. What the neighbors say doesn't have that much of an impact. The neighbors can speak to an adverse impact, but there has to be an adverse impact. And for setback encroachments, impacts will be minimal. |
|
I like the idea of a very steep fine for impinging the setback that will hopefully serve as a deterrent from future monstrosities such as this one.
It looked like a really nice neighborhood prior to this. The homes look well maintained with manicured nice size yards. So sad this was allowed to happen. |
We were told that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. The people who complained were the only ones who spoke against it at the hearing, the others who made statements made the points that it was behind the house and can’t be seen from the street, so no adverse impact on anyone. It was also a very nice, attractive shed that had the same architecture as the houses in the neighborhood. |
Right. Most builders get a pre construction survey done and then they check and double check before pouring concrete and starting framing. They don’t make assumptions about where property lines are because they know it can be very expensive to make a mistake. |
They are, to the extent they speak to the standards in ordinance. They would need to demonstrate an adverse impact from the requested modification- the setback reduction. Most of the posters here are focused on the size or height, which isn't relevant. |
What do you mean by "was allowed to happen"? Except for the setback error, everything seems to be allowed by code. There wasn't a choice. |
The standards for a shed are slightly different, but it’s interesting that the fact that this shed couldn’t be seen from the street and that it blended with the look of the houses in the neighborhood were taken into account. Adverse impact can be related to size and height in terms of whether a building has an effect on others. |
To be clear, it isn't the impact of the building-it is the impact of the setback reduction. |
The impact of the setback reduction varies with the size and height of the building. A taller or longer building would have more area intruding in to setback than a lower or smaller building. In addition, an intrusion at the back of a building will have less impact than one that can be seen from the street. |
Water drainage issues with a building of that size and shape so close to the property line is definitely an adverse effect. Does the yard slope down towards the neighbor's house? With a monstrosity of that size where corners have been cut from the beginning as indicated by the frsming inspection failure, I imagine the neighbors are also concerned about structural issues, and things like erosion from run off. |
There is no garage. The build is not at all the same as the approved plans. |
This addition mostly builds up. Between the original structure and the driveway, there isn't much of a change in non-penetrable surfaces. Plus the neighbor is up-hill. The additiok didn't fail a framing inspection. They performed the inspection while framing was still being done. It was an out-of-cycle inspection. |
That's a procedural violation, but probably not a violation of code. It's not particularly unusual to submit revised plans retroactively, but you do end up incurring risk to the extent you might not meet code. |
That's true, but it is only the impact of the difference between the 6 inches that matters. A bigger/taller building has more of an impact in general, but the difference in impact between those 6 inches is negligible. |
Well, the reasonable person can differ here. Many people would find that a six inch intrusion has more impact when it is over a longer and/or taller wall area. |