordinaces seam subjective and somewhat meaningless.

loves2read on Sat, Jul 9, 11 at 12:36

Your post above as referenced proves one of my major objections to regulations- favoritism gets involved. Someone get favored and some one gets disfavored- often for nonsensical reasons or for personal gain. Better to have no such power granted to others.

I don't understand the problem.

If its one of aestethics, then someone should have thought of that before they built 6 McMansions in a cul-de-sac that really only fits 3.

Truly an example of less is more.

Do I have it correct that they needed no variance to build this house? If so, what specific language in your HOA rules/covenants did they violate that the ARB should have cited in denying them approval to build the house?

I think it is pretty goofy looking but at least the garage doesn't point at the street, which is what I was picturing! I think the ones with the real beef are the neighbors that have his front door pointing at their driveway. If I were them I would plant the biggest thing I could find - a tea olive or taller) and buffer the driveway edge. Unfortunately it looks like they don't have much room over there to plant much. . . Maybe they can put up a fence or build a brick wall and landscape in front of it :)

I do think it is appropriate for the ARB person in charge to discuss landscaping and what the homeowner intends to do to minimize the fact that the house looks like it is sitting sideways on the lot.

What is reason for posting this thread exactly? Are you looking for justification. As far as the whole HOA problems, which yours is no different than most HOAs, it's purely speculation. Since I have expeience firsthand of this type of situation I can tell you they have approval and that house is going to be built there no matter what you and a few others have to say. People can sue all they want and slow down the construction but they will lose and have to pay all legal fees. If they go against the HOA then all homeowners will have to pay the legal fees.

All those homes are crammed into that development which makes them all look odd aethically. Who cares where the front door is when one house is on top of another? No one has any privacy except the smart ones that situated their house to give them privacy in their backyard. If it bothers the neighbors that are affected then it's up to them to landscape effectively on their own lot. As you said there are a 100 homes with probably 100 opinions. Another suggestion, perhaps the neighbors that are gossiping about this house talk to the owners and offer to pay for an architect, and all the structural changes so the house is build it to their liking?

Those pics don't look as bad as I imagined it. Actually I can't see an issue with it. Lots are odd and cramped anyways so with some landscaping I doubt it is noticable.

Even if I was the person with my garage facing their front door I wouldn't bother doing anything. The way most houses are laid out is with all the main spaces toward the back of the house so not like I'd feel like I'd loose any privacy for my garage. Seems like it is those building the house that is loosing out more on the view end there.

The whole enclave is ostentatiously poorly designed. Very depressing. It's just another example of where a random collection of bumpouts, gables, and disconnected rooflines on postage stamps approved by a committee are considered to be "upscale" because so much money has been spent on that bad design. At least the "crooked" house will have a bit of interest to it---and some back yard.

I understand this post completely. The originator is a control freak and she doesn't like the idea that someone would build a house in a manner that is not acceptable to her.

The plan is tragicomically ill-suited for the lot. That said, there's probably nothing you can do about it short of moving or suing.
Casey

Well, I would be more concerned with your relationship with these people. Have you considered that you will live with these people for some time? Why not simply take life for what it is and move on? The houses barely fit on those lots anyway, look at the right side, 2nd/3rd house from pool. Those homes are so close you could lean out the window and touch. I would be more worried about the two swimming pools and the noise from that than the orientation of a home. I mean if the shoe were on the other foot and you were the owner of the "strange" home, would you want the neighbors in your business like you are in theirs? They could be really good people moving in and you are squashing a potential relationship with them. There is nothing you can do about it.

After seeing the map, I give them a lot of credit for thinking outside the box and trying to give their family something no one else seems to have...
a yard and a little breathing room.

We have found in last 24 hours that
1--the bylaws we thought the HOA was operating under were rewritten around June of last year and basically any power the HOA members had was evicerated and put into the hands of the HOA Board--and they were rewritten to make it just aout impossible to recall a board member or petition the Board for redress when there are issues...
2--last night there was situaton that just highlighted how disfuntional and abusive this current HOA setup is--some people tried to find out why they held a secret election to vote in a new board of their choices and people were shouting and pointing fingers-no rational discussion happened
the new board president resigned at some point--but not at that meeting

but getting a fair election will be impossible unless we take legal action--

after all this has come to light that house is just a sympton of a much larger problem...

you may not like this neighborhood's design--
I wish the lots were bigger myself -- but they AREN'T--complaining about issues that can't be changed is childish

and if you want to live in particular areas of DFW you just have to deal with issues like these--

I don't want to live 40 mi out in the country and have to drive an hour to my doctor--and we can't afford a Million dollar home on an acre lot--
The issue is to make the BEST appearance with what you have at your disposal--that benefits the design of the neighborhood--that is what the HOA ARC is supposed to be protecting--the ARC did not do that
these owners are not doing that--and they are making others--not just them--pay the price...
no one is going to burn down their house or probably say anything negative to their face even--but that does not mean we think they made a good decision

In my part of DFW (and most of TX in general) any subdivision that is 15 yrs old or newer have MANDATORY HOAs--you can't buy a house unless you join--we had to pay prorated dues when we closed on this house--and the HOA board contols the HOA--
initially there was balance and fairness under the old bylaws--then some people got on the board and rewrote the bylaws (except the people I spoke with have no memory of knowing/agreeing to that happening--we don't remember nor did we get copy of the NEW bylaws).

These bylaws are so slanted to the power of the Board vs the general members that I am ashamed people would be so nakedly power hungry and abusive to others when I saw them...or that an attorney would write a legal document that so arrogantly took power away from the members in such a blatant power grab

We know we can't do anythng to stop this house--apparently it meets the city's code and the ARC approved it--but that does not stop anyone (except the owners) seeing it in person and asking what were they thinking of...

This link may shed light on the actions of HOAs and others in power.

Here is a link that might be useful: Watch here

I can't imagine the horror of having to see the inside of my neighbour's garage! They might as well be bent over every morning mooning me!

"The whole enclave is ostentatiously poorly designed. Very depressing. It's just another example of where a random collection of bumpouts, gables, and disconnected rooflines on postage stamps approved by a committee are considered to be "upscale" because so much money has been spent on that bad design. "

The whole development appears to be crammed into undersized lots to maximize builder profit on th eland investment.

I live in a small inflil devlopment on the orginal farm house from the 1930s.
They are on 0.125 acre, with no yards at all.
I sit on 0.33 with a nice backyard elevated above the rest by the hill the house is on.

I could have purchased ANY house in the place, but did not want a California 'open' mess with T1-11 siding on an expensive house.
They all look cheap.

"I could have purchased ANY house in the place, but did not want a California 'open' mess with T1-11 siding on an expensive house".

The only "houses" I see out here in California using T-1-11 are manufactured, ( mobile ) homes and it's not even plywood based! Pretty rare to have any home out here with T-1-11 siding. There are race tract subdivisuion cracker box homes that are stucco with T-1-11 siding on gables and entry ways; strategic places, but those are basically inexpensive starter homes. Never seen T-1-11 on any higher end home, at least where we are and where we are building.

this is an interesting statement from the OP, so I will go ahead and quote it:
"....complaining about issues that can't be changed is childish"

How is this different then complaining about this house?

And yet again, you bring of comments of "paying the price", so I will ask a 3rd time...what proof do you have to base this assumption on? In fact, if all houses were for sale, theirs would be the FIRST I would buy.

I think the new house is very well situated on that odd shaped lot. When you drive down the approach road into the cul-de-sac, you are looking at the FRONT of that house, not the side. I think that's a good thing.

The new owners did their due dilengence by satisifying all of the ARC requirements. Having done that, they do not need your approval. Get over yourself.

"There are race tract subdivisuion cracker box homes that are stucco with T-1-11 siding on gables and entry ways; strategic places, but those are basically inexpensive starter homes".

And should have stated that they are 30 - 40 years old or older. I don't even know if you can still get T-1-11 except maybe special order. No one uses it out here anymore for sure!

And speaking of crammed in, the tract homes I speak of by code have a minimum 10' founndation to foundation. On parallel homes when you figure in the overhangs, they are 6' apart. When I was a kid nailing off roof sheathing, we didn't bother climbing down and back up to the next house over, we simply jumped overhang to overhang. Crammed in there like sardines! Nothin' like hearing your neighbor fart!

just had to copy & paste these statements:

"The whole enclave is ostentatiously poorly designed. Very depressing. It's just another example of where a random collection of bumpouts, gables, and disconnected rooflines on postage stamps approved by a committee are considered to be "upscale" because so much money has been spent on that bad design. "
The whole development appears to be crammed into undersized lots to maximize builder profit on th eland investment.

this is an interesting statement from the OP, so I will go ahead and quote it:
"....complaining about issues that can't be changed is childish"
How is this different then complaining about this house?

In fact, if all houses were for sale, theirs would be the FIRST I would buy.

Y'all are reading my mind...its uncanny!
I really hate threads with folks talking smack about
the neighbor's tacky house..one person's tacky
house is another's dream home...

best of luck OP.

How can the by-laws be rewritten without a vote from the HOA members??

good question...
one that we need to find out answer too

I would be more concerned with the water runoff in this development. It appears that most surfaces are taken up by rooflines and concrete....nowhere for water to be filtered.

"Never seen T-1-11 on any higher end home, at least where we are and where we are building."

T1-11 ran rampant in the mid 1970s around Northern Virginia.

There are MANY house in Reston Virginia with values over $500,000 with T1-11 siding.

Most of the infill houses around my much older house have T1-11 and they are easily pushing $850,000.
Some of the houses on the approach road by a different builder are more 'classic' designs using Hardi siding.

Interesting threat. I just read it while browsing. I would point out, LuAnn, that anyone can take any photo of anything visible in public and post it anywhere they want.