Review Board Issues Archives | Return to Home Page
November 18, 2006
Vienna's Historic District is a Metaphor for Corruption Comments (1)
People ask, "What is the problem with the historic district, there must be rules?" There are none. Here is the Town Code:
In its review of any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Windover Heights Board of Review, or the Council, on appeal, shall consider the following aspects of a building, accessory building, structure, fence or sign.1. Exterior architectural features, including all signs, which are subject to public view at any time of the year from a public street, way or place.
2. General design and arrangement.
3. Texture and material.
4. The relation to similar features of buildings, accessory buildings, structures, fences or signs in the immediate surroundings.
5. Harmony or incongruity with the old and historic aspect of the surroundings.
6. The extent to which historic places and areas of historic interest in the District will be preserved or protected.
7. Special public value because of architectural and other features which relate to the cultural and artistic heritage of the Town of Vienna.
That's it. No rules on what the materials should be. Nothing on what constitutes style. Nothing on color. No details as to what the historic places are. What are the 'areas of historic interest'? Unknown. The Town refuses to define the law. What are the architectural features that hold public value? What is the artistic heritage? Texture and material means what? All of this ambiguity allows Board members to make up the rules on the fly to reward buddies and punish enemies. On top of that, imagine trying to clarify these questions with the Chairman of the Review Board Steve Bukont only to be met with a four letter Freddy.
Perhaps you find this all cute and inconsequential? Well, if that is your view, be ready for this web site to skewer corrupt politicians like Laurie Cole every step of the way - until they change their ways.
October 23, 2006
Another One Bites the Dust Comments (1)
Becky Hartley has resigned from the Commercial Architectural Review Board. That means the Vienna Town Council now has to replace Dellinger and Hartley on the ARB. Brehony slid off the ARB in the summer. Who is left on the Commercial Architectural Review Board? The Larry, Moe, & Curly trio of Paul Layer, Laine Hyde and Shirley Damon. On top of that, they still can't replace Bukont on the Windover Heights Historic Review Board after 10 months.
Makes you wonder if the Town of Vienna government is held together with scotch tape and Krazy Glue - emphasis on 'crazy'.
And for all of you busy bodies out there looking to be on these asinine boards, remember that your video will be on this web site permanently as a testament to the fraud of it all.
However, if you would like to apply to the ARB and fill the two open spots, send your resume and financial statements to us first. Why here? We will obtain your resume and financial statements legally under the State of Virginia Freedom of Information Act, scan them and post here anyway...so it saves us all time.
Why would we do this? The Vienna government has a nasty habit of withholding information and has even attempted to ban video in violation of State law. This site holds them and their board puppets to the fire. Not like the old days of information control is it Maud?
So your move Maudie - send the next lamb to slaughter!
October 22, 2006
Straw Man Politics Comments (0)
What is one of the favorite retorts of those who know the historic district is wrong, but who still want to preserve it? This clever 'straw man' is regularly pulled out:
"Weren't some of the people suing the Town over the historic district in favor of it in 1979?"
That cute little misrepresentation, another example of the Chewbacca defense, ignores all of the accumulated evidence on this site: The boundary changes, the Council admissions of wrongdoing, the cursing barrages from Steve Bukont, the building of an office building in the historic district, the unequal enforcement, etc. The list goes on and is well documented.
August 01, 2006
Solatube Space Pods Approved in Historic District Comments (4)
Beam me up, Maud!
Tonight the Windover Heights Board of Review approved the addition of 16 "Solatube" skylight pods to the roof of the historic district's Japanese tea house. You can watch the presentation here of the historically accurate Solatubes in action. These will be especially useful homing beacons when E.T. returns to the historic district in 2057.
In all seriousness, no one can actually prove one way or the other whether houses in Vienna were covered in dozens of 'Solatubes' 100 years ago or not. Who knows. These pod tubes are, however, as historically accurate as anything else approved, right Mulder?
February 06, 2006
Affidavits Submitted to Council Comments (0)
Tonight (3) affidavits were submitted to Vienna Town Council attesting to Steve Bukont's exact language during his December 6, 2005 attack of Vienna citizens. Here is the video of tonight's presentation:
These affidavits were submitted in response to comments made by Laurie Cole, Maud Robinson and George Lovelace last week.
February 01, 2006
Break Down An Example Comments (1)
What is a good example of the abuse of power exerted by the Windover Heights Board of Review? Read these Minutes (PDF) from the Windover Heights Board of Review meeting of May 2, 2005. What is wrong with this seemingly innocuous document?
1. Board member Carey Sienicki refers to book "This was Vienna". This is not Vienna law.
2. Board member Steve Bukont refers to "color". This is not Vienna law.
3. Board member Shirley Damon refers to "color". This is not Vienna law.
4. Board member Ed Umbrell refers to "Greek revival". This is not Vienna law.
5. Board member Robert Petersen refers to "mass". This is not Vienna law.
Here is an excerpt from the end of the Minutes (listen MP3):
"Mr. Petersen asked Chairman Bukont to bring the Board up to date on what the possibility is that they may be able to have a survey done of the building in the Historic District as previously discussed last year. Chairman Bukont said that he has been advised by the Town Attorney that given there is pending litigation that involves this Board to wait for the resolution of that litigation saying the Town Council thought the ordinance was quite adequate as drafted."
We don't understand how Petersen can continue to serve on this Board, making decisions that affect people's lives, when he knows the Code lacks a survey. He obviously knows there is a problem, but doesn't follow through.
January 24, 2006
Resignations Pile Up Comments (0)
Since Spring 2003 the (5) member Windover Heights Board of Review has been a revolving door. Laine Hyde resigned under odd circumstances in 2003. Then Connie Stuntz resigned shortly after falsely claiming she owned property in Vienna. Then long time Chairman Tom Kamstra resigned shortly after lawsuits were filed seeking to have the District declared unconstitutional. John Scheib and Ed Umbrell also left the Board.
Now the current Chairman Steve Bukont has officially resigned via a letter to the Mayor. Bukont publicly declared his resignation (then rescinded it) on December 6, 2005 during his infamous f-bomb outburst. We expect our current investigation into conflicts of interest forced his "second" resignation dated January 13, 2006 - confirmed only today. This resignation appears to be permanent.
These resignations should raise alarming questions for Town leaders. How much taxpayer money will Maud Robinson blow to defend the fraud that is the Windover Heights Historic District? How many Historic Review Board members will be sacrificed in Robinson's feeble attempt to prop up a District about "nothing"? Leaders worth their salt solve problems. Real leaders do not bury their head in the sand and pretend its 1950.
January 03, 2006
Guess the "Historic" House? Comments (2)
This house was in the Windover Heights Historic District when it was created in 1979. It was torn down and a new house was built in its place. Here are (2) pictures of the structure that was demolished:
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Why is there no mention of this house in Vienna's history?
Let's take the guessing game a step further. Here are two groups of houses.
Group 1: House 1, House 2, House 3, House 4, House 5, House 6, House 7, House 8
Group 2: House 1, House 2, House 3, House 4, House 5, House 6, House 7, House 8
Can you guess which group is in the historic district? Group 1 houses are NOT in the Historic District. All houses in Group 2 are in the Windover Heights Historic District.
December 24, 2005
Do We Call This Leadership? Comments (3)
What a few weeks for the Vienna Town Council! First, their Historic Chairman blows a gasket and then the Council proposes to ban legal video taping and legal appeals. While we opined on the subject here, the Mayor was publicly questioned about these events on December 19th and here is the video:
The Mayor is not correct. The Town maintained audio is not the official minutes, but who cares about such a silly legalism? The Mayor just puts her head in the sand and hopes the District and Steve Bukont (Bukont house photo 1, 2, 3) will just go away. The questioning continues:
First she says the Council did not want to ban 'anything'. Fifteen seconds later she floats some inane story about reading a newspaper article that said it was fine to ban video. Why did she want to ban the video that she says she did not want to ban? Apparently cameras intimidate people who want to speak. Say what? Last we checked Vienna was the only jurisdiction in Fairfax County that refused to put their meetings on cable TV. Bottom line, we fully expect the video camera to intimidate dishonest people. The questioning continues:
Mayor Seeman, the Town tape you refer to is NOT the official minutes. You know it and we know it. Perhaps you might want to correct yourself. Sure does seem like a whole bunch of legal parsing doesn't it? Once again, here are the videos Mayor Seeman refused to watch:
Mayor Seeman knows full well these are the exact verbatim videos of the meeting in question. Any attempt to say the videos were altered is easily disproved by listening to the audio maintained by the Town. The Mayor can't see perfect correlation from the audio on this site and her Town tape? Nice spin Mayor.
December 22, 2005
A Picture Says a 1000 Words Comments (0)
A picture says a 1000 words. As Maud Robinson and Laine Hyde would say, "historic preservation at our finest!" We say: beautiful new 2004 house? Of course. Historic preservation? Give us a break!
December 19, 2005
The Mayor: Cover-Up, Damage Control & 'Spin' Comments (1)
The Mayor of Vienna now says that she refuses to watch the video of Windover Heights Board of Review Chairman Steve Bukont here. She said that she listened to the audio tape maintained by the Town and heard no problems. She said she would not watch video on this site because it is not official. Say what? It's the only video that exists since the Town purposefully keeps all of their meetings from being broadcast on cable TV.
By the Mayor's backward logic, if Chairman Bukont had physically assaulted another citizen in his capacity as Chairman and it was caught on video not maintained by the Town, the Mayor would not view it. How would the Mayor like it if Bukont yelled f-bombs at a member of her family?
Amazingly, even though multiple unconnected eyewitnesses, including female Town staff, saw and heard Bukont launch his obscenity tirade, the Mayor of Vienna covers it up. The Watergate break-in was a crime, but it was the shenanigans that came after (cover-up) that sank a President and exposed corruption.
The Mayor of Vienna might refuse to watch the video of her Chairman verbally attacking other citizens, but the web logs for this web site show clearly the people of Vienna are watching!
December 16, 2005
Neighbor Feedback Ain't Pretty Comments (0)
Our posts on Chairman Steve Bukont have struck a chord as evidenced by this comment. In an effort to make sure it is well read, here is the anonymous post received today repeated and verbatim:
***
Dear Mayor Seeman:
A few questions for you:
- Why does the Town of Vienna allow resident Steve Bukont to operate his two multi-million dollar construction companies, Ayr Hill Homes and BFR Construction, out of his home in a residential neighborhood in violation of Town Home Occupancy Permit Regulations? We would be happy to enumerate and document these violations here on this website, incuding video of his clients, employees, and subcontractors visiting his home businesses throughout the day, week after week, without appointment; and his distributed storage of construction equipment and materials throughout the neighborhoods on residential properties he controls but which are not under development.
- Why has the Town of Vienna enlisted Steve Bukont (is he a licensed architect in the state of Virginia?) who is reknown for over-the-top "flights of fancy", to define the reconstuction of our Town center? Do Town residents really want their Town center to become a creeping Bukontville of pedestrian unfriendly, high-maintenance, fake Victorian, 'what is that for?' storefronts?
- Why has the Town of Vienna appointed Steve Bukont to chair a town board presiding over Town development and contruction regulation despite the obvious conflicts of interest with his private construction business activity within the Town and the now well-known fact that Steve Bukont is emotionally ill-equipped for public service?
- How many Town employees including close relatives such as [edit], have purchased a home from Steve Bukont or have had private business dealings with his companies?
- The Town is destined for long-term redevelopment. When will the Town establish and enforce firm, fair, and clear regulations to manage this growth, and not leave it to the subjective sentimental longing of a few for all things old and Victorian, and to whichever developer or applicant who has the most friends in the Town government or lays claim to the most Town boards?
- Do you intend to post Town police in Town meetings to intimidate legitimate free speech by Town residents, and will that matter here?
Feel free to post your reply here on this website or in the Town Newsletter.
Steve Bukont's Neighbors
December 05, 2005
Shirley Damon: The Town House View Comments (0)
Shirley Damon, a long-time political activist in Vienna, is on the Windover Heights Board of Review. She also Chairs the Town of Vienna Commercial Architectural Review Board. At the 2004 Windover Heights Board of Review meeting for this now finished house Shirley Damon said:
To the average person it probably sounds like Damon was making some form of an intelligent comment (maybe not). Unfortunately, nothing Damon said was grounded in law. She made it all up on the fly. Here is the now completed house that apparently "confused" Damon:
Click to Enlarge
Can you imagine being the property owner before Damon, knowing that she can stop your new home from being built, and hearing that you need to, "try and determine what you want" when presenting the above house? What in blazes was Damon rambling about? Does Shirley Damon have any residential or commercial architectural expertise or is she just a political crony?
Since Shirley Damon appears to hold herself out as an architectural expert on the video, we decided to investigate what type of house she lives in at 259 Commons Drive, NW in Vienna, Virginia. Damon resides at this Vienna town house complex (her town house is in yellow):
Shirley Damon Town House Residence
Here are aerial views of Damon's town house: View 1, View 2 and View 3. It appears Mrs. Damon has a problem with citizens of Vienna building nice, new homes, but apparently town houses are fine with her. Sadly, none of this is funny as Damon has no problem trampling the rights of both residential and commercial property owners through her "interpretations" of Town ordinances.
December 02, 2005
On Court Battles: "This Isn't Europe" Comments (1)
Developer and Review Board Chairman Steve Bukont during a 2004 Town Council work session regarding the new house at 315 Windover Avenue offered candid wisdom:
Video Part 1:
Video Part 2:
Don't be fooled by Robinson's propaganda about protecting "property rights". Robinson fails to mention that there are NO rules. Bottom line: Maud Robinson is against your property rights. The evidence is clear.
Steve Bukont - Multi-Millionaire Vienna Developer
Steve Bukont and anti-property rights advocate Maud Robinson
November 26, 2005
How Do the Rules Work? Comments (0)
Recently Laurie Cole was asked at a Town Council meeting:
"Mrs. Cole, you brought up the idea of natural wood...As you're sitting up here tonight — all seven of you — how do you determine whether or not natural wood is more appropriate versus painted green or painted red? How do you determine one is better than the other, one is more appropriate, one is more historic? How is that determined?"
Town Council members were instructed not to answer by the Town Attorney. Why did he do this? Three cheers for open and honest government! Does it make any sense that this Town Council can't legislatively fix their laws? Why do they need to waste tax dollars to defend lawsuits on laws they already know are broken? Why not just fix the problem?
Time to Resign Comments (0)
One of the applicants at the May 4, 2004 Windover Heights Board of Review meeting was required to pay a special $15000 bond -- a first for the Windover Heights Historic District (WHHD). He was forced to do this since he was appearing for approval for a project already completed. The bond was the Town's "insurance" in case the Board did not approve the construction already completed. While that part of the story is interesting, the real story of the night was once again Board Chairman Steve Bukont.
This particular application caused an energetic debate between the Chair Steve Bukont and another Town citizen. This debate extended for nearly 30 minutes. During the debate, Mr. Bukont was the only member of the Board to speak.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bukont was less that forthright during the evening. After he vigorously defended both the District and this particular application, he then abstained during the vote citing a conflict. If Mr. Bukont had a conflict he should have recused himself from the beginning just as it is done at other Town meetings. Instead he led the discussion and influenced the vote only to back out when it was his turn to vote. This was flat out wrong.
Mr. Bukont said his conflict was due to a business relationship with both the builder and engineer of the applicant's project. Interestingly, it was later determined that Mr. Bukont had voted affirmatively for 5 past applications in the WHHD district where this same builder and engineer were involved. He did not recuse himself then. What changed now? We seriously doubt the three new Board members were aware of these 5 other votes.
Having a builder Chair a political body like the WHBR is wrong. Especially a builder with such close economic ties to Town Council members and Town staff. The Town would be well advised to do the right thing and ask for Mr. Bukont's resignation. It's one thing to be a builder, but his purely political actions of that night were a gross conflict of interest and present an image of back room dealing and an un-even playing field.
Watch this video to see the conflict in action.
November 25, 2005
Color Confusion Comments (0)
The Windover Heights Board of Review voted unanimously to deny a new fence on April 1, 2003. The Board determined that while NO mention of color or landscaping is in the Windover Heights Historic District ordinance, they could still ask the property owner for such information. The property owner refused and the Board voted against the application. The Council upheld their review board's decision and now the case is pending in court.
If the property owner had given a color and had received approval he could have changed the fence color the next day WITHOUT Board approval. While the Board was very opinionated about their right to ask for color for the new fence, they REFUSED comment when asked if the owner could paint the fence a new color the next day without approval.
Interestingly, as far back as 1981, color was not an issue:
“I would like to clarify what is meant by the requirement that you consult regarding colors. The Board has no real authority to disapprove your color choices…”
Charles Sloan, 1981
The Town Zoning Administrator offers a different tune in 2003:
"It may not make sense to have a house with purple polka dots and a chartreuse base."
Vienna Director of Planning and Zoning, 2003
If this statement was true, then why legally was this house in the Historic District painted chartreuse in 2005?
Click to See Large Image
To top it all off consider this Spring 2005 gem from Maud Robinson:
"…we might consider what Mr. Haight could have done and no one could have stopped him. If he had on a whim or flight of whimsy decided to paint that house in red and orange stripes, he could have done it and there is nothing in the code that says he could not have done it."
Does any of this make any sense? None of it makes any sense. It is illegal.
Another Review Board Denial Comments (0)
Recently in 2005 the Windover Heights Historic District's Board of Review denied another citizen's request to build. The citizen who was denied by the review board then appealed to the Vienna Town Council. At the appeal he stated:
"I guess I was really unable to find any kind of objective criteria here. I am sure the Council will agree with me that the ordinance does need to have some specificity…. Suffice it to say I thought it was pretty vague for me at least."
Don't take his words lightly. He just happens to be a zoning attorney. The Council ruled against their review board creating yet another inconsistency in the ongoing disaster that is the Windover Heights Historic District.
Mayor Jane Seeman Voted Against the Appeal
More from Seeman from 2004:
"Referring to questions of possible vagueness of the historic district ordinance, Seeman said, "If we need to appoint a committee to look at the guidelines, then that's what we should do."
315 Windover Avenue & Frank Lillis Comments (0)
Joanna Franco authored this piece for The Connection on August 18, 2004:
"If any consensus was reached Monday night, it was that the ordinance for the Windover Heights Historic District should undergo a review of its own. The Vienna Town Council upheld Monday evening the decision by the Windover Heights Board of Review, to grant a certificate of appropriateness to Sagatov Associates to build a 4,800-square-foot home in the Windover Heights Historic District, at 315 Windover Ave., N.W. Yet the approval wasn't unanimous, with the vote being 4 to 3 in favor of granting the certificate. Council members Edythe Kelleher, Mike Polychrones, Sydney Verinder and Vienna mayor Jane Seeman voted to uphold the ruling by the Windover Heights Board of Review, while Council members Laurie Cole, George Lovelace and Maud Robinson voted against it. The tally mirrored an earlier, July 26 vote on the issue, with the exception of Verinder, who had been absent from that meeting. "The house is in compliance with everything," said Polychrones, one of the members voting in favor of the applicant. Lovelace disagreed, arguing that the current proposed design of having a large garage and house on the same visual plane created the appearance of house incongruous with the scale of its smaller lot. "If [the house] was properly modified, it would be compatible," Lovelace said as he cast a dissenting vote. THE PROJECT submitted by Lou Sagatov's Arlington-based firm came before the Council because of an appeal by the Lillises, who live next door to the proposed house. Because the project was in the Windover Heights Historic District, it needed to be in compliance with the stricter guidelines for the historic district in regards to scale, congruence with immediate surroundings, and preservation of the historic character of the northwest neighborhood. The Lillises had appealed the decision by the Windover Heights Board of Review, which provided permission for the project to proceed, because they had said they thought the project wasn't in scale with its surroundings. Particularly of concern to them was that the proposed house wasn't in scale with the two ramblers located on either side of 315 Windover Ave. The Lillises occupy one of the ramblers. But at the July 26 meeting, the Council voted 3 to 3 on the appeal, disagreeing on whether the application was indeed incongruous with the neighborhood. "I think something that is troubling here, there is no sense of openness," said Councilwoman Maud Robinson at the July meeting, who had voted in favor of the Lillises' appeal and against the applicant. The same concerns came up again as the Council addressed the issue on Aug. 16, as some Council members felt the applicant had met all the requirements of the ordinance for the historic district, while others thought the application was not complying with the requirement for appropriate scale to its surroundings. Although the Council had met with the Windover Heights Board of Review during a work session prior to that evening's meeting to gain insight on the Board's decision, the Council remained split on the proposed project as well as how the ordinance for the historic district should be interpreted. "My decision is, the house is out of scale to its own lot," Robinson said. Of the ordinance, Councilman Sydney Verinder said: "I do believe if there are inefficiencies ... the burden is on the town and not the applicant." While a consensus couldn't be reached, both sides agreed that the ordinance for the historic district needed to be addressed at a future work session, particularly examining whether the ordinance is vague and needs modification. "If we care about the historic district, let's ... move something" forward, said Robinson on the work session, adding that the input of Vienna residents needed to be included. That discussion on the relevance of the historic district has been discussed for over a year, as several residents had approached the town to remove their five properties from the historic district. Although both the town Planning Commission and the Town Council voted unanimously for the properties to stay within the district, the town is currently in a lawsuit with the applicants on the decision."
November 23, 2005
Charles Sloan is Wrong Comments (0)
In 1999 while lobbying to have a house denied in front of the Windover Heights Board of Review, Chuck Sloan stated:
"This board approved the Anderson application I guess it was last year. Look at the Anderson house. Look at the characteristics that it picks up. If you look at that house closely you can see a lot of features that are repeated throughout the neighborhood. Turrets, the shingles, but look at this house that you are looking at tonight. It is totally unique as Mr. Lillis says - that much mass in the roof - there is not style to that house. It is a hodge podge design. It is southern living and we don't have southern living here. We have a lot of eclectic houses that give a lot of vibrancy to this neighborhood, but we don't have massive houses that look like this that pick up nothing of anything around that neighborhood. Any house you consider must have scale with the other houses in the neighborhood. Like the Anderson house this particular location is critical to the District because it is a very prominent corner. It is a very, very important piece of property. The scale of this house is wrong. Its overpowering. Its massive. Its hodge podge"
Mr. Sloan was dead wrong. The Anderson house never received any review. Unfortunately for the man Sloan was lobbying against, he never got his house. Sloan used fraudulent information to sway the vote.
Some people ask, "why would anyone want to leave the historic district?" The real question to ask: "Who would ever want to subject their property rights to such childish nonsense?"
Emil Attanasi former Chairman of Planning Commission Comments (0)
As far back as 1991, there were known problems with the Vienna Historic District by Town Officials. Emil Attanasi, Chairman Planning Commission, stated in 1991:
"The Review Board should have standards by which it can make judgements so that personalities are not an issue and homeowners know what to expect."
In 1992 Attanasi, while Chair of the Planning Commission writes to the Vienna Town Council:
"While the minutes of the Commission reflect issues discussed and positions taken by individual Commissioners, there was a general consensus that the new Board must either be given standards or develop a formal set of features of new construction or modifications are appropriate for the District. Homeowners in the District still have not been given guidelines that indicate either the historical period or nature of architecture that is to be preserved in the District. One Commissioner suggested that the Council charge the new board with the development of such standards as its first order of business."
Guess what? None of this was ever done.
7 years later, Fred Skaer serving on the Windover Heights Board of Review denied a man the ability to build his dream home by stating:
"One of the challenges in harmonizing with the neighborhood is there are a number of properties that post date the period of historical significance, but predate the ordinance. So you do get a variety of colonial styles or belong on a plantation down south somewhere and others that are very much what was in vogue in the 1960's. So it is tough to say what harmonizes and what doesn't. I feel like other styles would fit much better with the neighborhood, but where we as a Board should draw the line I am having a tough time with that. Tonight's discussion has helped a little, but not a whole lot."
To this day, we have no idea what Skaer was talking about, but he surely ignored Attanasi's wisdom.
Fairfax County Architectural Review Comments (0)
Fairfax County tackles head on the problems with subjective tastes:
"The ARB review process does not rely on individual member's "taste." Rather, the underlying principle is to protect and enhance those properties and neighborhoods that have been designated as Historic Overlay Districts by the Board of Supervisors. To do this in an objective way, the ARB has adopted guidelines that they follow to determine the appropriateness of new construction or other changes that they are asked to consider."
Vienna on the other hand does no such thing. Frank Lillis has stated clearly that Vienna's ordinance is "very subjective".
November 22, 2005
BFR Construction and Ayr Hill Homes Comments (1)
Listen to Bukont avoid the hard questions.
Steve Bukont is the owner of BFR Construction and Ayr Hill Homes. Bukont is also the Chairman of the Windover Heights Historic District. While Bukont the home builder has made millions off of a cozy relationship with the Vienna Town Council (he has built many of their homes too), many question his clear conflict of interest in serving as Chairman of the Historic Review Board.
Does it make sense that Chairman Bukont, through his arbitrary review board decisions, actively works to deny other citizens the right to build? Would he ever tolerate the lack of rules he forces on his neighbors? Watch this video to see the conflict in action.
Consider the 'evolving' opinions of Mr. Bukont:
August 16, 2004:
"Board chairman Steve Bukont said town officials should clarify building design and size rules for the district, or possibly face property-rights suits in court. "A right regulated is a right denied," he said. "We'd better have our ducks in a row [for lawsuits]."
October 19, 2005:
Steve Bukont, chairman of the Windover Heights Board of Review, got up and defended the district, saying that when he moved to Vienna 17 years ago, he was "amazed that there was this one part of town that was radically different." Bukont said much of the neighborhood is as it was 100 years ago, and he pointed out that, although residents have to go through an "additional step" to modify their houses, they also have the benefit of protection to the value of their homes.
Why the shift in Bukont in one year?
Bukont knows full well that the Windover Heights Historic District prevents "value" in many cases. Many of the homes today, viewed by any measure as teardowns, are steering clear of redevelopment to avoid going before Bukont's review board. How does that protect value? Why does Mr. Bukont's neighborhood which has no review board look better than the so-called District?
