Less than two years after he moved his family to a home in Burlington’s Hill Section — and retrofitted the garage into a musical instrument-making shop — Adam Buchwald is selling his South Prospect Street home.
A luthier by trade, Buchwald is bowing out of a battle with his neighbor that dates back to when he and his wife first purchased the spacious, colonial home near the University of Vermont. Barbara Headrick, who lives next door, has been trying to shutter Buchwald’s home-based business on grounds that the noise it generates has disturbed her peace.
What began as a zoning dispute has blossomed into a full-blown legal battle scheduled to come before the environmental division of the Vermont Superior Court in late May. But Buchwald, who’s said he expects the conflict to continue whether or not the court rules in his favor, isn’t waiting around. He has insisted all along that the machine sounds emanating from his insulated garage — if audible at all — are too minimal to be a nuisance.
A listing for the four-bedroom, four-bath house appeared on Zillow April 2. After a $40,000 price reduction, the asking price is now $799,000. The Buchwalds purchased the property for $766,000 in 2012.
Neither Headrick nor Buchwald responded to requests for comment.
Buchwald first received a “home occupation” permit from the Development Review Board (DRB) on September 10, 2012, which gave him permission to craft and repair instruments in half of the converted garage. Headrick fought that permit, and when she discovered Buchwald had begun using the whole garage — something he said he didn’t realize his permit precluded — she alerted code enforcement officials. Buchwald found himself back in front of the DRB, which subsequently granted him an amended permit on December 2, 2013 to use the entire garage for work purposes.
From the court’s perspective, it’s the city of Burlington, not Buchwald, that’s on the hook because, technically, Headrick is appealing the DRB’s decision to grant Buchwald an amended permit.
But the dispute quickly turned personal, and the “statement of questions” Headrick submitted to the court seems to suggest Buchwald intentionally flouted city zoning regulations. Acting on advice from friends, Buchwald said he reluctantly lawyered up.
The sound emanating — or not — from Buchwald’s garage is at the crux of the case. On April 1, Headrick secured the court’s permission to compel Buchwald to allow her and a sound engineer into the garage to conduct a series of sound tests using his machines. Explaining his decision, Judge Thomas Walsh wrote, “an analysis of the noise caused by Mr. Buchwald’s expansion activities as experienced from Ms. Headrick’s property may be relevant to the question of whether the expansion of Mr. Buchwald’s space will have adverse noise impacts on Ms. Headrick.”
(Seven Days conducted its own informal sound experiment while researching the story back in January. At that time, Headrick declined to let a reporter listen from her house.)
Headrick’s complaints, however, extend beyond decibel levels. Her “statement of questions” alludes to an alleged conflict of interest involving a city official and the DRB. Headrick also takes issue with the number of customers coming to Buchwald’s shop and suggests he had an employee, which would have been a violation of his permit.
Correction 04/28/14: The photo caption has been updated to indicate the correct location of Buchwald’s house.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Evidently this woman has nothing better to do. I am also afraid that with the publicity of this case that selling his home/shop will prove difficult for Buchwald because, after all, who’s going to want to live next to this neighbor?
I really hope someone who has an amp and electric guitar buys the place. This awful, useless woman causes herself as much misery as she does to others. But still, it would be nice to see her get some payback in the form of a really loud and obnoxious neighbor.
Damn Shame.
The woman has made more noise above and beyond the maximum allowable decibel level that she ought to move to the industrial section of town!
Out of curiosity could Seven Days report on the cost of this situation to the tax payers? Court time, city employees, code enforcement, etc , etc? Also I thought the constitution prevented “unreasonable searches and seizures”, and things like privacy: how could a judge compel this gentleman to allow another person, who is not law enforcement, on to and into his property??????
This sends a very sad message out to all those who are interested in creating home based businesses in State of Vermont.
What a shame. I agree with this guy, even if he wins in court he still has to live next to her. That will never be peaceful for him. This is the same woman who has complained for years about the buses on South Prospect Street. What will she complain about next?
What will this woman do if a family with children moves in? Will she complain about the noise of a crying newborn in the middle of the night? Will she bully children playing on the sidewalks? It is ridiculous that Burlington has allowed this to go on. It sounds like the city is allowing her to bully her neighbors and the city officials. She should be fined for wasting everyone’s time. My heart goes out to the Buchwald family!
I understand this story is a bit of an extreme example and the woman is not nearly as sympathetic a character as Mr. Buchwald. That said, zoning exists for a reason & unfortunately Mr. Buchwald is violating the zoning. If cities like South Burlington and Burlington didn’t roll over and play dead half the time by giving every developer or applicant whatever “variance” they want (thus rendering zoning law pointless), it might be different. Yet another example is the waiver of parking requirements at Mayor Weinberger’s Packard Lofts (referenced by another reader in letters to editor this week) that has negatively impacted quality of life and property values in that neighborhood. It’s unfortunately a slippery slope. Maybe Buchwald could keep his house for residential purposes, consistent with the zoning, and rent space in a commercial zoned part of the city for his music shop.
Seven Days should credit blogger Ted Cohen with breaking this story – 18 days before SD got to it.
FMI:
http://southprospectstreet.blogspot.com/20…
Unfortunately, Alicia Freese apparently has trouble writing an unbiased article. The zoning ordinance is clear:
“No home occupation shall create sounds, noise, dust, vibration, smell, smoke, heat, humidity, glare, radiation, electrical interference, fire hazard or any other hazard, nuisance or unsightliness which is discernible from any adjacent dwelling unit.”
The city officials and the DRB cannot decide that it okay for Buchwald to impose his machine noise on Headrick.
A commercial woodshop, even one as feel-goodie as a luthier shop, doesn’t belong in a residential neighborhood. Buchwald, who made his fortune in the financial sector, spend tens of thousands of dollars to install radiant heat and insulate in his garage, when he could have rented a space on Pine Street for much less money.
Buchwald, who bought his house for over $700,000 cash, raised close to $10,000 from dozens of dupes to help pay of his “legal expenses.” He represented himself pro se at the hearing. I hope he gives that money back.
Freese may have trouble hearing or her sound test may have been rigged by Buchwald, but the sound engineer heard and recorded sound from the wood shop from within Headrick’s house.
If any taxpayer money has been wasted it has been wasted by Buchwald, who, according to Code Enforcement documents, routinely violated the conditions of his permit, and requested to hold the recent hearing even though he is moving out of state and the permit is no longer needed. Judge Walsh wasted everyone’s time by refusing to stay the hearing pending the sale of the Buchwald property.