-
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
- Thread starter Jane
- Start date
ICE
Oh Well
Oh excuse me if you thought that I am offended. Not even close. I was having fun with it. I'm 100% behind what you are doing.I wasn't intending to offend you - there are plenty of good city officials who do a great job. I just have had some bad luck
Jane
Registered User
https://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=16180
Anyone decipher what this is saying??
Any talking points that can be made in the hearing??
Anyone decipher what this is saying??
Any talking points that can be made in the hearing??
Jane
Registered User
The city is incorrect in assuming that the whole development is one lot but they need to say that to cover their mistake. They are saying that if it's not one lot then the PD was approved in error and all the houses are non compliant - the very nature of a PD overlay makes it non compliant with the underlying zone but the city don't seem to understand that! I'm going to try and catch a pdf from the zoning expert.
The timeliness is another issue but since the city blocked me from seeing the plans until July 27th and they say the appeal was due 2 days earlier - I think my attorney has that covered. Ok - I'll try and attach the expert opinion from the guy who wrote the zoning books for Utah
ADAguy
Registered User
Had a similar case in Palos Verde Estates, builder had to reduce the height of the building. Seems contractor used an architects plans without permission and did a site adapt.
ADAguy
Registered User
1985 isn't that long ago, association plans should indicate the legal description. They are trying to cover for their errors.
ICE
Oh Well
The Provo position is clear. The entire development is one lot for the purpose of zoning regulation. Anyone can have 100% parcel coverage until the entire development "lot" has 40% lot coverage. At such time as there is 40% development "lot" coverage nobody can build anything on individual parcels within the development "lot".
That seems odd to me. Essentially, lot coverage regulation doesn't kick in until someone demonstrates 40% lot coverage. I find it suspicious that the original developer left most of the land untouched.
In as much as the city can't find any paperwork on the development perhaps they should be asked to produce similar paperwork on other developments. Beyond that there must be written instructions for their position that predate the issuance of Flake's permit. They can't just say. "Well Jane, that's the way it is."
That seems odd to me. Essentially, lot coverage regulation doesn't kick in until someone demonstrates 40% lot coverage. I find it suspicious that the original developer left most of the land untouched.
In as much as the city can't find any paperwork on the development perhaps they should be asked to produce similar paperwork on other developments. Beyond that there must be written instructions for their position that predate the issuance of Flake's permit. They can't just say. "Well Jane, that's the way it is."
Last edited:
JCraver
Sawhorse
Timeliness aside because I don't care about that - I think the City has a good argument, and I also think no matter which way the BoA decides that if this ever gets to an actual court, the City will prevail.
Remember way back a bunch of pages when I said that a PD has special rules, and that all the approvals/rules/regs/restrictions are done at the time the PD is approved? That's what happened here. Whether or not those documents can be found, the building dept. is correct in assuming that the City Council approved the PD as pertaining to the original parcel and not to individual units as far as setbacks, lot coverage, etc. I think that deck is 100% compliant, and if it was built in my jurisdiction my staff report would have been similar (although with less spelling and punctuation errors..).
I hope it goes your way, Jane, because you've been pleasant and this has been an interesting thread, but I'm pretty sure the BoA (and even more sure a court) will see it Flake's way.
Remember way back a bunch of pages when I said that a PD has special rules, and that all the approvals/rules/regs/restrictions are done at the time the PD is approved? That's what happened here. Whether or not those documents can be found, the building dept. is correct in assuming that the City Council approved the PD as pertaining to the original parcel and not to individual units as far as setbacks, lot coverage, etc. I think that deck is 100% compliant, and if it was built in my jurisdiction my staff report would have been similar (although with less spelling and punctuation errors..).
I hope it goes your way, Jane, because you've been pleasant and this has been an interesting thread, but I'm pretty sure the BoA (and even more sure a court) will see it Flake's way.
Mech
Registered User
Unfortunately for Jane, I too see this going in the city's favor.
Which PD regulations are indicated in the report - current 2019 regulations or the ones indicative of when the whole development was permitted?
Jane - you asked the developer if he has a copy of any specific agreement that was made, right?
What are the consequences, if any, of not obtaining any inspections, as the report indicates? An inspector may allow photographs as proof of proper footing depth, so this may not go anywhere.
Is the property currently occupied? If so, did they ever get their Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion? The bottom of the permit requires one or the other before the structure is occupied. I cannot say if this would be waved for a deck.
For the ledger, the plan reviewer indicated 1/2" lag screws at 18" oc. The notes on the side of the drawing indicates (2) 1/2" bolts with washers or equivalent at 16" oc. Would the drawing supersede the IRC as it is more stringent?
Which PD regulations are indicated in the report - current 2019 regulations or the ones indicative of when the whole development was permitted?
Jane - you asked the developer if he has a copy of any specific agreement that was made, right?
What are the consequences, if any, of not obtaining any inspections, as the report indicates? An inspector may allow photographs as proof of proper footing depth, so this may not go anywhere.
Is the property currently occupied? If so, did they ever get their Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion? The bottom of the permit requires one or the other before the structure is occupied. I cannot say if this would be waved for a deck.
For the ledger, the plan reviewer indicated 1/2" lag screws at 18" oc. The notes on the side of the drawing indicates (2) 1/2" bolts with washers or equivalent at 16" oc. Would the drawing supersede the IRC as it is more stringent?
Jane
Registered User
Interestingly, the land expert found the amended plat from 1984 which says that our development (phase 1) was operated into 17 specific lots on 17 specific parcels before the development was built or approved. The original plat map has everything on one parcel. It's certainly an interesting case but I will be selling if I'm told that 35 foot high structures can fill the entire back yards as Heaven only knows what will get built next.
Jane
Registered User
Oh dear - I hope you're wrong but it will be whatever it is. The land expert (former State Property ombudsman) and my attorney think the city is completely in error as their interpretation of the law means every back yard could be filled with 35 foot high buildings. That will make me move for sure!
tmurray
SAWHORSE
I don't agree that the city will prevail.
This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.
No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public.
Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next election.
This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.
No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public.
Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next election.
Jane
Registered User
I hope you're right and the former State Property ombudsman and my attorney agree with you. Somewhere along the line the city has decided that 35 foot high extensions to our homes covering our entire yards was the original intent but if that were to happen then this development would be ridiculous. If anyone would like a copy of the original report and the response to the staff report (prepared by the former State Property Ombudsman) just let me know and I can email them to you. I have no idea how to link pdf's on this forum.
With a last name "Murray" you must be Scottish too! Thanks for the support
Jane
Registered User
I think it definitely should so a shake up will be needed. I remember I bought a house in Scotland and when I went to work in my back yard my neighbor came and told me that my back yard belonged to him! It turned out it was shared ground but I hadn't even thought to check. It was still titled to the grandson of the original owner so, long story short, I bought everyone's back yards because the owner wouldn't sell me just part of it as it was causing so much trouble. So, when I sold my house I still own the back yards of about 30 homes! I've just let them keep them although I could actually build a home there but I want to be nice. I don't think I have a good track record with back yards
I think it definitely should so a shake up will be needed. I remember I bought a house in Scotland and when I went to work in my back yard my neighbor came and told me that my back yard belonged to him! It turned out it was shared ground but I hadn't even thought to check. It was still titled to the grandson of the original owner so, long story short, I bought everyone's back yards because the owner wouldn't sell me just part of it as it was causing so much trouble. So, when I sold my house I still own the back yards of about 30 homes! I've just let them keep them although I could actually build a home there but I want to be nice. I don't think I have a good track record with back yards
Check your conversations/ private mail
Jane
Registered User
Jane
Registered User
He's the guy that wrote the current zoning laws for the State of Utah - I think the city thought they'd stopped me when they blocked my Ombudsman Appeal but I was fortunate enough to get to know this expert. We have become friends and if nothing else comes of this crazy debacle I have got to know some amazing people - including the people that have helped me on this forum!
ICE
Oh Well
Jane,
Mr. Call all but said that the city staff are a bunch of buffoons. It's one thing to miss the bullseye but quite another to shoot yourself in the foot.
The city staff made up a completely new approach to land use law that supported their erroneous position. And not just new but laughably untenable. The staff perpetrated a fraud. Were I you, I would cause the city to pay for the legal lessons they got from this. Cost plus 15% is reasonable and a formula the city is familiar with.
Mr. Call all but said that the city staff are a bunch of buffoons. It's one thing to miss the bullseye but quite another to shoot yourself in the foot.
The city staff made up a completely new approach to land use law that supported their erroneous position. And not just new but laughably untenable. The staff perpetrated a fraud. Were I you, I would cause the city to pay for the legal lessons they got from this. Cost plus 15% is reasonable and a formula the city is familiar with.
Last edited:
Jane
Registered User
Craig Call's letters (especially the second one) are exceptional. I watched him analyze the documents for the first letter and it was amazing to watch him work - when I initially called him (in Austria!!) he said that either I was exaggerating or the city was completely incompetent.
How can I get my legal expenses back if I win - small claims court? It would certainly be nice to get some money back as it's been an expensive process.