Editorial: Important lessons can be learned from Burns case against the Architectural Commission
We may never know the answer.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear resident Donald A. Burns' appeal of a federal lawsuit that claimed the Architectural Commission violated his constitutional rights when it denied him permission in 2016 to build a contemporary-style mansion on a North End lot he has since sold.
Can someone's First Amendment right of freedom of expression be violated by an architectural panel rejecting their chosen style of house design? Mr. Burns thought so when he filed suit in 2017, after the board vetoed his design, saying it would be “excessively dissimilar” to other homes in the neighborhood.
“Excessively dissimilar” is one of the standards that the board can use to reject any application, not just that of Mr. Burns. It's a tool that's been wielded to overhaul or kill projects that the board believes are not in harmony with the character of the overall neighborhood.
Whether that is good or not depends on whom you ask. While troublesome to designers and property owners, it has kept neighborhoods from becoming a mishmash of conflicting and unattractive styles; protected property values; and enhanced the cachet of the island.
If the case had been settled in Mr. Burns' favor, it would have turned the architectural board upside down and neutered most of its power. Still, to some observers, the board's decisions can occasionally seem capricious.
The high court's refusal to hear the case “validates this result and the work of the (town’s) specially qualified architectural review commission," said Jones Foster attorney Joanne O’Connor, whose firm represented Town Hall in the case.
It may be difficult for some to reach that conclusion, considering that the town's motion for recovery of its legal fees was denied by a lower court, which lends credence to the notion that Mr. Burns' case was sound. And the vibrant and lengthy dissenting opinion by a federal appeals judge in the case explored a variety of issues that could be fodder for future First Amendment cases.
Still, Mr. Burns took his case as far as it could go, which is his right. It's not surprising that the Supreme Court did not hear the case, considering the high court only accepts between 100 and 150 of the more than 7,000 that are submitted for review each year.
Mr. Burns was gracious in defeat, saying: “We are naturally disappointed in the final resolution of the case, but we respect the court's decision.”
While the non-decision keeps the status quo intact, the Architectural Commission can still learn lessons from this case. Board members have often asked for revisions to projects month after month after month, especially in the case of contemporary-style homes.
Repeated revisions can be costly and frustrating for property owners and their architects. Clear and concise directions for revisions are key. And sometimes, a quicker decision to reject a troublesome project may be best for all concerned.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Daily News: Decision leaves status quo in place
