• 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

City wants roof height reduced developer ignored height restrictions

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,677
Location
So. CA
City wants roof height reduced developer ignored height restrictions

BY DYKE HENDRICKSON STAFF WRITER

http://www.newburyportnews.com/news/local_news/city-wants-roof-height-reduced/article_b2dd5c10-6fd7-527a-b26b-4dc03c438628.html

More than a dozen residents urged the ZBA to reject the appeal and force the developer to lower the roof.

Speakers urging rejection included Mayor Donna Holaday, City Councilor Barry Connell and co-presidents of the Newburyport Preservation Trust, Tom Kolterjahn and Linda Miller.

Several opponents stated that other builders will take advantage of the city if its zoning regulations are not followed.

One of the conundrums that ZBA members pondered was determining whether a house could lose its roof, be lowered by two feet and still be a safe and viable dwelling.

Municipal building officials noted that heating and air-conditioning units have been placed on the upper level, and thus the project would be very complex and expensive.

Building Inspector Gary Calderwood, though, suggested that the building should stand without resort to pulling off the roof.

He said that forcing the lowering of the roof “would be like a teenage girl who cuts her nose off to get rid of a pimple.”

(Calderwood was not on active duty during much of the approval process, as he had been hospitalized after a serious fall.)

City officials yesterday said it is possible the builders will appeal the ZBA decision in state court before they would embark on the expensive project of lowering the roof
 
Wonder if the Newburyport Fire Department has any issues with the buildings height in regards to fighting a fire with it's equipment. I assume the height restriction issue stems from other property owners view of the bay, port or water and not a future fire condition?

pc1
 
Some builders figure it is always easier to beg forgiveness, rather than ask permission. I say stick by your decision, it's a self made hardship.
 
I agree with you FB, the ZBA should rule that it's a contractor mistake issue. no need to go to a BZA, get your court summons book out and see ya in court. If it does go to the BZA, they should rule against the height increase and the builder could appeal to the circuit court. IMHO :encouragement:
 
One of the conundrums that ZBA members pondered was determining whether a house could lose its roof, be lowered by two feet and still be a safe and viable dwelling.

Municipal building officials noted that heating and air-conditioning units have been placed on the upper level, and thus the project would be very complex and expensive.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why the other problems that the ZBA and the municipal building officials should worry about! They are strictly the developers problems based on the fact he didn't file the code to start with. Obviously the house was functional before he raised the roof so in the worst case he can just put anything back to how it was before the project begins.
 
The builder had help in the form of inspectors not saying anything about the building being too tall. Now it's done and they want to take it back to frame stage and give him a correction to lower the roof. That's not likely to happen. A judge would have a hard time ruling against the builder.
 
So the building inspector falls off a roof. The City mgmt. puts a temp in his place who doesn't know the job, that guy forgets to measure for height, and now they want the builder to demolish part of a building that's passed all its inspections?

Ice is right, the judge should tell the City they're SOL.
 
It would actually be interesting to see what the plans that were approved showed. If they showed the height that it is presently built to the city probably can't do much about it. However if the design drawing showed one thing and the finished product with something else it could become a major issue. I don't know of any building inspectors who carry around a tape measure or any other measuring device to figure out how tall he building is. They assume that is checked when the plans are checked.
 
It would actually be interesting to see what the plans that were approved showed. If they showed the height that it is presently built to the city probably can't do much about it. However if the design drawing showed one thing and the finished product with something else it could become a major issue. I don't know of any building inspectors who carry around a tape measure or any other measuring device to figure out how tall he building is. They assume that is checked when the plans are checked.
Click to expand...
I never get out of the truck without a tape measure. Measure first floor, measure second floor, measure floor joists, add.
 
I never get out of the truck without a tape measure. Measure first floor, measure second floor, measure floor joists, add.
Click to expand...
Yup, when I was out in the field, I always wore that left hand front pocket to shreds long before the pants were worn out.
 
Rip it off....We have had people here in CT build over the building line and had to cut the front of the house off...Now most towns ask for an "as-built" on the foundation prior to framing. But typically that just needs to happen once, word gets around...
 
Looking at the picture in the article I can see that the developer creates appealing buildings. Getting all worked up over 28" is a shame. The too tall house sets way back from the street so it's no harm no foul.

The comment in the article about him being a repeat offender has no bearing.

I wonder what the complainers have brought to the community.

City planners can be overbearing puds.

Then there's the planners at the city where I live....way cool folks that get it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope I resemble that last sentence that ICE laid down! and not the second to last sentence.:highly_amused:
 
Out in our LA and Orange County beach communities, the views of whitewater and sand are so valuable that anything getting built near the beach usually needs to have its height certified by a surveyor. I have seen disputes down to 0.01 foot of elevation.

Many cities even require a surveyor to "build" a full-scale outline of the structure onsite with 2x4s prior to design review approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top