Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There’s no way that massive addition would meet building codes even if it could meet setback requirements.
It literally did as designed.
It literally was not built according to the approved plans or following building codes for wind bracing.
Sooo...
The approved plan was equally ugly and something all the neighbors would hate just as much! So yes, that addition COULD have met all the relevant codes.
But it didn't meet the codes as built.
Literally.
But the question is whether the design could meet the building codes without the setback violation. It definitely could. Indeed, it did.
No.
It "definitely " and "literally" did not.
It was not built to the approved plans.
You could set that thing in a 5 acre lot by itself with no neighbors, and as built it did not meet building codes and did not follow the approved plans, setback or not.
This is just wrong. The written plans complied. That’s why it was approved.
You two are arguing about different things. Both of you are correct, but you are not saying the same things.
Person 1 - states the written plans complied with county zoning and were approved. This is true, but note the HO had an error in the plans he submitted to the county, and was subsequently approved.
Person 2 - states while plans were approved, the HO did not BUILD to the approved plans. This is also true.
What was the error the homeowner had on the plans he submitted?
In the homeowner's own words, taken from his appeal submitted to the BZA:
As shown in Figure 3, the 2/4 Survey found the left side
yard to be 15.6 feet wide, the front of the house to the
left of the porch to be 12.6 feet wide, and the porch to
be 23.1 feet wide. Subtracting these from the 75-foot lot
width leaves 23.7 feet for the addition and the right side
yard. Appellants intended to leave 8.5 feet for the right
side yard, meaning the front of the addition should have
been 15.2 feet wide. Instead, the addition was designed
to be 15.5 feet wide. The width of the addition at the
front of the house, unlike other relevant measurements,
does not appear on the Annotated 2/4 Survey, but it is
in the architectural drawings.
This error is easy to identify; the sum of the measure-
ments in the annotated 2/4 Survey and the architectural
drawings is larger than the width of the lot. And yet,
nobody involved in the project, including the Appel-
lants, the contractors, and County staff, discovered this
error before the Plan was approved. The measurements
add up to 75.3 feet, wider than the lot’s 75-foot width.
The addition being built to plan, 15.5 feet wide, would
make the expected side yard width 8.2 feet rather than
8.5 feet as intended and hand-written on the Annotated
2/4 Survey.
...
The Original Building’s Skew to the Property Lines
It was only with the 12/3 wall check survey that the
skew became clear: the left side yard is 0.3 feet wider
at the rear corner (15.8 feet) than at the front corner
(15.5 feet).6 Essentially, relative to the property lines,
the building is rotated by about ½ of a degree clock-
wise. Applying this very small skew (0.3 feet over a 39-
foot wall, or 1-to-130) to the addition’s 65.7-foot length indicates that the right side of the addition, if built
according to the approved Plan, should be expected to be 0.5 feet closer to the north property line at the
back corner than at the front corner
He blames everyone but the GC for the project. Note: the homeowner is the GC.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}