A neighbor of mine got a Stop Work order on their garage. It’s got a small occupiable space above, so it’s taller than the house. Our zoning area doesn’t allow an accessory building to be taller than the main dwelling. I walked by the house this weekend and look what has suddenly appeared…
So now *technically* the garage roof isn’t higher than the house roof. I LOVE this.
Anyone have other examples of saying $&?! the rules?
Haha, that'll show 'em! Around here, most zoning ordinances say that things like chimneys and cupolas don't count toward the building height, mainly so they don't count against the maximum allowable building height but it would also be applied in a case like this.
I've been involved with a few projects, especially on Nantucket, where demolition and reconstruction was not allowed but renovating existing buildings was allowed. So we would leave one or two walls standing, demolish the rest of the building, excavate and pour new foundations, and frame new buildings, leaving the existing walls in place. Then once it was closed in we would reframe the original walls from the interior, then replace the siding and patch sheathing as necessary. Maybe a few of the original boards made it through to the finished project, and labor costs were tens of thousands of dollars higher than necessary, but it apparently fooled the people who needed to be fooled.
I've seen that, and maybe done it, too, Wood Guy. There was an existing garage that didn't meet setback restrictions but by leaving the studs of the two back corner existing walls the new garage was able to be built on the existing foundation, or at least what was left of it after we beefed it up to support the new two-story structure.
My old boss got away with this for years by keeping the chimneys only. Eventually the city caught on to him and there's some value calculation that triggers permit requirements or some such (I no longer do SFH).
I get this question a lot. In my jurisdiction you have to leave 20% (by valuation) of the existing structure in order to rebuild a non-conforming structure. With the cost of concrete in my area leaving the slabs and foundation walls is usually 20% of the value. So far I've only had one person take me up on that, most opt to just build it conforming.
I did a house a bunch of years ago that utilized this renovation vs new construction loophole. We specifically retained one wall of a demolished home to qualify .... and then during construction a work crew tore that wall down anyway without prior authorization. So the contractor went out there and rebuilt it before the inspectors noticed. Only they had already dumped the original demo'd materials, so he rebuilt it out of new stuff lol.
The project I'm working crazy hours on right now is a Fire / EMS station in a mountain town. The mountain town has crazy, ambiguous rules for new buildings that the town council will interpret in whatever way suites their mood. In the last couple of weeks of DD the town council made a bunch of changes to the zoning requirements such as
requiring geothermal
requiring PVs
requiring the adoption of new energy code
requiring all EMS vehicles be electric
banning the use of natural gas
The project owner (the fire department) got around all of this by telling the town to pound sand. They then moved the project out of the town (literally the next plot of land over, about 300'). The town said they wouldn't extend sewer if the project moved. The owner told them to pound more sand and used an on site septic system.
Isn't the Town Council also the client? It seems weird that there's a recognized need for an ems station, but it can also be located outside of the client's jurisdiction? How does that work? America still seems like the wild west from here.
welcome to the ski resort guilt governing - too much money from tourism and second (and beyond) homeowners, too many intelligent and concerned environmentalist citizens, extreme guilt over waste of resources and the rules become as extreme as the guilt.
BB - the town council isn't the client though. The fire department got their own funding for the project an the town is contributing NOTHING. You'd think the town council would view this as a 'town' project and be willing to work with the fire department but no.
Jonathan - that's what the fire department thought as well. The town council wasn't willing to compromise and brought out legal an political repercussions if fire didn't cooperate.
JCL-1 - this town also informed us that their water system couldn't handle the sprinkler system for the project due to age and condition. Yet the town council approved several million dollars (due to an excess of sales tax money) to buy the entire police department Tesla's. Did I mention that the police still has their gas vehicles on only use the EV's 'in town'. Yeah.
One more interesting thing about the town council on this project. One member, who shale remain nameless, likes to perpetuate the idea that he / she is an experienced environmental scientist who's and expert in sustainability with a PHD. The thing is he / she has a PHD in literature. The majority of their 'expert research' is just opinions with no actual scientific data to support their claims.
What do you mean no architectural experience? They all subscribe to the digest for their coffee table. They watch HGTV, and they could have been architects if they could draw math.
A friend once had one where the setbacks only left a tiny buildable area, but there was very vague language on what projections were allowed, so he designed a half basement within the setbacks with the first floor cantilevered out in all 4 directions. He did end up in court over it, but the judge ruled in his favor in the end.
I actually keep my eyes open for lots that are cheap because everyone else thinks they're "unbuildable" but I see possibilities. If I ever do build my own house, it's likely to be on one of these lots.
look at auctions, we had a "client" years ago who bought a title at auction for an unbuildable lot that was a remnant of a condo subdivision, more than 30 years later. He fought tooth and nails and ended up selling the rights to the hoa for a hefty sum.
I don’t think I’ve worked on a single project where we haven’t had to go through zoning appeals. Some places are much more egregious than others - especially the ones where everything in the neighborhood is non-conforming.
Feb 13, 24 10:38 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Screw the rules!
A neighbor of mine got a Stop Work order on their garage. It’s got a small occupiable space above, so it’s taller than the house. Our zoning area doesn’t allow an accessory building to be taller than the main dwelling. I walked by the house this weekend and look what has suddenly appeared…
So now *technically* the garage roof isn’t higher than the house roof. I LOVE this.
Anyone have other examples of saying $&?! the rules?
Surely we've all heard of spite houses
Spite Houses on wiki
Also I love the topic!
Ooh I really want to see floor plans of the Richardson Spite House, five feet wide and four stories tall!
OMG found them!
Not to be confused with spite-stores from curb your enthusiasm.
Haha, that'll show 'em! Around here, most zoning ordinances say that things like chimneys and cupolas don't count toward the building height, mainly so they don't count against the maximum allowable building height but it would also be applied in a case like this.
I've been involved with a few projects, especially on Nantucket, where demolition and reconstruction was not allowed but renovating existing buildings was allowed. So we would leave one or two walls standing, demolish the rest of the building, excavate and pour new foundations, and frame new buildings, leaving the existing walls in place. Then once it was closed in we would reframe the original walls from the interior, then replace the siding and patch sheathing as necessary. Maybe a few of the original boards made it through to the finished project, and labor costs were tens of thousands of dollars higher than necessary, but it apparently fooled the people who needed to be fooled.
I've seen that, and maybe done it, too, Wood Guy. There was an existing garage that didn't meet setback restrictions but by leaving the studs of the two back corner existing walls the new garage was able to be built on the existing foundation, or at least what was left of it after we beefed it up to support the new two-story structure.
My old boss got away with this for years by keeping the chimneys only. Eventually the city caught on to him and there's some value calculation that triggers permit requirements or some such (I no longer do SFH).
I get this question a lot. In my jurisdiction you have to leave 20% (by valuation) of the existing structure in order to rebuild a non-conforming structure. With the cost of concrete in my area leaving the slabs and foundation walls is usually 20% of the value. So far I've only had one person take me up on that, most opt to just build it conforming.
Around here, most jurisdictions require keeping 50%, by value, of the existing structure.
I did a house a bunch of years ago that utilized this renovation vs new construction loophole. We specifically retained one wall of a demolished home to qualify .... and then during construction a work crew tore that wall down anyway without prior authorization. So the contractor went out there and rebuilt it before the inspectors noticed. Only they had already dumped the original demo'd materials, so he rebuilt it out of new stuff lol.
The project I'm working crazy hours on right now is a Fire / EMS station in a mountain town. The mountain town has crazy, ambiguous rules for new buildings that the town council will interpret in whatever way suites their mood. In the last couple of weeks of DD the town council made a bunch of changes to the zoning requirements such as
The project owner (the fire department) got around all of this by telling the town to pound sand. They then moved the project out of the town (literally the next plot of land over, about 300'). The town said they wouldn't extend sewer if the project moved. The owner told them to pound more sand and used an on site septic system.
Isn't the Town Council also the client? It seems weird that there's a recognized need for an ems station, but it can also be located outside of the client's jurisdiction? How does that work? America still seems like the wild west from here.
Electric only EMS vehicles seems like a big liability. Usually Fire overrules zoning in my experience. Life safety being a bigger concern.
welcome to the ski resort guilt governing - too much money from tourism and second (and beyond) homeowners, too many intelligent and concerned environmentalist citizens, extreme guilt over waste of resources and the rules become as extreme as the guilt.
BB - the town council isn't the client though. The fire department got their own funding for the project an the town is contributing NOTHING. You'd think the town council would view this as a 'town' project and be willing to work with the fire department but no.
Jonathan - that's what the fire department thought as well. The town council wasn't willing to compromise and brought out legal an political repercussions if fire didn't cooperate.
JCL-1 - this town also informed us that their water system couldn't handle the sprinkler system for the project due to age and condition. Yet the town council approved several million dollars (due to an excess of sales tax money) to buy the entire police department Tesla's. Did I mention that the police still has their gas vehicles on only use the EV's 'in town'. Yeah.
Uhhhh.... Doesn't the Town fund the firefighters? If not, where do they get their funding?
Don't you guys know, in 'murica you gotta pay the firefighters yourself to put out the fire... it's the healthcare model.
One more interesting thing about the town council on this project. One member, who shale remain nameless, likes to perpetuate the idea that he / she is an experienced environmental scientist who's and expert in sustainability with a PHD. The thing is he / she has a PHD in literature. The majority of their 'expert research' is just opinions with no actual scientific data to support their claims.
bb, the county funds the fire depts. around here, property taxes mostly.
chad, you're lucky there's not a landscape architect in the council.
I wouldn't mind it if anyone with design or construction experience was on the town council.
What do you mean no architectural experience? They all subscribe to the digest for their coffee table. They watch HGTV, and they could have been architects if they could draw math.
i know, that's why I said landscape architect....
A friend once had one where the setbacks only left a tiny buildable area, but there was very vague language on what projections were allowed, so he designed a half basement within the setbacks with the first floor cantilevered out in all 4 directions. He did end up in court over it, but the judge ruled in his favor in the end.
I actually keep my eyes open for lots that are cheap because everyone else thinks they're "unbuildable" but I see possibilities. If I ever do build my own house, it's likely to be on one of these lots.
look at auctions, we had a "client" years ago who bought a title at auction for an unbuildable lot that was a remnant of a condo subdivision, more than 30 years later. He fought tooth and nails and ended up selling the rights to the hoa for a hefty sum.
I don’t think I’ve worked on a single project where we haven’t had to go through zoning appeals. Some places are much more egregious than others - especially the ones where everything in the neighborhood is non-conforming.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.