Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county reviews plans when approving building permits. It is not responsible for validating that a homeowner’s plans are accurate. The county is not responsible for conducting a survey to confirm the plans. If the plans showed the addition being built with the appropriate 8ft setback, then the county has no liability.

If the plans showed the error (eg less than 8ft setback) and the county still approved the plans, then sure the county would have some culpability in the situation.

The issue isn't liability. The issue is where this would fall under the "self-inflicted hardship" precedent. Working off of an approved plan, even when that plan included an error from homeowner, meaningfully changes that.

Does it change it enough? I don't know. And we probably won't find out because I highly doubt the homeowner here will seek a variance instead of a special permit.

If you're the homeowner, or a neighbor thinking about bringing a lawsuit, you're definitely going to want to talk to a lawyer about your realistic chance of success for different options. Some of the information coming up here is very incomplete, apparently being filtered based on their own desires for this case.

Public records show that the application did not include the setback error. The plans the county approved show a 8.5 foot setback. According to publicly available information, it appears that the homeowner did create the setback error himself, which would be a reason to deny a variance.

A number of people posting here have stated that this is a variance issue, not a special permit issue. Why do you think otherwise?

Yes, I'm saying the plan as submitted included the error-- the incorrect measurement, rather than the plan being approved in error. No one seems to disagree on that.

The plan as submitted did not include the error, according to public documents. The plan noted what should have been the correct measurement, but the homeowner allowed a foundation to be poured that went past the required setback. The homeowner is responsible for the error here, not the county.

The county has the expectation that a homeowner will follow the plans that they submit to the zoning department. This homeowner did not follow the plans he submitted, so the county cannot have any responsibility for an error that the homeowner made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county reviews plans when approving building permits. It is not responsible for validating that a homeowner’s plans are accurate. The county is not responsible for conducting a survey to confirm the plans. If the plans showed the addition being built with the appropriate 8ft setback, then the county has no liability.

If the plans showed the error (eg less than 8ft setback) and the county still approved the plans, then sure the county would have some culpability in the situation.

The issue isn't liability. The issue is where this would fall under the "self-inflicted hardship" precedent. Working off of an approved plan, even when that plan included an error from homeowner, meaningfully changes that.

Does it change it enough? I don't know. And we probably won't find out because I highly doubt the homeowner here will seek a variance instead of a special permit.

If you're the homeowner, or a neighbor thinking about bringing a lawsuit, you're definitely going to want to talk to a lawyer about your realistic chance of success for different options. Some of the information coming up here is very incomplete, apparently being filtered based on their own desires for this case.

Public records show that the application did not include the setback error. The plans the county approved show a 8.5 foot setback. According to publicly available information, it appears that the homeowner did create the setback error himself, which would be a reason to deny a variance.

A number of people posting here have stated that this is a variance issue, not a special permit issue. Why do you think otherwise?

Yes, I'm saying the plan as submitted included the error-- the incorrect measurement, rather than the plan being approved in error. No one seems to disagree on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county reviews plans when approving building permits. It is not responsible for validating that a homeowner’s plans are accurate. The county is not responsible for conducting a survey to confirm the plans. If the plans showed the addition being built with the appropriate 8ft setback, then the county has no liability.

If the plans showed the error (eg less than 8ft setback) and the county still approved the plans, then sure the county would have some culpability in the situation.

The issue isn't liability. The issue is where this would fall under the "self-inflicted hardship" precedent. Working off of an approved plan, even when that plan included an error from homeowner, meaningfully changes that.

Does it change it enough? I don't know. And we probably won't find out because I highly doubt the homeowner here will seek a variance instead of a special permit.

If you're the homeowner, or a neighbor thinking about bringing a lawsuit, you're definitely going to want to talk to a lawyer about your realistic chance of success for different options. Some of the information coming up here is very incomplete, apparently being filtered based on their own desires for this case.

Public records show that the application did not include the setback error. The plans the county approved show a 8.5 foot setback. According to publicly available information, it appears that the homeowner did create the setback error himself, which would be a reason to deny a variance.

A number of people posting here have stated that this is a variance issue, not a special permit issue. Why do you think otherwise?

I think some of the earlier news articles mentioned the special permit route. Although I might be mixing up posts here versus news articles.

County law is pretty clear that this can be covered by a special permit. I don't know why some people here keep focusing on variances. In some cases, I think "variance" is being used loosely as a descriptive term. A special permit to reduce the required setback is functionally similar to a variance, but legally distinct. But it is a lot easier to just say "variance" than "special permit to reduce setback requirements."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK.

Basically, yes. This issue is now coming up as an enforcement action after the homeowner relied in good faith on the approved permit. They can argue vested-rights protections against retroactive enforcement, and that they're not unilaterally responsible for the error.

It doesn't look like a slam-dunk argument, but it is a significant different scenario than the precedent that puts tight limitations on variances. Which is part of the reason why they'd almost certainly seek a special permit instead of a variance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK.

The county approved a plan that showed a 8.5 foot setback, which is more than the required 8 foot setback. The county did not say it was okay to go over the setback line because that error was not included in the approved plans. The county does not bear responsibility here, at least according to the plans that are online.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county reviews plans when approving building permits. It is not responsible for validating that a homeowner’s plans are accurate. The county is not responsible for conducting a survey to confirm the plans. If the plans showed the addition being built with the appropriate 8ft setback, then the county has no liability.

If the plans showed the error (eg less than 8ft setback) and the county still approved the plans, then sure the county would have some culpability in the situation.

The issue isn't liability. The issue is where this would fall under the "self-inflicted hardship" precedent. Working off of an approved plan, even when that plan included an error from homeowner, meaningfully changes that.

Does it change it enough? I don't know. And we probably won't find out because I highly doubt the homeowner here will seek a variance instead of a special permit.

If you're the homeowner, or a neighbor thinking about bringing a lawsuit, you're definitely going to want to talk to a lawyer about your realistic chance of success for different options. Some of the information coming up here is very incomplete, apparently being filtered based on their own desires for this case.

Public records show that the application did not include the setback error. The plans the county approved show a 8.5 foot setback. According to publicly available information, it appears that the homeowner did create the setback error himself, which would be a reason to deny a variance.

A number of people posting here have stated that this is a variance issue, not a special permit issue. Why do you think otherwise?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

I didn't say the county realistically could have caught this. I was just explaining that the previously mentioned legal precedent doesn't apply here. You seem to think I'm trying to make a broader point.

I didn’t see mention a legal precedent here. I saw a list of reasons that the county would approve an application for a variance, including that the error was not self created. If you’re talking about something else, could you quote it please?

Look up the case law involving interpretations on "self-created" hardships. The first mention was probably 15 or so pages back.

But again, this is (probably) a red herring, since the owner isn't going to seek a variance that would be covered by this state law and related precedents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Some seem to argue that because the county approved the plan, the county now bears some responsibility for the error. It's no longer "self-inflicted" because the county said it was OK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

I didn't say the county realistically could have caught this. I was just explaining that the previously mentioned legal precedent doesn't apply here. You seem to think I'm trying to make a broader point.

I didn’t see mention a legal precedent here. I saw a list of reasons that the county would approve an application for a variance, including that the error was not self created. If you’re talking about something else, could you quote it please?

Anonymous wrote:The county reviews plans when approving building permits. It is not responsible for validating that a homeowner’s plans are accurate. The county is not responsible for conducting a survey to confirm the plans. If the plans showed the addition being built with the appropriate 8ft setback, then the county has no liability.

If the plans showed the error (eg less than 8ft setback) and the county still approved the plans, then sure the county would have some culpability in the situation.

The issue isn't liability. The issue is where this would fall under the "self-inflicted hardship" precedent. Working off of an approved plan, even when that plan included an error from homeowner, meaningfully changes that.

Does it change it enough? I don't know. And we probably won't find out because I highly doubt the homeowner here will seek a variance instead of a special permit.

If you're the homeowner, or a neighbor thinking about bringing a lawsuit, you're definitely going to want to talk to a lawyer about your realistic chance of success for different options. Some of the information coming up here is very incomplete, apparently being filtered based on their own desires for this case.

The county reviews plans when approving building permits. It is not responsible for validating that a homeowner’s plans are accurate. The county is not responsible for conducting a survey to confirm the plans. If the plans showed the addition being built with the appropriate 8ft setback, then the county has no liability.

If the plans showed the error (eg less than 8ft setback) and the county still approved the plans, then sure the county would have some culpability in the situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

I didn't say the county realistically could have caught this. I was just explaining that the previously mentioned legal precedent doesn't apply here. You seem to think I'm trying to make a broader point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

How would the government catch the error? Don’t they just examine the materials present in the application itself? Do they typically go out and examine the site itself when reviewing an application?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.

Probably because someone measured from the fence and not the property boundary. The government should have caught this error according to some posters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except the homeowner is the GC. The homeowner was responsible for the plans.

For these purposes, it doesn't matter. It would still be or not be a "self-inflicted hardship" for the purposes of seeking a variance (although conceivably the GC could be legally liable for the damages). The point is basically that the county picked up some responsibility by approving the plan.

Logically, then no homeowner needs to do a survey. Draw up your plans with your best guess, submit them to county and wait for the county to do a survey. If the county doesn't catch your mistake, build as fast as you can.

The public records for the original application indicate that the side setback is 8.5 feet for the plan submitted. The required setback is 8 feet, so if the application showed 8.5 there was no error by the county in approving the plan. If that is the case, the setback error would have taken place after the plan was approved, not before. So during the construction phase, not the approval phase.