A freind of mine has his retirement/vacation cottage up on a river/lake /flowage in northern WI. The rules up there say that if your cottage is closer than 75′ to the water, you can only expand your place by 50% every two years. His place is less than 700sqft and he is getting close to retirement age so he wanted to start working on it.
He hired a local builder for his project and thought all was being done in the correct manner. The builder started the demo/rebuild and part of the project was a wall that was taken up by a large window. That wall had studs 24″ oc, no header, and rotting sheathing. He removed the window, added the studs where needed, added a header and re-sheathed with OSB.
The postman (postman!!) complained to his fellow gov’t workers that it looked like the construction was “all new”. The inspector came out and told the builder that he was no longer working on the original structure and now had to move the house 75′ off the water. By the way, the setback from the road is also 75′ and the entire lot is 155′ deep. . . . They also accused him of moving (physically moving) the house CLOSER to the water during the construction since they were also doing pier work below.
My friend is crushed right now – he feels like the locals are in a conspiracy against the vacationers. At least he had a cottage before, now he and his wife have nothing. As far as I can tell, his only recourse is to sue the builder. Does anyone else here have any thoughts or suggestings on this?
Replies
I would suggest going "postal" on somebody but that might be considered inciting a riot or something.
Ok, I'll suggest it. Find the postal worker and kill'em dead like the bugs they are.
I'd have him hire a GOOD lawyer, and then ignore the locals as long as possible. Make sure everything is photographically documented.
I think the idea of suing the builder is totally preposterous. Actually, you need the builder on your side. I would have a meeting with the builder and the city official and discuss the complete project, including the original intent and and details of waht work was done. Have the builder sit down and write a very complete summary of the work while his memory is still fresh, and be prepared to get a lawyer.
I'm sorry, I thought you wanted it done the right way.
Big DITTO on what Ed said, both your friend and builder were playing by the rules, if you don't have any pictures of how close the cottage was to the lake there a million arial photo's of his property somewhere, on the net, librarys, etc .. do some searching .. you can't do anything these days without there being some kind of documentation somewhere ..
Good point about aerial photos--I hear you can even get satellite imagery on the internet.
There is a satellite site available from Google Maps.....after getting to the main page, click the satellite option and then zero in on the location in question, you can scroll as required and the resolution is amazingly good. You should be able to find the location with ease....If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
isn't this what error and ommissions coverage is for? My thought was that they try that route and that he use the same builder to help cover the now larger expense of building in the new location.
I think he is talking to a lawyer, but I have a feeling that all that will happen is that my friend will use up his $ paying for the lawyer to battle the locals and the DNR. . . .
"the idea of suing the builder is totally preposterous."Not so. If the local rules are that only a licensed builder can pull the permits or do the work, and this "builder" is neither licensed nor permitted, that is a scenario that calls for possible action against the builder. overall, I agree that it is probably not the builder's fault, more a result of assumptions by busybodies - but we don't yet know enough to state that suing the builder is preposterous. There are places where it is the only way to get a remedy against a hack plunging blindly in and ignoring the rules.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Were any permits issued for the work?
Yes
Jim,
Patience my friend, don't pizz off anybody just yet. Keep your builder on your side and sit down and talk to everybody.. take notes except when you want to be "off" record.. There are times when it's called for, people get their backs all up and if you put down your pen and say, "off the record" positions soften somewhat.. Of course you're always on the record but that's when the negotiation begins..
Find out what you can and maybe the offical stops by a tavern after work and you can buy him a few rounds, (don't meet the next day if you get him drunk enough for a hangover) go into bars on rain days and start to talk to people small town people can have a whole set of prejudices that are easily dismissed with a few rounds.. Rain days is when the local contractors are willing to talk.. they'll tell you how to work the local system..
You may find out for example that the guy who finked is a competitor or has some other interest.. You may also find out that he cheats at cards or is too obnoxious at town baseball games, ... whatever,... I'd spend a little time getting to know the mayor and town council as well. If you come across as the friendly type who will be a real asset to the town they really can bend the rules to make you happy..
Once you've gathered all that you can data wise then go talk to the building offical...you may have bit of leverage and if you seem to be willing to compromise find a solution to this problem that won't cost you a lawyers fee..
I would have a tape recorder in my pocket once you get to a point where you believe negotations are possible..
All signs point to the locals being totally unreasonable
I am afraid that his back is up against the wall now.
Sure, a Lawyer is the way to go, but like I said, I am afraid that the only person that really benefits at the end of that is the lawyer.
I suppose he could write to his State Reps and the Gov?
First have him keep his cool.Start collection any documentation that he can about what was existing. That includes old photographs. If the property tax records has any details on the structure. Any recollections of people that have seen the old structure. The more distance the personal relationships the better, but whatever he can find. That includes any friends that have been their before. And any "suppliers". That include propane deliveriers, meter readers, and drivers for any construction supplies that delivered at the start.Also if there was a mortage survey map.And check for statelite photos to see if they show enough details. Start with google maps and the MS terea server (don't know the exact url). Now what they show free is not that detailed. But for a fee you can get more detailed pictures. Besides what is online you might need to contact them to see what the max resolution pics that are available. Ask them to refer you to other commercial sources that supplied satelite photos.Also look for arial photos. That will be much, much harder to track down. The couny might have some - try both public works and county tax office. Some place use aerial photos to track new contructs and additions for tax purpose.Likewise check with the state highway department and DNR.Look in the phone books in all of the major cities for aerial photo services and see if any had pics of that area.How he needs a "good old boy" in the area. Maybe an attorny, but maybe some current or former elected official. But some one who know the rules and also where all of the bodies are burried.
Jim,
Please trust me, I'm involved in exactly that sort of thing and the last resort should be to get all blustery and try to force your way. There are people who will listen to you and chances are that they are somebodies boss.. That or they know who to talk to and what needs to be done..
Frankly you're an outsider and you don't know the rules..
But imagine that you prevail and you lead with your wallet by hiring an attorney.. Imagine further that after thirty or 40 thousand dollars he wins.
Do you honestly think that's going to be the end of it?
What about inspections? Well, sewer, building, electrical, fire, and the countless others that they can pull on you.. do you for one second believe that every single law written has been conformed to?
There are easy ways to achieve what you want and there are hard ways, it really sounds like you're determined to find the hardest most expensive way..
Good luck..
Folks,<!----><!---->
Having live in rural areas and some not so rural with simular issues, it would seem to me that right now the issue is at least getting his 'cottage' back, expansion is an issue for another time. <!---->
As Bill H noted photo 'evidence' is likely your best bet to show what was there and where it was. I’m sure there are numerous pictures of the place, either in family albums (etc) or since it’s on the water – from others in the area who don’t have a vested interest, aerial photos of nearly every square inch are available, you just need to get the right ones.<!---->
In our community the city itself takes photos of all the waterfront places, generally for the tax issues, but it all becomes public record.<!---->
Don’t go nuclear (as the current saying goes) most folks who have found their ‘slice of heaven’ are reluctant to share it with just anybody, join the community and you’ll be surprised who things take on a different face.<!---->
Lots of good advise; so just don’t make the lawyers rich, deal with the reality of the community and you might just be surprised at the out come. Caveat emptor still runs deep.<!---->
If the locals are being the unreasonable ones, he should be suing them, not the builder. Going after the wrong guy will only make the problem worse.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
If you come across as the friendly type who will be a real asset to the town they really can bend the rules to make you happy..
Good point from Frenchy. The homeowner needs to make sure the city knows that he is nearing retirement and that he intends to make that his primary home, rather than a vacation home or fix & sell.
I'm sorry, I thought you wanted it done the right way.
The rules up there say that if your cottage is closer than 75' to the water, you can only expand your place by 50% every two years.
That is incorrect. A non-conforming structure can be expanded by 50% over the lifetime of the structure. So if your friend was planning on expanding every 2 years, he is/was screwed.
It is a state DNR regulation, The 75' from the road is a local regulation. My suggestion would be to find a builder who has navigated the regulations from the various agencies that will be involved. (This one sounds like he hasn't) They will know who to work with locally, and probably have run accross this situation before.
Barring that, I would suggest that your builder join the local builders association, and access the power of the state builders association. They are experienced with this type of stuff all over the state.
Definately follow the other advise about keeping cool, this is just the first shot in the battle.
Bowz
Not sure what to make about the point pertaining to new vs. old structure, but I can offer a bit of advice in pulling aerial/satellite shots.
Terraserver.com is the way to go -- the Microsoft site that consolidates about a dozen sets of imagery and topographical maps.
For a 700 sq ft structure, you're going to need a 1m resolution image or smaller. Somewhat unlikely if you're outside a metropolitan area but still possible. Run a free search on the site and see what's available. If a 1M, .75m or .625m resolution shows as available, you should be able to see the structure and placement provided there was no tree cover at the time the image was shot. You'll need to pay $9.95 for a one-week subscription to view the higher resolution images, but it may be worth it.
The subscription also gives you access to topographical maps. Useful in this case as most are seldom updated and can date back a decade or more. In most cases structures and placement of them are noted as part of topography. I used topo maps in determining locations of razed outbuildings on a farm I purchased recently. Aerial and satellite imagery was too recent, from the past 10 years, to pinpoint the locations but topography showed them.
Hope this helps -- and please advise your friend to be cordial in all dealings. Small town communities operate much differently than elsewhere - very closed. It's good to be seen as appreciative of local concerns and not trying to make the system bend to fit your own personal needs.
Terraserver can be really difficult to interpret in rural areas. A late friend of mine used to have a big place, seven acres with four major buildings and a pool, up in Topanga. I spent a few days screwing around with terraserver images and a GPS fix on the property, and never saw anything recognizable. The trees hid everything.
-- J.S.
Having built in some big cities like San Francisco and being a Wisconsin boy I can confidently say that rural WI is not a hardball state. There are reasons for there laws, some good and some bad, but I would go to the building department with the builder and state your case. I`ll bet with the proper concillitory and agrieved expression you`ll be able to work something out.
Jim,
As Bp quoted Bill ...."As Bill H noted photo 'evidence' is likely your best bet to show what was there and where it was. I’m sure there are numerous pictures of the place, either in family albums (etc) or since it’s on the water...."
If you go to Teraserver, http://www.terraserver.com/
you can get aerial imagery of anywhere in the U.S. by mouse clicks and zooming in. Usually it's a few years old, so that might be a good place to start.
The resolution is typically good enough to a few feet.
Jon
Jim - I've handled construction matters and litigation for 15+ years. I totally agree with what people are telling you. Keep "your" cool and try to resolve this amicably. There's something going on here that isn't being talked about. I'm not sure what it is, but an inspector doesn't see an old building as a new one, even if the old building has a new front window and they can sure recognize old footings and packed soil to determine if a building was moved. I sounds like somebody got under the inspector's skin somehow, and that's never a good thing.
We have people around here who are called "expeditors". For a small fee, they make sure you have the right papers and get them where they belong in a proper manner (presumably legally). They catch problems, get permits, etc. If there's no such class of person up there locally, try an architect or an engineer. If they are there all the time, they know who to talk to and what to say to get to the root of a problem.
Suing the builder is a bad idea based on what you've said. He didn't do anything wrong. If he has insurance, it's not going to cover this, and besides making an enemy out of an ally, it's going to take a few years and many dollars. If your friend wants to sue anyone, it should be the town/village, whatever... and I wouldn't undertake that too lightly either because "paybacks are a bitch".
Don
There's something going on here that isn't being talked about. I'm not sure what it is, but an inspector doesn't see an old building as a new one, even if the old building has a new front window and they can sure recognize old footings and packed soil to determine if a building was moved
Hammer,
What is going on is that Jim's friend is in violation of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Shoreland Zoning regulations. It is state law that is enforced by local zoning officials. He is not being targeted specifically, this happens to everyone, everywhere in the state.
I'll try to paraphrase as best I can remember, after having it explained to a group I was with last year, by someone who is involved legislatively at the state level.
There are a lot of old cottages and structures (boathouses) close to the waters edge. To preserve the beauty for all citizens who use the public waters, the law was written with the 75' rule. (no buildings closer than 75' to the waters edge) Those structures that violate the rule are grandfathered in, as long as they are a viable structure. ( have been taken care of) And they can be added on to by 50%, over the life of the building, if the addition is on the side away from the water.
One of the ways to define a structure as no longer viable is if both the walls and the foundation need repair. So when the inspector saw that both the walls and the foundation are being worked on, he can say that the "original structure" no longer exists. Hence the need to be 75' off the water.
Jim's buddy is on the wrong side of the law on this one.
But it doesn't mean he is totally screwed. My previous post refering to him being screwed was for the idea that he was going to get away with adding on every two years. That is one of the prime things the law was written to prohibit. Nobody using the public waters wants to look at a shack with a bunch of 2/12 shed roof additions goobered onto it.
Townships are not stupid. It would be idiotic to essentially remove a piece of property from the tax rolls by rendering it useless. So Jim's buddy is going to have to come up with a proposal and request a variance from a number of different authorities. He may be granted a variance to build within the 75' shoreland zoning. But the DNR is going to want something in return.
2 of the big negotiating points for Jim's buddy will be for him to update the septic system, and to knock down the boat house or any other structures near the shore if he has them. If he can't get the DNR waiver, the township would almost certainly grant a waiver towards the road.
I am guessing that he is really looking at having a new place built. Doesn't sound like the existing building is anything great to start with.
But he really needs to think about whether he wants to take this on by himself, or hire a design/build company to take care of it. They will know what can be done, where the compromises can be made in this situation, and have the connections to pull it off.
So he is not "getting screwed by the man".
Bowz
A tip for next time: Any time your facing a boundary issue it pays to consult with the powers-that-be, in whatever flavor there may be, before touching saw to wood.
General guidelines, like the 50% every two years rule which, as pointed out, may have been misunderstood and what passes for common sense is seldom adequate. Seemingly simple things like: 75' from a watercourse may not be as self explanatory as they seem. A lot of folks run into issues when the term wetland gets used loosely because by most standard it has little to do with what is wet now. It pays to find out from someone in authority what is meant in any particular case. And while your at it get this in writing.
Sounds to me someone failed check and get a ruling before construction was started. Followed by the second important step, permitting. Many permit offices will make sure your covered on the first point. Some will only nail you after the fact. A fine house well built to the highest standards and fully inspected. A shame it has to be bulldozed to meet ROW issues. A rare case but it is mostly up to the builder to complies and up to the HO to make sure he does.
Although it wasn't mentioned it sounds like the inspector was ticked off because the job wasn't permitted or approved and he is being unreasonable because he is mad. And possibly as a negotiating tactic. I wouldn't worry about the postman issue. That the defecation hit the ventilation after he tipped off the inspector shown that the job was not being done entirely above board. If it was word getting out wouldn't have mattered.
I wouldn't blame the postman. He may be friends with the inspector. He may also have issues with builders or feel some civic duty to report things. Either way in such areas secrets seldom remain secrets for long. That it got out earlier than later may save some trouble.
Where to go from here. I would suggest that the HO, builder, inspector and DEP or other officials sit down to find out exactly what was done or not done, what he actual rules are and calmly see if some compromise or understanding can be had. Remain calm and factual. If the meeting is not on site have drawings and photographs ready to show what was done and where it is in relation to any boundary. It would also help if someone in authority would mark on site where the line is officially so you can speak in common terms.
I would consider consulting a lawyer to get your side on paper, ask advice, and get a legal eagle up to speed on the on the situation but I would not bring him or his letterhead to any meeting. At least not initially. When a lawyer shows up the other side will feel the need to bring their own. People will get defensive and less willing to compromise or cut slack. Positions will solidify and become more difficult to shift. Only when all other paths have been tried should the lawyers be given full run.
You've all brought up good points and I admit that I may not have all of the facts at hand here.
The wife and I will probably have dinner with my friend and his wife in the next week or so. I will do my best to get a full list of facts to re-present.
the FSA (Farm Services Administration) office serving the area will have aerial photos of a resolution that will show buildings clearly -
"there's enough for everyone"
Well, for me, this is kinda a surreal thread. I'm a born/bred NE Wisconsonite. Moved outta here decades ago but Mom and her home are still here and so been trekking back here ever since. In fact, am here right now (she's 87 y/o and has some health issues.)
This area I'm in is a small town, with lots of waterfront surrounding it (lakes, rivers). Been dealing with vacationers owning property here, but live most the year outta town, forever - in one fashion or another it seems.
You wrote:
A freind of mine has his retirement/vacation cottage up on a river/lake /flowage in northern WI. The rules up there say that if your cottage is closer than 75' to the water, you can only expand your place by 50% every two years. His place is less than 700sqft and he is getting close to retirement age so he wanted to start working on it.
I wish you had mentioned how long your friend had owned this property and had been coming to vacation here/there...it might help clarify, by your answer, if he had made any "connections" with the locals - as that would go a long way towards resolving his current circumstances, IMHO.
He hired a local builder for his project and thought all was being done in the correct manner. The builder started the demo/rebuild and part of the project was a wall that was taken up by a large window. That wall had studs 24" oc, no header, and rotting sheathing. He removed the window, added the studs where needed, added a header and re-sheathed with OSB.
This sounds typical fixer upper work on existing structure...so far, so good.
The postman (postman!!) complained to his fellow gov't workers that it looked like the construction was "all new".
More'n likely the postman simply mentioned to whomever..."hey, so and so is working on such and such place..." and it was off to the races after that! (LOCAL scuttlebutt in small towns is always about who's doing what to what or to whom...)
The inspector came out and told the builder that he was no longer working on the original structure and now had to move the house 75' off the water.
Well there is your guy (gal?). THE inspector is just ONE person...who has a boss. That inspector's boss should/would be your friends' logical next point of contact - whomever that is in the local township/city. All the other advice about staying cool and handling things low key I agree with. The satellite photos is fine advice but really, in these places - everyone local already knows full well where the structure has been situated all these years, who lived/died there, who used to live there, what kinda parties they threw, how their kids turned out. Heck, whenever your friends vacationed there in the past, all the locals probably knew the day after they arrived and the day before they left each season! who ya kidding.
By the way, the setback from the road is also 75' and the entire lot is 155' deep. . . . They also accused him of moving (physically moving) the house CLOSER to the water during the construction since they were also doing pier work below.
Local records office and title of the property should already have very clear description of the location of the existing structure as it was before this renovation work began...and should be useful at verifying that nothing about the footprint's distance to waterfront has changed due to the new piers/fdn work...
My friend is crushed right now - he feels like the locals are in a conspiracy against the vacationers.
Well we are! LOL! They show up, drive property values up, what's to like about the seasonal vacationers hey? (now now...keep yer sense of humor ok?) Really, I'm sorry your friend is having a bad time, truly I am. But there shouldn't be much here that needs doing that cannot be done by some local elbow rubbing and cool headed discourse, with some documentation for backup. A good place to start would be your friend talking to his "local" builder...and asking his advice. Also, your friend talking to some of the friends he's made with locals (he HAS made friends with some of the locals hasn't he??? that's why I asked earlier about how long he's owned and/or used the property...to see if he's got some ties within/to "the locals" of his own already.)
At least he had a cottage before, now he and his wife have nothing.
HuH? I missed the part of this thread where you wrote the entire original structure was demolished...???
As far as I can tell, his only recourse is to sue the builder.
no no no...go back and reread all the other excellent advice above about keeping the builder, who's a local yokel, as his ally...
Does anyone else here have any thoughts or suggestings on thisY
Ya got folks from Oshkosh, Madison, and north of Green Bay piping in here. No idea where in N. WI your buddy's place is but if is ok for you to share the name of the town, pls do so. One of us may be nearer than ya know. Alternatively, use the "email this person" feature of this forum when ya click on our name/profile, and share the info that way...
Anecdote:
Friday nite fish fry is a huge tradition in mid-and northeastern WI. All the local bars and restaurants compete for reputation of having "the best". Perch is the standard fish utilized. Best beer batter, best fries, best slaw - all are the mainstays for "who's got the best fish fry". If your buddy doesn't know who's the reputed best fish fry in his new local, he ain't been there long enuf nor talked to enuf folks. And once he gets situated in spending any time at those locales, he'd be acting/living like one of the locals and talking amongst them, would find out how things actually get done in the local govt halls/biz.
Due to being in the NE WI area for issues with my Mom right now, I went out for friday nite fish fry tonite. And of COURSE know who's currently the undisputed local leader at having "the best"... Ran into High School classmates I've not seen in 20+ years...got caught up within 2 hours on who's working where, doing what, got x amt of kids, got married, got divorced, got promoted, now related to whom, bought what property, ran for and holds what office. But then, in a town of 11K people, a couple of hours is about all it takes to get caught up on the rundown. Unlike your friend, I'm a hometown gal so got an "in". He's gotta get an "in" either via his builder or from connections he's established in the area on his own - a friendly neighbor perchance? The real estate agent he purchased the property from? The closing atty? All these folks are options for him to approach and seek assistance from. And if/when he does, it should not be "on the offensive" but instead from the "I'm kinda in a pickle here and not sure I understand what I need to do next..." perspective.
Good luck.
Of all the things that I have lost, I miss my mind the most!
Wow- you didn't waste any words, eh? I too am hoping Jim can provide a more detailed locale. I know some folks up around the Chippewa Flowage area, and also over in the Spooner, Trego, Hayward areas. My folks still go to visit old friends in the Antigo area every summer. That was the only real family trip we made every year.
Not that it helps much, but someone might know the right person up yonder. Soo true the good ol' boy system works, but it also sometimes works against a person, especially if you're not on the good side of the system!
Hope we can get some more info!Quality, Craftsmanship, Detail
Cheesehead!
Yeah, I got friends... or relatives... or relatives of friends... up/down the East coast of WI from Racine, up thru Milw., Sheboygan, Green Bay, some in Door County, and up thru Marinette to the Yuppers...
Saw Jim's new post right after yours. He's giving out a little more info each time, and it all helps, is relevant.Of all the things that I have lost, I miss my mind the most!
River Rat?I'm on the other side of the Big Muddy.Ever float the Upper St. Croix?
As mentioned earlier, I want to re-meet with my friend and get a clear "full picture", but I will tell you what I know to this point later in this reply.
In regards to the statement about having nothing to go to now - the original structure was gutted and in the process of the reno. Now according to what my friend has told me the place no longer qualifies as the original structure. Work can't resume. Therefore, he has no cottage unless he re-builds 75' away from the water.
ALso, to whomever told me about the 50% rule for the non-conforming structures. I did some research and saw that it was "for the life of the structure"; however it seems as though there is some leeway for locals to modify the law. Additionally, there seems to be some dispute about what 50% means. 50% of the value, footprint, square footage, etc. ANyhow, thanks for the clarification on that.
More details to follow. Not sure if I feel right about exposing more about my friend's locale and such. I will talk to him about it.
Here is the story as I know it today.
Meet with Builder, formulate plan
Builder Pulls Permits
Builder starts work (jack up, remove old piers, dig for new piers in old and new areas, gut inside, rebuild existing structure where necessary - this, it seems, is what got him)
Inspector comes out and says that work has to stop, structure has been moved and modifications take it beyond "the original structure."
Friend calls inspector, inspector says lots of neighbors were complaining.
Friend calls neighbors, all neighbors say that they have not been complaining - one tells about postman walking around the site. Friends all offer to go to hearing in support of friend.
Friend calls the inspector and says that none of his neighbors have a problem, who complained? Inspector says, well one person did, but I can't tell you who.
Hearing is scheduled, locals on the board visit the site and agree with inspector, then they rule against him.
He can apply for a variance for road setback and build 75' off the water, but he has to remove his non-conforming structure.
Knowing this, does anyone have any new advice (other than the satellite photos to confirm that the structure did not get moved)?
So far, from what I am reading from you third hand information, there is still a lot missing in the story. BTW, I have sat on a local planning board in Maine for ten years, and a builder for three times as long, and do a lot of expediter work for people wishing to pull permits. Almost everybody I have dealt with always wants to push the envelope and wants to know how to get around the rules, or bend them to satisfaction. There are always grey areas of the rules that I know in advance how theey are likely to be interpreted. I have gotten every permit I went for, though one took three yearas and a minor revison, and have saved my clients the time, money and agravation of fighting the system by advising them when to give it up and what to fight for and how to fight it.But because most folks do try to 'cheat' the system a bit, some inspectors grow a cynical eye. There are also situations that do not get looked too closely at unless someone complains.So - When you say that permits werer pulled, I wonder specifically what the permits specified. For instance, if nothing in the permit application mentioned tjhe foundation work, that gives the officials the right to revoke the whole thing and force a restart. Or let's say that the permit mentioned repairing the existing foundation which was piers - let me imnagine for purpose of discussion - but once they got started they figured they might as well put in a full block foundation on footers and maybe run it out under the porch on the lake side...see how this is technically an expansion into the protected zone? I don't think there is too much diff between what Hook and I are saying. these waterfront setback rules for every state are all basedc on guidlines issued by the feds, and certain armtwisting by the feds makes the same basic rules apply everywhere. the states adopt the same guidlines, and then the local govts enact ordinances that incorporate the basics into the local rules and they are ones left to enforce and interpret them. The one most compelling theme in all this must be that the enforcvcement must be done consistantly and evenly across the board. If there is another local case with similar circumstances that was resolved, your friend should study that case and talk to the people involved.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"When you say that permits were pulled, I wonder specifically what the permits specified."
Piffin,
Just an FYI...In most of Wisconsin (about 2/3rd's) there are no building inspections, nor CO's. Sounds to me like this guy ran afoul with the DNR. When I built my garage (and applied for a permit), I discovered I lived in a "shoreland property"!!!
I live on top of a hill but there is a VERY SMALL body of water about 905 feet away, but the DNR considers my property wetlands. Had to go through a whole bunch more hoops than ordinary. The building permit was the easy part...nothing more than two pencil sketches scribbled out in front of the building inspector. The DNR permit was a whole 'nother story.
Jon
HI Jon,
It is my understanding that every town in WI must now have a building inspector. I recent statewide rule change brought that into effect (2 years ago?). Where I am, they hired an engineering firm out of Portage to handle the inspections.
Jim, thanks for piping back in with additional info.
Now that I've caught up on this thread's progress, gotta say "what Piffin said!" - i.e. I got not much more to add right now beyond what Piffin posted starting at post #31 of this thread.
Sounds sadly like atty time is required on this deal...Of all the things that I have lost, I miss my mind the most!
The legal issues are only going to be answered by a lawyer in that are of the state, well versed in theses issues.
The right way to approach any such job is to be sure that proer documentation is being done FIRST before starting on a single nail. driving it or pulling it. If he has photos, they can be a compelling bit of evidence of prior conditions.
Too late that for now. The legal beagle can say who is negligent and whether worth going after the builder. In some jurisdictions, it is on the land owner, and in others, it is on the builder to be sure the permitting is done properly.
He is actually lucky. Structures here in that 75' setback are limited to a 30% gain in footprint and volumn in the lifetime after 1987baseline. He gets to add every two years.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
shoot the post man?
Only another mail man has the authority to do that.