Interesting problem

[Yankee Chronicler]

Permit application currently under review. I won't identify the chain involved, but a national fast food restaurant wants to erect a permanent, gas station type canopy over the two drive-thru ordering lanes. The technical (legal) issue is that although they apparently have a lease agreement for a specific chunk of ground coverage, the "parcel" they show on the site/civil drawings as bounded by a "lease line" actually encompasses a major portion of one deeded parcel and portions of two other parcels. And, just to further complicate things, two of the three parcels have the same owner but the third parcel has a different owner.

The proposed canopy straddles the property line between parcels owned by Owner A and Owner B. In fact, three of the columns are on one parcel and three are on the other parcel. Three of the columns are only about two feet from the property line, which means they need a fire-resistance rating. Naturally, the architects haven't considered this because they only looked at the lease line -- even though all the site and civil drawings clearly show the other property lines and identify them as property lines.

It's going to be an interesting week. I have a couple of thoughts, but I need to discuss with my boss before opening a discussion with the architects.

Site plan is as below. I outlined the deeded property lines in red to illustrate the problem.

 

[TheCommish]

How did this get though Planning Board site plan review (land use) my zoning rules wouldn't allow project over lot lines

 

[Yikes]

You don’t have to be the ‘bad cop’. Here’s how it is handled in Los Angeles - - just give them a form like this and tell them they need their neighboring property owner to notarize and record it.
https://dbs.lacity.gov/sites/defaul...ne-parcel-lot-tie-affadavit-pc-str-aff-22.pdf

 

[socaldano]

Permit application currently under review. I won't identify the chain involved, but a national fast food restaurant wants to erect a permanent, gas station type canopy over the two drive-thru ordering lanes. The technical (legal) issue is that although they apparently have a lease agreement for a specific chunk of ground coverage, the "parcel" they show on the site/civil drawings as bounded by a "lease line" actually encompasses a major portion of one deeded parcel and portions of two other parcels. And, just to further complicate things, two of the three parcels have the same owner but the third parcel has a different owner.

The proposed canopy straddles the property line between parcels owned by Owner A and Owner B. In fact, three of the columns are on one parcel and three are on the other parcel. Three of the columns are only about two feet from the property line, which means they need a fire-resistance rating. Naturally, the architects haven't considered this because they only looked at the lease line -- even though all the site and civil drawings clearly show the other property lines and identify them as property lines.

It's going to be an interesting week. I have a couple of thoughts, but I need to discuss with my boss before opening a discussion with the architects.

Site plan is as below. I outlined the deeded property lines in red to illustrate the problem.

View attachment 15823

Around here, this would require approval by the "board of adjustment". This is more of a civil issue between adjacent owners, a 5th amendment issue regarding property ownership. Not a health and safety issue. So the easy and best solution might be to compel the restaurant owner to get a "Voluntary Easement by Grant" or Cross-Lot Easement done by the property owner's attorneys or the resteraunts attorneys and register it with the county property deeds. I always go to the 2nd paragraph of the Missouri constitution (most or all states have similar language) that says the principal duty of government is to protect the rights of the citizen (landowner), and one is "gains of his own industry". So if nobody is getting hurt, and the correct easement is granted....better yet, board of adjustment hearing decides to allow it... why not? Major city redevelopment run into this problem regularly when they would replace small single family homes and businesses with skyscrapers (of course they got the "board of adjustment" to change lot definition and zoning).

 

[steveray]

Our Chick fil a is all on one property with the strip I believe so we didn't have that problem....I would kick it back to zoning, but if they have zero lot lines it is going to end up back in your court really...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Our Chick fil a is all on one property with the strip I believe so we didn't have that problem....I would kick it back to zoning, but if they have zero lot lines it is going to end up back in your court really...

Further research suggests that the two LLCs that own the parcels involved trace back to the same controlling owner -- and the site immediately to the north may also trace back to that same owner. BUT ... on the land records they are three separate and distinct owners. It's a "bit of a sticky wicket," to be sure.

 

[Yikes]

Further research suggests that the two LLCs that own the parcels involved trace back to the same controlling owner -- and the site immediately to the north may also trace back to that same owner. BUT ... on the land records they are three separate and distinct owners. It's a "bit of a sticky wicket," to be sure.

Happens all the time around here.building is on one lot, parking is on the lot next door, both with the same owner. Lot tie or other permanent use easement takes the stickiness out of the wicket.