• 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

Abandoned Foundations

CornFieldCode

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
15
Have a residential development that went bankrupt about four years ago. They had two single family detached dwelling with TCO and using them as sales offices for the development. There were two other foundations that were never built on prior to the bankrupcy. Now, the courts have concluded as to ownership and responsibity. The owners are asking if they can demolish the two standing buildings (in total disrepair) and for a varience to fill the foundations for future use. Except for the plumbing openings concerns, what else should I be requiring? I will require that the foundations be completly buried just to get rid of foundation & foundation bolt obstructions that snowmobiles or four-wheelers may hit.
 
We typically would require the entire foundation be removed. Having said that, not sure I would force the issue on a brand new never been used foundation. One sat open next to my daughter for over two years, now the new home is almost complete, and someone picked up the lot with all fees paid and for less than half of the old lot price, got the foundation as a bonus!
 
Around here, I would first check to see if any connections to municipal service have been completed and may need to be abandonded. Then I would allow them to abandond the foundation to grade level and level grade so that no water accumulates. I would also document on the original permit application and place the information into the permanent file. I might go as far as photographing the foundation prior to removal for later reference. If there is an accurate site plan for the original foundation, it should be easy for the next guy to avoid what is already there.
 
It is not clear to me the code basis for requiring the removal of the existing footing.

Utilities aside if somebody wanted to build a foundation as a sculpture with no superstructure on top of it what would be your basis for allowing or denying the application. If they could ultimately build the sculpture then I would see no reason to require that they remove the existing footings.
 
Be carful! If you allow them to bury them it could come back to haunt you in the future. Perhaps with a new owner in a month, year, 5 years?
 
Mark K and Cornfield

The removal of foundations and other related "Construction Debris" / Solid Waste comes to us in RI as

regulations from environmental management and soild waste disposal.

construction debris over three CY requires offsite placement in landfill or recycle as option.

we get to that by RI law that the Building Officials must enforce all laws known to mankind related to construction activity.

and yes we are supposed to know them all.

If your municipalities dont hve those rules consider yourself blessed.
 
But if you could consider it as a sculpture or landscaping feature then it would not be construction waste.

Let us look at another situation where you demolish a building founded on driven piles or drilled piers 40 feet into the ground. Typically these deep foundation elements are cut off near the surface and left in place. Sometimes these deep foundation elements are used to help support a new building.
 
Given the pressure to reduce construction waste and reuse existing construction I believe that the new California Green construction code would support the use of the existing foundation elements as landscaping elements.
 
If the foundations have been exposed to the elements I would be concerned about damage to the foundation from hydrostatic pressure, frost, etc. I have run into this a couple of times and one foundation they could not use to build on because the frost had damaged the walls and footings (engineers report) and the other was deemed usable with some minor repairs. I would require that an engineer inspect the current foundation to determine if it is suitable for use. If the basement slab is poured you could have further issues with filling in the foundation.

Good luck
 
They are dangerous open excavations and, unless laterally braced.. a big retaining wall (perhaps subject to collapse). Get rid of them.
 
But, in the OP's case, it will be filled in, therefore no lateral pressure, just a buried foundation. If it is well documented where the foundation is located, then I would probably allow it, even though, as I stated earlier, our policy is for removal of all foundation materials.
 
fatboy

What is the legal basis for your policy that all foundation materials be removed?
 
Mark...........a local policy that I inherited.......I read your remarks earlier, can't really argue you points. But, in the real world, if I start excavating to build my new house.........I'd just as soon not find a foundation from the last abandoned structure that then I have to deal with. Granted, you never know what you might find when you start digging, but we figure why let someone find a giant surprize. It's just how we do it, have NEVER had any pushback, must be that folks around here understand it.
 
I hear the good intentions but there is the saying that the road to hell is paved by good intentions. What is seen by some as the right thing to do is seen by others as oppressive intervention of the government.

I will suggest that if there is no ordinance there should be no policy. It is the job of the elected officials, not the building department, to make policy.

As discussed in other threads decisions based on what individuals could possibly do as opposed to what they have done or what they say they will do can lead you down a slippery slope.

Suggest the reason for no push back could be because individuals do not understand their rights, they do not want to cause conflict, or they believe it as easier to give in than to fight the battle.
 
Mark K said: "Suggest the reason for no push back could be because individuals do not understand their rights, they do not want to cause conflict, or they believe it as easier to give in than to fight the battle. "

Totally true! but it only takes one property owner to upset the cart. You need solid clear verbage to back you up.

Bill
 
Mark K said:
I will suggest that if there is no ordinance there should be no policy. It is the job of the elected officials, not the building department, to make policy.QUOTE]On this point, I agree with Mark K. Essentially, this thread contemplates the condemnation and removal of structures, a very potent governmental power.

We have removed abandoned foundations through the condemnation process which involves a public hearing and council vote. The recommendation to consider any particular condemnation may initiate through the building dept. or through a private citizen.

Except for resolving emergency and immediate life safety issues, to raze a structure, including a foundation, without a condemnation process that involves a public hearing amounts to illegal seizure of private property.
 
OK.. so the next owner changes the footprint of the building.. it needs to go anyway.. AND since you are "filling" it will well, fill.. who's verifying compaction?
 
If the somebody decides to do something with the site that involves removal of the existing foundation that entity will be in a position to determine what if any compaction is required.

If a future structure is to be placed on the old building pad and the new footings will not be placed on undistrurbed soil the building official should require a geotechnical report to determine what is needed if the geotechnical report is not otherwise required. This would establish the necessary compaction requirements. It might be cheaper to leave most of the existing foundation alone and place the new structure on drilled piers

If the current owner desides to voluntary remove the abandoned foundation I would suggest that the code has no compaction requirements in the absence of slope stability issues or a grading ordinance.

In response to the question of who verifies compaction the answer is that compaction will be verified in accordance with the code requirements for the work being performed.
 
Well.........this has been one of those "hmmmm" threads. When I took over this position, I started dealing with literally dozens of these "this is how we have always done it" scenarios, and I have codified them as needed, or ceased enforcement. This is one that I will codify as soon as possible, had not really ever stopped to think about it, that it wasn't in the body of the code.

I really don't enforce things that I can't back up, this was just one that I never really had cause to think about it. We have fewer than a half dozen demo's a year, so really hadn't had much reason to contemplate it.
 
Fatboy I believe the tools are already there, they just need to be followed. As pointed out above removal is just one option.

R105.5 Expiration.

Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.

R113.2 Notice of violation.

The building official is authorized to serve a notice of violation or order on the person responsible for the erection, construction, alteration, extension, repair, moving, removal, demolition or occupancy of a building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code, or in violation of a detail statement or a plan approved thereunder, or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code. Such order shall direct the discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and the abatement of the violation.
 
In our jurisdiction we do a bit of both. If it is a substandard house, we ask that the entire structure to be removed, foundation and all. We have older existing foundations where there once was a structure. We inform the owner that they will be paying taxes on a piece of property with improvements.......foundation. They could save a little money if they remove the foundation. We send in a report to our appraisal district.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Such order shall direct the discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and the abatement of the violation.
I don't see how a foundation constructed under a building permit constitutes a violation.
 
But what is the violation? Is it that the work was done according to the permit? Is the violation that they abandoned the project? If the latter then should they be forced to complete the project.

When you address the question of whether regulations are needed I suggest it should be tied to health and safety or other established roles of government.

If the existing condition creates a safety hazard or a public nuisance then the regulation can be justified.

If you have an existing zoning or land use ordinance that is consistently enforced then regulations dealing with abandoned foundations may be justified. In this context if the foundation could be approved as a piece of public art or landscaping then it would be inconsistent to have a regulation requiring removal of existing foundations. What is appropriate may depend on local expectations of the public and not the building department. An expensive gated community may have different expectations from a rural district.

How do you treat abandoned buildings or sheds on the property? Let us be consistent.

Regulations primarily related to protecting future owners would be questionable. While trying to protect the future owner you may be causing harm to the current owner. You could also have a situation similar to what was noted by a previous posting where the future owner got a great deal on the property in part because of the existing foundation. Would removing the abandoned foundation really help the future owner? This can lead the regulators down a slippery slope.

There needs to be a compelling need before adopting additional regulations. Give the owner the flexibility to do what he wants unless it has a real impact on the public. This is related to the concept that your rights end where mine begin.

Mule’s idea about taxation is creative.
 
Top