• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

What happens if a city approves a deck that seems to violate fire codes

Mech said:
Just for kicks, ask the zoning board if the plans meet the ordinance. If they say yes, ask them how. If they say no, ask them for a copy of the zoning variance paperwork indicating the zoning board waived the requirements. I would assume there should have been an opportunity for the affected neighbors to voice their opinions / concerns. If you were supposed to be notified about a zoning variance, the issue could have been handled before the first scoop of dirt was moved.

Read up on the variance approval process in the zoning ordinance so you can be informed when presenting your argument and counter anything they say that may be contradictory to zoning ordinance policy.
Click to expand...

According to the city attorney we don't have to abide by any zoning ordinances - therefore there is no need for a variance! I'm totally confused.
 
Jane said:
So, I've had a bit of an "email chat" with the city attorney and he has said (Reader's Digest version) that our homes are not subject to any zoning since lot coverage rules were not applied in our original PD.(This is not true as the city rules say that, once developed, the PD is subject to R2 zoning. He also said that since the garages to the rear of my property are lawful nonconforming structures that the deck is just an addition to that and therefore is allowed. He basically said (and actually said) that if you have one nonconforming structure on your property then it's basically fair game to add more nonconforming structures. Now, I may only teach math but my brain is telling me that he is not correct?
Click to expand...



Wait a minute what made the garage non conforming????

It was part of the original build.

The city approved the entire set up.
 
cda said:
Wait a minute what made the garage non conforming????

It was part of the original build.

The city approved the entire set up.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought - I thought that after the PD was approved then R2 zoning had to be upheld. Am I missing something?
 
VillageInspector said:
I think we are missing a very relevant piece of this puzzle. I understand that a former Senator owns the unit in question but I think there's more to this story that's not been brought to light yet.
Click to expand...


And that is??


The major question is is the patio/deck legal?
 
I don't think we're missing a thing, as I tried to explain a couple pages ago. All conventional zoning goes bye-bye when a PUD is adopted. Whatever was agreed to and passed in the ordinance AT THE TIME THE PUD WAS ADOPTED rules, now and for all time. Whatever is in the regular City zoning code has no bearing whatsoever on structures permitted and built within the PUD.

A PUD is a development agreement between a real estate developer and the City. A binding legal agreement, that is then passed into law by the City when they adopt it as an ordinance. So whatever those two entities agreed to back in the day and then wrote down and passed as an ordinance, is what rules the PUD you live in. If the regular R-whatever zone says lots must be 5000 square feet, but the PUD agreement says that lots in the PUD can be 4500 sq. ft., then the PUD rules. If the regular zoning says a zone has 10' side setbacks, but the PUD agreement says setbacks within the PUD can be 5 feet, the PUD rules. If the regular zoning says accessory structures can only cover 10% of the lot and can only be 10' high, but the PUD agreement says they can cover 99% of the lot and be 100' high, then the PUD rules. And on and on and on.

Maybe that's not the news you were looking for, but it is what it is. Be thankful that it's a decent looking deck he built - you're going to be looking at it for a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
JCraver said:
I don't think we're missing a thing, as I tried to explain a couple pages ago. All conventional zoning goes bye-bye when a PUD is adopted. Whatever was agreed to and passed in the ordinance AT THE TIME THE PUD WAS ADOPTED rules, now and for all time. Whatever is in the regular City zoning code has no bearing whatsoever on structures permitted and built within the PUD.

A PUD is a development agreement between a real estate developer and the City. A binding legal agreement, that is then passed into law by the City when they adopt it as an ordinance. So whatever those two entities agreed to back in the day and then wrote down and passed as an ordinance, is what rules the PUD you live in. If the regular R-whatever zone says lots must be 5000 square feet, but the PUD agreement says that lots in the PUD can be 4500 sq. ft., then the PUD rules. If the regular zoning says a zone has 10' side setbacks, but the PUD agreement says setbacks within the PUD can be 5 feet, the PUD rules. If the regular zoning says accessory structures can only cover 10% of the lot and can only be 10' high, but the PUD agreement says they can cover 99% of the lot and be 100' high, then the PUD rules. And on and on and on.

Maybe that's not the news you were looking for, but it is what it is. Be thankful that it's a decent looking deck he built - you're going to be looking at it for a while.
Click to expand...


I agree and without first hand knowledge of what is in the planned unit agreement we are just speculating
 
Have we "run off the rails" with this one a little bit? We need to boil this down to two questions:

Is there a zoning ordinance violation? In some areas (not necessarily yours), building a structure on the lot line could be acceptable. Sometimes there is a height restriction as you get closer to the lot line. Look into the zoning ordinances to see what is allowed.

Is there a building code violation? What "building code (and edition year) " is currently in effect for new construction in your jurisdiction? Look it up on your city's website. We can start from there.

Exactly where is the structure in relationship with your lot line?

How high will the structure be?


One observation is that the wood used looks "different" from what I am used to seeing. Could the lumber be Fire Resistant Treated Lumber and not standard pressure treated lumber? Go look for the stamps on the lumber and report back. It might make a difference in the analysis of the situation.

Typically, going to the city and saying: "I don't like this" or "This can't be right" is a lost cause. You need to do your homework and show how the structure doesn't comply with ordinances and building code.
 
Is the PUD mentioned in the CC& R's, CCR's should show up on your property title report.
As previously mentioned and a PUD is in place then this boils down to a building code compliance issue with size and location established by the PUD. If no inspections and a permit was waived by city "maybe end game". If permit is required then so would be inspections and code compliance.
Also as this is an improvement to the property does it now show on the Tax Accessors roles?
 
HForester said:
Have we "run off the rails" with this one a little bit? We need to boil this down to two questions:

Is there a zoning ordinance violation? In some areas (not necessarily yours), building a structure on the lot line could be acceptable. Sometimes there is a height restriction as you get closer to the lot line. Look into the zoning ordinances to see what is allowed.

Is there a building code violation? What "building code (and edition year) " is currently in effect for new construction in your jurisdiction? Look it up on your city's website. We can start from there.

Exactly where is the structure in relationship with your lot line?

How high will the structure be?


One observation is that the wood used looks "different" from what I am used to seeing. Could the lumber be Fire Resistant Treated Lumber and not standard pressure treated lumber? Go look for the stamps on the lumber and report back. It might make a difference in the analysis of the situation.

Typically, going to the city and saying: "I don't like this" or "This can't be right" is a lost cause. You need to do your homework and show how the structure doesn't comply with ordinances and building code.
Click to expand...

This deck has multiple zoning issues. I filed an appeal with the Board of Adjustments but the city is fighting it hard saying it is untimely but I don't think it was as you need to have "the basis of the facts on which to file an appeal" (Fox v. Park City) before the triggering event for the appeal window starts. The State Ombudsman's office is still working on it and they are waiting on a response from the city to my last rebuttal.

I started looking at Fire Code as it would be something the city couldn't ignore if they wouldn't listen to the zoning issues. The plan was filed without property lines, lot size, and no adjacent properties were shown. Their rendering showed a single family dwelling and I think the city just didn't have the resources to check into it (at least I hope that's what happened). The deck was issued a permit based on the definition of a patio (Provo city's definition of a patio is a relatively flat structure no more than 30" high). If a patio had been built it would NOT have needed a building permit and could have spanned the width of the yard but at 30" high that would not have been a problem. It could not have projected into the yard more than 12 feet but I actually wouldn't have cared if it went the whole length of the yard.

I believe the deck is an "Accessory Building" as it fits better with what is there (Provo city's definition is“ Accessory Building” means a building or structure, the use of which is incidental to and subordinate to the main building or structure.) This would have to comply with lot coverage and setbacks pertaining to the R2 zone. Given that we're a PD and the lot coverage limits were reached when the PD was developed, the back yards should not have any additional structures built on them. Once again, even though that is the case I would not have objected if my neighbor had built a modest size deck but the magnitude of this structure, and the fact that it was permitted, was what drew my attention to it. I have learned more about zoning than I ever wanted to and I'm certain the city made multiple mistakes in issuing this permit.
 
https://www.provo.org/city-services/build-in-provo/residential-projects/decks-fences-retaining-walls




Decks:
If you want to build a deck that is attached to your home, you will need to get a building permit. You can start by reviewing and meeting the requirements of the Residential Plan Review Checklist for Additions, Remodels, Basement Finishes and Accessory Structures Submit your Building Permit and all required documentation on the Online Portal. All plans must be drawn to scale. For questions about getting a building permit for your deck, please call the Building Division at (801) 852-6450.
 
ADAguy said:
Is the PUD mentioned in the CC& R's, CCR's should show up on your property title report.
As previously mentioned and a PUD is in place then this boils down to a building code compliance issue with size and location established by the PUD. If no inspections and a permit was waived by city "maybe end game". If permit is required then so would be inspections and code compliance.
Also as this is an improvement to the property does it now show on the Tax Accessors roles?
Click to expand...

That is the strange thing - in Provo you don't need a permit for a Patio but that was what this building permit was issued for. It is clearly not a patio (Provo city says a patio is a relatively flat structure not exceeding 30" in height.) The CC&R's have strict guidelines for building in the development but the HOA did not follow the process. Two members of the ACC board gave verbal agreement to my neighbor without seeing the plans. the third member of the ACC was not asked for any input and knew nothing about the deck until building started and I complained. (That's another battle I have to fight but I already wasted time on that before filing the appeal to the BOA thinking the HOA would enforce the rules!)
 
cda said:
Have you talked to the state:::????


http://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/ComDev/BuildingInsp/index.asp
Click to expand...
I have filed an appeal with the State Ombudsman which has stayed the BOA hearing. If the State come out in my favor and say the appeal was timely they will issue an opinion. From what I can gather, if the State opinion supports me then the BOA will pretty much go along with the opinion. If the State is uncertain then I can appeal it in district court.
 
cda said:
I would not call it an an accessory building.
Click to expand...

What would you call it? Provo city's definitions only have "patio" or "accessory building" to base this on and either way it violates their definition and/or code.
 
Jane said:
What are you thinking?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that since this seems to be a clear cut issue yet the municipality is not taking action that quite possibly this is not the clear cut issue that its being made out to be. This story seems to be all over the place yet all you are hearing from the municipality is crickets. I think if most of us on here were faced with this type of issue in our offices and there were violations we would had dealt with it long before it got to this forum, senator or no senator which makes me think that we don't yet have all of the facts because if we do it seems to me like you should be speaking with a very good land use attorney rather than us.
 
Mech said:
When do you anticipate the State's response?
Click to expand...

The State are waiting for the city to reply as the city attorney said he is preparing a response. That was almost two weeks ago and so far they have not responded. Their first response was interesting as it did not focus on the zoning violations only on the timelines of the appeal. They pulled out the big guns citing Fox v. Park City and after chatting with Mr. Fox (I had to get creative :) ) and my attorney we determined that the triggering event was when I could see the extent of the structure as I had only been shown the aerial view of the plan on the computer. The city would not let me see the plans as they said they were copyrighted (turns out they weren't). The plans did not include important things like lot size and property lines and showed the home as a home with no neighbors.
 
ADAguy said:
So, has the press shown any interest in this?
Their code has no definition for a deck?
Click to expand...

I've had a couple of bites from the press but I've been wary to move forward until the Advisory Opinion issues its opinion as given that the city dropped the ball on this permit and the neighbor is a former Senator and the HOA board went rogue this story could grow arms and legs once its out.

The city does not mention "Decks" in their codes. The closest is "Accessory Structure".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top