But seriously, I would first try to work within the existing maximum footprint, reshuffling functions, rooms or spaces, maybe there is something to be won like that by transformation rather than addition...Although you probably thought of that already.

Touche. Especially since I'm a designer and not an architect ;-)

My backup plan is to look at the interior, but it's not a big place--they would have to give up most of their living space. They have been asking me about this for over a year and every time I say they can't do it. It's getting to the point where they have to do something so I told them I'd look into it more closely. By that, I mean crowd source some ideas. 

Maybe take cues from tiny houses with regards to space saving methods and integrate the elements of the "bedroom" into the larger spaces. Things like manually lowered Murphy beds would be out, but perhaps there are ways to have it such that the new "Bedroom" looks like a living room when it's not being used for sleeping.

That's a good idea, Pete.

I see it’s a br, never mind...

Maybe build a boathouse first, and then convert that to a livable unit after it’s been approved as an accessory structure?

Interesting idea. Boathouses are not common here but everyone has a dock. I don't think a new boathouse would be allowed but I'll look into it, thanks.

I'm a staunch environmentalist and support environmental protection, so I really don't like being caught in the middle on this. But it's a unique situation, being family and an heirloom home. If there is a silver lining to the current federal administration here, and our state's previous governor who was a proto-Trump, it's that our DEP is the weakest it's been in my career. Good idea to call on a land planning team--my projects are usually too small and simple for that, but I have worked with a couple of firms at my old job.

Good ideas, thank you. The owner suggested "medical hardship," which I don't think will work but it's worth asking. There is a garage on site that they recently shored up; I'm sure they would resist tearing it down, and while it's within the shoreland zone, it's not within the shoreland setback as the house is so I don't think it's a solution. But you're right about a preliminary meeting--I always try to get on AHJ's good side early on.

AS WG said - the house has a small footprint and the client has poor health that requires a main floor bedroom suite. I'm not certain a residential elevator would cost less than an addition. A decent residential elevator will run around $6K, not counting the additional work the foundation and structure. Typically you'll want to have some type of tube steel structure separate from the house structure for these types of retrofits.

It's a long-as-hell-shot, but maybe see if their insurance could help defer the cost.

An elevator is an interesting idea. I've used conventional ones but I haven't tried the new pneumatic ones yet. The house is pretty small and the existing stair is too narrow for a stair chair, which we just put in my mom's house for similar reasons. Price isn't a big issue; they just want to stay in their home as long as possible.

Thanks Pete. I don't know about rewarding, because they are kind of frustrating, entitled baby boomers, but they are family so I need to at least try. I'll post updates if we get anywhere.

You're a good man.

The old adage "Don't shit where you eat." comes to mind. Wood Guy also strikes me as someone who isn't much of a litigation type.

Using this as a human right issues is an insult to real human right issues.

No, it is not. Human rights includes many issues people face on a daily basis. By denying the ability to someone to live a relatively normal life is an infringement on that right - unless you provide other means to the person so could lead a normal life.

This is not a human rights issue. 

You cant say: "well, I'm too old to use stairs anymore, so I'll just build beyond the setback rules and anyone against this is impeding on my basic human rights."  

Again, saying so is dismissing real human rights issue.

So, you would confine them to a place where they no access to a bedroom or a washroom?

Either that or send them to a nursing home?

Or force them to build another house?

How do you think a judge would view that?

This is not confinement either. How dense are you? The individual is free to move houses. This is unfortunate, but zoning and enviro setbacks are not impediments on human rights.

You are the one that's "dense".

nope, it is you.

Ok apscradiales - please list the human rights in the United states, then list which one(s) you think are being violated in this situation.

Chad, some people tend to think any inconvenience is automatically a HR issue. I see this constantly when dealing with federal gov fit-up projects.

That's an interesting approach. I can get pretty worked up about actual human rights violations but I believe environmental protection is very important, and stake much of my career on it, so it wouldn't seem right for me to make a big stink about it. Nothing is preventing them from buying or building a perfectly good house that would work for them; they just don't want to leave the family property. That doesn't seem like a true hardship to me, considering what others have to face.

I'm still waiting for apscradiales . . .

We recently put one of those in my mom's house. Unfortunately the stairs in this house are very narrow so I don't think it would work. But I'll look more closely.

The variations in local zoning ordinances are always interesting, if you can dig deep enough to find them. I have not researched the specific requirements extensively yet but will keep an eye out for this kind of thing. Thanks!

Thanks. I'm not interested in lying or in using a sleezy lawyer. I am interested in legitimate work-arounds I may not have considered.

Thanks citizen, all good tips. The elevator may be the answer, if we can find a space for it. When I was younger I would often get the code officials to help me by playing dumb. Maybe I still can, thin white hair and all...

Maybe a glass elevator facing the water? ;O]

.

Looks like the tubes from Futurama.

Or just a "pro" if things get too stressful and you need some distraction.

as much as I "hate" lawyers, I also "love" them, a "pro" in cases of shit you want to happen in possibly "gray" areas, you need a "lawyer". A real douchbag, but a gem, he'll shit on your lake community as anti-old people, discrimatory, yadada, even get a dumbass journalist (they all are) on this subject. Bury them with Twitter hype, whatever...you become that millenial entitlted prick, but you WIN!

I'm not going to invoke bad karma by engaging a lawyer on this, but if I can't find a legitimate work-around I'll suggest it to my clients. (There are no Millenials involved--I'm solidly Gen X and my clients are Boomers.)

Gen X. respect (on my end, a real generation ;))