conarb
Registered User
The situation is that I decided to add a double garage in the rear yard along with a two story addition, I went to zoning to find out the required separation between the house and the U Occupancy, they told me that they don't even refer to U occupancies any more, they now call them "Accessory Structures", and in fact they allow the accessory structure to be attached to the main house since so many residents wanted to add Florida Rooms in rear yard setbacks that they allow garages or any other accessory structures to be attached. So far great, I never dreamed that I could attach the structures, the problem has now arisen in that accessory structures are limited to one story and a maximum height of 15' (recently increased form 12'), the architect came up with what I consider a great idea, put a deck on the roof of the garage like this:
View attachment 2075
At this point all zoning requirements are met, lot coverage, setbacks, height limitations, etc. The problem is that zoning doesn't like decks on accessory structures because neighbors complain about people "looking down on them", this is a corner lot with two affected neighbors, I went to both neighbors and they are willing to write letters stating that they support the concept and will not object. The CBO joined the discussion and stated that he sees a problem because to put a deck on the garage I have to engineer it to floor load, once it's engineered as a floor it constitutes a second floor not allowed on accessory structures. I told him I don't agree with his interpretation, I can "over-engineer" anything I want, he can't stop me, in fact the design constitutes a mansard roof and I can put a tar and gravel surface on the roof and walk on it all I want, just because I tile it doesn't preclude me from doing it. I don't see how they can require me apply to the Planning Commission for a variance to the zoning ordinance, all zoning requirements are met absent the building official's interpretation of what constitutes a second story, as the zoning administrator said: "This is a building code issue", if they don't back down would this be an appeal to the Board of Permit Appeals (if the city has ever constituted one)? I even brought up accessibility issues and the fact that I was installing an elevator for the wife to no avail. These are not bad guys, in the end I think their concern is that they stepped on the slippery slope when they allowed accessory structures to be attached, if they allow me to put a deck on one others will point to it and demand the right to put decks on their accessory structures. Where do I go, Planning Commission or Board of Permit Appeals?View attachment 2075
/monthly_2014_06/1603.jpg.d63a7151d338244e3b6726b319d64d5e.jpg
View attachment 2075
At this point all zoning requirements are met, lot coverage, setbacks, height limitations, etc. The problem is that zoning doesn't like decks on accessory structures because neighbors complain about people "looking down on them", this is a corner lot with two affected neighbors, I went to both neighbors and they are willing to write letters stating that they support the concept and will not object. The CBO joined the discussion and stated that he sees a problem because to put a deck on the garage I have to engineer it to floor load, once it's engineered as a floor it constitutes a second floor not allowed on accessory structures. I told him I don't agree with his interpretation, I can "over-engineer" anything I want, he can't stop me, in fact the design constitutes a mansard roof and I can put a tar and gravel surface on the roof and walk on it all I want, just because I tile it doesn't preclude me from doing it. I don't see how they can require me apply to the Planning Commission for a variance to the zoning ordinance, all zoning requirements are met absent the building official's interpretation of what constitutes a second story, as the zoning administrator said: "This is a building code issue", if they don't back down would this be an appeal to the Board of Permit Appeals (if the city has ever constituted one)? I even brought up accessibility issues and the fact that I was installing an elevator for the wife to no avail. These are not bad guys, in the end I think their concern is that they stepped on the slippery slope when they allowed accessory structures to be attached, if they allow me to put a deck on one others will point to it and demand the right to put decks on their accessory structures. Where do I go, Planning Commission or Board of Permit Appeals?View attachment 2075
/monthly_2014_06/1603.jpg.d63a7151d338244e3b6726b319d64d5e.jpg
