Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

Anyone can argue whatever they want, but the facts are the facts. The county has the plans that were submitted that show that the homeowner included an 8.5 foot setback. Now a part of the wall goes over the setback. Something went wrong at some point, but the county did not approve a wall that is in part over the setback line.

No one disputes that. But that isn't the issue being discussed.

That is exactly what is being discussed here. And at least one person keeps disputing it.

There's no great mystery. They obviously measured to the wrong spot when they made the plans.

The plans show distance from the property line. It looks like the homeowner measured from the fence, not the property line, when the foundation was being poured. So the homeowner measured from a different line than the line that was on the plans. The county approved distance from the property line, not the distance from the fence, the line the homeowner apparently used by mistake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

Anyone can argue whatever they want, but the facts are the facts. The county has the plans that were submitted that show that the homeowner included an 8.5 foot setback. Now a part of the wall goes over the setback. Something went wrong at some point, but the county did not approve a wall that is in part over the setback line.

No one disputes that. But that isn't the issue being discussed.

That is exactly what is being discussed here. And at least one person keeps disputing it.

There's no great mystery. They obviously measured to the wrong spot when they made the plans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

Anyone can argue whatever they want, but the facts are the facts. The county has the plans that were submitted that show that the homeowner included an 8.5 foot setback. Now a part of the wall goes over the setback. Something went wrong at some point, but the county did not approve a wall that is in part over the setback line.

No one disputes that. But that isn't the issue being discussed.

That is exactly what is being discussed here. And at least one person keeps disputing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

Anyone can argue whatever they want, but the facts are the facts. The county has the plans that were submitted that show that the homeowner included an 8.5 foot setback. Now a part of the wall goes over the setback. Something went wrong at some point, but the county did not approve a wall that is in part over the setback line.

No one disputes that. But that isn't the issue being discussed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

Anyone can argue whatever they want, but the facts are the facts. The county has the plans that were submitted that show that the homeowner included an 8.5 foot setback. Now a part of the wall goes over the setback. Something went wrong at some point, but the county did not approve a wall that is in part over the setback line.

Anonymous wrote:You're free to argue all you want that this is a self-inflicted hardship. Maybe a court would agree, but it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think. It also isn't likely to be an issue, because even self-inflicted hardships don't bar special permits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is not a good argument at all because 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.

I think we're using error differently, but ultimately mean the same thing. I'm saying the plans included the error is the form of an incorrect measurement.

The vested rights may apply even with that error. Otherwise the county could come back after finding a technicality, reducing the value of the approval process. If the plans were made and followed in good faith, there's no public value to strict adherence to the setback requirement when the violation itself has negligible impact.

I'm not saying it would necessarily succeed as an argument, but it isn't a stretch either. Nonetheless, it seems wise to avoid the issue by seeking a special permit instead of a variance.

The plans did not include the error in the form of an incorrect measurement. The plans submitted showed a 8.5 foot side setback. The homeowner did not follow the 8.5 foot setback that he submitted, he apparently followed a line that was closer to a 7.5 foot setback. The foundation is off from the plans submitted by almost a foot.

The homeowner did not in good faith follow an approved plan that he had submitted. He made an error after the fact, possibly because he assumed that a fence was a property line, which it was not. A professional survey would have avoided the problem, but the proper type of survey was not done before the beginning of construction. The county cannot be responsible for the fact that the homeowner proceeded without a proper survey.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is not a good argument at all because 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.

I think we're using error differently, but ultimately mean the same thing. I'm saying the plans included the error is the form of an incorrect measurement.

The vested rights may apply even with that error. Otherwise the county could come back after finding a technicality, reducing the value of the approval process. If the plans were made and followed in good faith, there's no public value to strict adherence to the setback requirement when the violation itself has negligible impact.

I'm not saying it would necessarily succeed as an argument, but it isn't a stretch either. Nonetheless, it seems wise to avoid the issue by seeking a special permit instead of a variance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This interpretation encourages builders to "push the boundaries" hoping that the county doesn't look to closely or perform a survey.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/erroneously-issued-building-permit-causes-protracted-legal-proceedings

From the link…”You build your house in accordance with the approved plans and the building permit.”

That’s the heart of the issue. The homeowner has not built the addition in accordance with the approved plans. The link doesn’t match the situation at hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is not a good argument at all because 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:

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.

This interpretation encourages builders to "push the boundaries" hoping that the county doesn't look to closely or perform a survey.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/erroneously-issued-building-permit-causes-protracted-legal-proceedings

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

This interpretation encourages builders to "push the boundaries" hoping that the county doesn't look to closely or perform a survey.

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/erroneously-issued-building-permit-causes-protracted-legal-proceedings

Anonymous wrote:

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.