I’d like to know if anyone has heard of this method of measuring setback from a lot line.
A house is on a lot which is not rectangular. The front of the house is parallel to the street, so the side of the house is not parallel to the side of the lot. A broad wrap-around deck was added to the house. When checking the setback for the deck on the side of the house, the inspector averaged the distance from the two corners of the side deck to the lot line.
The city code states that buildings in this zone “must have a side yard whose minimum depth is not less than 8 feet”. “Yard” is defined as an area clear from ground to sky.
I don’t think “minimum depth” means “average depth”. His averaging logic would imply that one corner could be on the lot line if the other corner was at least twice the setback from the line.
Has anyone else encountered this averaging approach to measuring setback?
Replies
You might want to speak with his superior being.
Minimum has a definite meaning which he is ignoring. I've been part of our planning board dealing with subjects like this and with lawyers on it and with state advisors for almost ten years, three of them as chairperson. He is not just skirting a grey area but ignoring the law. Later on, his logic could end up penalizing you, depending on ordinances, policies, and enforcement procedures in your jurisdiction. If it is your land, or you are the contractor building it, you are comperlled to follow the ordinance.
Excellence is its own reward!
"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit.
The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."
--Marcus Aurelius
Well said Piff! But "superior being"? How do you know he works for an Alien? haha
Why is the inspector averaging?
Did you build closer then 8'?
My parents live on the property adjoining this house. The situation is actually worse than I've described. The new deck, already partially built, actually runs for about 6' along my parents' chain link fence which is on or very close the the boundary. The deck touches the fence.
The contractor claimed that the inspector had approved it. My mother called the inspector and he said he had indeed seen the situation, and said something about "because the lot line was at an angle, they averaged the distances to the corners".
Then I called the inspector's office, but talked to a substitute (inspector was on vacation that week). The substitute started to give me the same averaging story, but backed down and told me to call back when the real inspector was back.
Now they have offered to back off 4'. I'm suspicious that the City goofed and invented the averaging thing to cover themselves. The zero setback should have been apparent on the plans submitted with the permit application.
We're hoping to talk to the contractor again, and perhaps meet the building inspector on site. I just wanted to see if this was a common thing.
Thanks for the replies..
Common? Quite possibly. Correct? No. That's why words have definitions, and "minimum setback" has a very specific and undebatable meaning. If they meant "average", the regulation would say so. Sounds like a big case of cover your butt. I can't imagine anyone building a deck up to a fence and dreaming that no one would notice.
setbacks are a parralelogram.. the side setback is parallel to the side line.. unless there is a jog in the line .. then the setback would jog too..
sounds like th e inspector was trying to make a bad situation go away.. but it didn't , did it ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
When city hall fails to protect your interests ( or your parents) they can get a lawyer to enter a lawsuit for one or all of several purposes;
To make them whole. They have been damaged by this infringement. The law is there for specific purposes, safety and protection of property rights amoung them. The setback is needed to prevent spread of fire and to allow for acess of emergency equipment. Stack houses one on top of another and see the property values decline quick. making them whole would mean forcing a return to conditions before the infraction or payment of a sum equivalent to that lost tho setting the dollar amount may be difficult.
To force compliance. A public employee is not the only one who can enforce a law. The judge can too. Or your parents can via the court order.
To penalize the perpetrator. There is a public interest in discouraging this and other persons from ignoring the law.
Any of these should also ask for additional for legal fees.
Odds are that it need never come to a suit in court. A letter from your parents attorney to the Town officials in the correct dept. announcing the intent to sue both the town, the contractor, and the neighbor if the infraction is not corrected within __x___ number of days should get them stirred up enough to do what they are supposed to.
They really need to take action. I know of a case where a neighbor built a driveway over the corner of someone elses land. Wanting to be good neighbors and not get folks angry, they mentioned it but didn't forcefully pursue it. Two years later, the guy built a shed with the corner over the line. They still let it slide.
Then, after a few more years, the folks who had been harmed wanted to build a garage themselves. They couldn't do it because they couldn't meet setback from the neighbor's shed until they worked hard to bring it to court, pay for surveys and lawyers, and force the removal of that shed.
In another case, a guy had a lot that was almost landlocked, except for a one rod right of way. A neighbor drilled a well right on that right of way. When he went to build a road in to the lot after too many years, he found a whole lot of other weird laws kicked in and he couldn't damage the well or deny them the use of it. For all practical purposes, he lost the use of his rights because he failed to exercise them at the right time.
Do it now!
Maybe you can tell, I really get steamed up about property rights..
Excellence is its own reward!
"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit.
The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."
--Marcus Aurelius
Ted-
This would be the case here in MD not sure for where you are.
A building inspector inspects the structure for code compliance. What you have is a zoning problem which is a different dept.
You would need to contact zoning for setback encroachment.
Now I'm wondering who owns the house that has infringed towards the parents...
Excellence is its own reward!
"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit.
The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."
--Marcus Aurelius
There's that legal cynicism again! ;-)
Here in North Texas, in most municipalities, the setback code only affects roofed areas. An unroofed deck, like a walkway or garden curb, can go all the way to the property line.
Mac
not cynical on this one.
I just assumed originally that the poster was acting on behalf of his parents but lived elsewhere. You posted as tho he was the one who owned the property where the deck is being built. So I read back though and couldn't see that he specified one way or the other..
Excellence is its own reward!
"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit.
The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."
--Marcus Aurelius
Piffin--
Someone else made that post. It was apparent to me that his wasn't the house where the possible infringement was, but that his parents were the people next door. I thought possibly you were wondering if the people with the deck might have a brother-in-law in the zoning/inspection department. In this town, that's always a possibility when there's a blatant infraction that's being ignored. I call it an on-site variance.
Mac
sorry, I'm really confused 'bout who's who now.
Excellence is its own reward!
"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit.
The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."
--Marcus Aurelius
Sorry for the confusion. I'm acting in behalf of my parents. The owners of the adjacent (offending) lot moved in last fall.
Someone pointed out the confusion between "building inspector" and "zoning officer". I found that confusing myself. We have a "code enforcement officer", but he didn't want to get involved, even though it was a setback problem, not a building problem. This "code enforcement officer" was also very uncooperative, but to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume it really wasn't his job to tell us where we could find a copy of the City Code.
The problem is now resolved. We have accepted their offer to back off 4 feet. Piffin mentioned a case where someone couldn't expand because of a concession they'd made years before. That can't occur here because of the lay of the land.
Shortly after my mother agreed with the neighbor to the 4' clearance, the "building inspector" (not the "code enforcment officer") stopped by and showed my mother a place in the code book where it said something about averaging distances. Apparently those details were under "modifications" or someplace I didn't find. I wasn't present at the time, but I plan to search for that section f the code out of sheer curiosity.
We found this building inspector to be open, responsive, and reasonable. (Or maybe I'm just saying that in case someday I have to build something in his jursidiction.. :)