I was just wondering about a problem i was having with my local building dept and hoped maybe some of you guys might have an idea. My property just got the zoning changed from ag to redidential without me knowing, in fact with out the whole neighborhood knowing. I guess they just put a little blurb in the local paper. Anyhow, i’ve designed a house with a cupola. I kept the house itself under the height restriction of 35 feet, would this apply to all parts of a house? THey say i can’t build the cupola, but i haven’t really talked with them. They sure like to tell people they can’t do stuff! How about a chimney to your knowledge? I would like some info so i can go into my meeting with some ideas of the way the law is used elsewhere. I know people have huge tv type towers ontop of their homes way in excess of this number, and i imagine i could have a tv dish as well. What do you guys think? As far as a variance would go you need to show a need. My plan was to use the cupola for ventilation, and skip air conditioning, as i live in michigan and we only need it a few weeks in the summer.
Some helpful things about the area concerned would be, the fact that we own 8 acres and are surrouded by farms all with barns taller than my house. My own barn is taller, and the house is about 1/4 mile off the road, with no other house visable in the summer when the leaves are on. I can imagine this restriction being more important in subdivisions and what not, but i can’t imagine why they would care about what i would be doing on my own farm.
One other problem is we have already started the cupola, and its currently visable from the road. This might be antagonistic to the building inspector. I really didn’t think there would be any problem and i had the help so we started before the addition was approved. Bad move i know, but i hope they can see how well it fits with the land and the design. Its going to be a real hum dinger trying to take it down.
Any ideas on getting around this? Some people have asked if i couldn’t simply build it as a barn, and then ask to convert it to a house, as people have turned old barns around here into houses that would exceed the 35 foot rule. i imagine they would start gunning for me if i tried this, but it might be a last ditch option?
Any ideas would be helpful! What do you think? Isn’t a cupola different than living space? Its only 8’x8′. Heres a link to some pics of it for those who might care.
http://community.webshots.com/user/kelvinpot
Its the album marked “new timber frame house going up” in the bottom right i think.
I’m tring to be alternative and have built the frame from landfilled trees i sawed myself. A lot of what is going into it i got from other people and what not. It will be real energy effecient, and the cupola would help towards those means.
Thanks for the ideas.
Kelvin
Replies
Hi there Kelvin..most of us tireded eyed woodies would LOVE IT..if you, could do, ONE thing for us.
Break yor post into blocks of info..
It don't have to single spaced, just a bit more scrollable...
Also a completed "profile" provided for you, would assist in your quest..ya seee...sometimes..we need your help..
be back to you you shortly, with a bonifide non help answer, I promise!
Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
Restoring, Remodeling, Reclaiming The Quality..
View Image
"Live Free,
not Die"
Kelvin, I have been our county P+Z board for 10 years. I have never seen regs. like you describe except in developments and city limits. I think you should play stupid and beg for mercy to your building official. With your location and physical size of other bldgs. in the area, it sounds arbitrary and caprecious (sp?) for them to insist on a height restriction when there is no one around that you are creating a hardship for. If you are in trees and not blocking view from anyone. The latest buzzword in P+Z matters is "viewshed" and people are getty very defensive of and protecting it. Was this home not applied for with a plan showing the cupola? If so it is their problem for issuing the permit. Good luck
I am impresseed. Both your energy and enthusiasm show through in your work, ideas, photos, and writing style. Stick around so we can enjoy your activity.
I would deal with it legally before I had any more maney invested in it.
I can't say what your local reasoning is or the wording of the ordinance. All I can speak from is the way things are here. I was on the local planning Board for ten years too.
Ours maxs out at 35' in the shorelands zones, and then goes to 38' in the other areas. There are two main reasons here behing it. The first is that view plane, ecology of the local scenery etc.
The second is the more important - that the fire dept does not have the means to fight fire or to rescue humans trapped at any height above that 38'. If you were to do a little research, you will find that a great many building ordinances are determined by safety concerns, not only for the residents but also for any firefighters who may someday be called on to save you, your family, and/or your property. Ordinances are also predicated on preserving property values and standards of design quality that might not matter to you, but will impact any future owners or inhabitants. You are building it to stay there for a couple hundred years, right?
Anyways - We have sometimes allowed a structure higher than 38' in rural zone when it does not impact sight lines and when no human being can have access to the portions higher than that limit, for instance, if your cupola were there for decoration and ventilation only, with no access from inside. Most ordinances have cerrtain exceptions to many of the rules spelled out, but it can takle some studying to find them.
communication is the key to making good progress. Unfortunately, by beginning wioth no permit, you have set a bad precedent. It will be a little harder to overcome the impression that you might be trying to get away with something.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
sounds like an amendment to the ordinance was adopted..
it may be untried, so tehy may not have any presidence set yet..
and they may or may not have defined what is to be included in the ht. restriction and what can be excluded...
if ...... IF... they allow chimneys to exceed the 35'.. and they do NOT mention cupolas.. i would ask the zoning enforcement officer for a ruling.. if he/she gives you a blessing to proceed.. do so at all haste..
if he/she shoots you down, ask what the appeal process is.. then go thru it
what is the penalty for being over? fine, or tear it out?
back when I worked at the beach, it was 1,000 per foot over 40', up to 55' (no permit higher than that....tearout order if you did build taller.
building a 500-700,000 house, what's another ten or fifteen grand???? people just built, and paid the fines...course the township loved the $$$$$$$
It is my understanding that you applied for the permit... then they passed the re-zoning? With no notice to those effected?
I certainly don't know how they do it in Michigan... but here in Columbus, a rezoning took place without "properly publicized public hearing"... and the court overturned the rezoning. The judge said that it was required that all property owners directly effected by the rezoning had to be notified directly regarding the public hearing on the matter.
Now... if this is an anexation... different story. So far in Ohio, they only need provide "public notice" of the intention to annexx... although they typically do directly notify all persons effected. There was a case pending... but I really haven't kept up on it.
If the permit was applied for.. then they passed the rezoning... it smacks to me of an ordinance passed for purposes of preventing your permit from being approved. It's just a gut feeling... but that is what the gut is saying. If this is the case... you're in for a fight.
I would have a discussion with the zoning board real soon. Explain that you had applied for a permit prior to the rezoning (there could be a case for grandfathering... though I doubt it). Explain that you were not notified of the rezoning, nor of any public hearings on same (and ask for the dates and minutes of those meetings). Also request information on any informal meetings that were held in regards to this matter. Review this information to see if there was any specific discussion of your permit application.
Further, the reason I would approach it this way... find out how long this rezoning has been on the table... and if they followed the rules when doing it. If it is as you say... it sure doesn't sound like it (with just a little blurb in the paper with no direct notification of the property owners).
Again... this is just a gut feeling... but I think you are on your way to court. Find a good zoning lawyer and strap up... it's gonna be a wild ride.
As far as a variance... they should only be granted based on extenuating circumstances. However, a good zoning lawyer can make that case. Get the cooperation of your neighbors... and it COULD work. ESPECIALLY since you had submitted for permit before the rezoning. Declare hardship, declare bias, declare anything that will get them to move in your favor.
I didn't read the timeline that way, but it certainluy is true that the rules in effect at the time the permit application was made are the rules that should be applied.The way I understood him is that simply in some point in time, his property was reclassified as to zone and what rules applied. He just missed the public notice, to his detriment. But it is still worth the time to investigate that angle. If they never made proper notification under whatever rules are in effect, then the change can be invalidated in court. But the burden of proof can be expensive and time consuming for him, unless the ruling body is willing to admitt they goofed.I know what a pain it can be to get a change passed. Here, the change has to be publicized for thirty days, then a public hearing, then the vote for acceptance has to come within a certain time frame after that - i think sixty days more. We missed a deadline once in some catch 22 and we withdrew the ammendment for another year so we could do it right.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
While every municipality has its own attitude toward variances, I can't see any insurmountable problem beyond the hassle and cost of having to get one. Given the size of your plot (8 acres), and the fact that this is a cupola, not peak height, which serves as ventilation and a design element integral to your plan, it has little negative impact on neighbors, aesthetics, environment and is significant to you.
If you were to build it without a variance, and the building inspector caught it (kinda hard to miss), you would not get your CO and would have to get a variance anyway. But the local ZB would know that you had already broken the law and have a bit of an attitude to start. On the other hand, they would also be reluctant to deny you the variance since that would mean you would have no choice but to remove it, something boards really hate to do. On the other hand, you would lose months after completion if you went that route while waiting for the approval and CO.
Other violations of height restrictions (such as radio towers) are pre-empted by federal laws which require municipalities to permit structures. Others, like satellite dishes, just slip under the radar because they don't need a CO or nobody really cares enough to make it an issue. But with a structure, the building inspector won't have a choice to ignore it. You need a CO, and unless he's your cousin or takes a little payola, he has a job to do.
SHG
I need tio ask a couple questions, niot because I doubnt you, but because I need to investigate some of this further with something else in mind, and because I can add to what you say a bit here.Can you tell me wjhere to find info about the federal standards are that supercede local ords on radio towers? Our local ordinance used to say mothing at all over 38- tall. A cell phone company tried to build a tower and couldn't get the permit. I think that at the time, they were bucking local attitudes. there were probably only three cells phone useers on the island and they were summer headaches...So no-one wanted their views interrupted by a tower for their convenience.Now, everyone has a phone a nd complains about the service.
The ord has been ammended in the meantime to allow non residential structures up to 75' tall. Then, the cell company applied to build a tower 125' tall claiming that was the only way to get coverage good enough for the investment to pay off. Still no tower...Nerxt item - our local ord. is modeled after the state recommendations and a variance is extremely hard to get. the ord stipulates four items that MUST all exist in order to even be considered for variance. Hardship is one of them and it is hard to prove. Most people asking for consideration of hardship cause d by the code are people who bought the property while the specific condition existed, obviating any possibility of that claim.On satellite dishes - Our ordinance specifically adresses them, because the older six foot wide ones were so ugly. it kept them on the ground, but recognizing the intent of the ordinace, when the 18" dishes came in, the rule was not applied to them, and the language has since been changed.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Telecommuncations Act, 47 U.S.C. 332 (I've attached a copy as a Word doc).
As for variances, there are 2 types: Use and area. They have very different standards, although laws vary from state to state. From what you've written, it sounds like you're talking about area variances, which are much more difficult than use and have far more stringent legal requirements, which generally center around necessity and financial hardship. It is almost impossible to overcome these when you purchase property with knowledge of its condition and the law (presumed), much like asking a judge for mercy because you're an orphan after you've murdered your parents.
SHG
Thanks for the Doc. Will make good bedtime reading.I do refer to area variances
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
The one thing I remember about FCC/FAA limits on towers for TV transmission is that they settled on an odd maximum number: 2049 feet. There aren't a lot that tall, mostly they're in the flatlands.
-- J.S.
For residential neighborhoods, FCC ruling PRB-1 provides some antenna zoning relief. See the following web site for more information. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/prb/index.html
Erich
KA6AMD
Amature probably wouldn'thelp for getting a commercial instal
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Here in LA they have height limits for the main ridge, but chimneys, cupolas, and purely decorative elements are excepted.
I'd suggest that you stop work on the cupola, wrap it in the buttugliest tarps you can find, and continue on the rest of the house while the matter is being fought out.
-- J.S.
Worst case scenario is you rebuild the cupola with just the roof and 6inches of walls showing.
After all is done and you're in there, you can raise it up an inch or two a week and no one will ever know.
be deceitfully creative
be right
be free
"Live Free,
not Die"
Edited 2/23/2005 2:39 pm ET by razzman
Kinda like a friend of mine in Austin, couldn't get a permit to build a new fence around his body shop but he could 'repair' the old one.
Board by board, post by post, week by week he built a new fence.
"There is no such thing as ex-wives"
Board by board, post by post, week by week he built a new fence.
just gave the same advice to a friend. told them to start repairing first thing in the morning. And when you're done repairing, your done. We just left out the week by week part.
Hey thanks guys for the input. You wouldn't believe, but lucky for me when i went in to talk with the guy (hes a subcontractor as our township is small) i was able to look through the book b/c he wasn't there. I simply turned the page and found info on height restrictions for chimneys and what not and right there in black and white its says "except chimneys and cupolas"!!!! He just didn't bother to look, and i wonder if he would have once i asked about his judgment on the matter. They just said i couldn't do it and my request was refused!!! Way to give a guy a heart attack. I wish i could let him know how it feels. Now, i don't know if i should let him know not to treat me this way in the future. man, they are always looking for something. How can you do that to someone? i was already trying to figure out how to take it down, which attorney to hire, etc. They just hand me this sheet about going before the board for a variance in 3 weeks. Sure glad i know how to turn a page! Guess thats not in the job discription. THink he'll be nicer to me in the future if i let it go? I guess i'm always nice to people, but i laid awake all night for this one.thanks for all the info!Kelvin
Alright now.
Always like to hear about someone winning one once in a while.
Cheers
Free Sancho!!!
great deal... I have found that to be true too many times... the person tell'n you really didn't know the real rules...
BUT... i was going to ask ... Where do they measure the 35' from? local guy here had em put it in writing that they measure from the highest point on the property within 100 ft of the structure.... 20 dumptruck loads of dirt later he had a nice hill 25ft or so high... and told the inspecter... "climb up on that hill and measure from there"
pony
Here in Los Angeles, the rule is that you measure from the lowest point within 5 ft. of the structure. And they have a specific prohibition on bringing in fill to fudge the base point.
-- J.S.
Kevin
Had the same problem on a house I did last year, 22feet beyond the 35 foot level. I sweated it out for four months, because I had already built it. P and Z said since it was a decorative cupola, with no running water or living area, the 35 foot rule did not pertain.It did house an elevator though.
Look at your regulations closely there probably away around this.
Good luck greg in Connecticut
in fact with out the whole neighborhood knowing. I guess they just put a little blurb in the local paper
Don't know about your area..........but normally, zoning changes are voted on by the local authority after notice to the affected property owners.
Usually goes: notice, public hearing, vote by Planning and Zoning then vote by the city or county commission. There may be several readings of the change and several corresponding votes.
If they actually circumvented any of the required process (kinda doubt that they did, probably just nobody affected realized what was happening) then it may not be enforcable.
You should still be able to get a 'variance' from the governing authority under the circumstances you describe if you aren't able to get anything worked out with the inspectors office.
Good luck!
"There is no such thing as ex-wives"