• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Interesting problem

Yankee Chronicler

Yankee Chronicler

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 17, 2023
Messages
3,373
Location
New England
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.

1750030736279.png
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
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
Click to expand...
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).
 
Last edited:
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...
 
steveray said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
steveray said:
Until the building is built across it....
Click to expand...
In my example in Post #3, the lot tie / affidavit is also available on the city’s GIS. The permit tech adds it to a list of clearances that must be obtained prior to issuance of a permit.

I’m not saying it’s foolproof, just like requiring permits in the first place isn’t a foolproof way to guarantee code conformance. I’m saying this is a normal method to track this kind of issue.
 
Yikes said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not the same as what I'm dealing with. I'm looking at an application where the actual structure spans two parcels that are (technically) under separate ownership. Take another look at the plan I posted. The canopy is outlined. Three of the support columns are on one parcel, the other three are on a separate parcel with a different owner.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
That's not the same as what I'm dealing with. I'm looking at an application where the actual structure spans two parcels that are (technically) under separate ownership. Take another look at the plan I posted. The canopy is outlined. Three of the support columns are on one parcel, the other three are on a separate parcel with a different owner.
Click to expand...
Right. So the solutions are:
1. One entity buys the entire property from the other entity, and does a lot tie covenant.
2. One entity buys part of the land from the other entity, and records a lot line adjustment.
3. One entity gets an easement from the other entity, which explicitly states the encumbrances, encroachments, etc. For building code purposes, it's mainly an encroachment plus an additional no-build "yard" space if required for opening protectives at the canopy, firefighter access, etc.
 
Yikes said:
Right. So the solutions are:
1. One entity buys the entire property from the other entity, and does a lot tie covenant.
2. One entity buys part of the land from the other entity, and records a lot line adjustment.
3. One entity gets an easement from the other entity, which explicitly states the encumbrances, encroachments, etc. For building code purposes, it's mainly an encroachment plus an additional no-build "yard" space if required for opening protectives at the canopy, firefighter access, etc.
Click to expand...
Unless you use Ex2, the building code does not do well with this...

706.1.1​

Any wall located on a lot line between adjacent buildings, which is used or adapted for joint service between the two buildings, shall be constructed as a fire wall in accordance with Section 706. Party walls shall be constructed without openings and shall create separate buildings.

Exceptions:

  1. 1.Openings in a party wall separating an anchor buildingand a mall shall be in accordance with Section 402.4.2.2.1.
  2. 2.Party walls and fire walls are not required on lot lines dividing a building for ownership purposes where the aggregate height and area of the portions of the building located on both sides of the lot line do not exceed the maximum height and area requirements of this code. For the building official’s review and approval, the official shall be provided with copies of dedicated access easements and contractual agreements that permit the owners of portions of the building located on either side of the lot line access to the other side for purposes of maintaining fire and life safety systems necessary for the operation of the building.
 
steveray said:
Unless you use Ex2, the building code does not do well with this...

706.1.1​

Any wall located on a lot line between adjacent buildings, which is used or adapted for joint service between the two buildings, shall be constructed as a fire wall in accordance with Section 706. Party walls shall be constructed without openings and shall create separate buildings.

Exceptions:

  1. 1.Openings in a party wall separating an anchor buildingand a mall shall be in accordance with Section 402.4.2.2.1.
  2. 2.Party walls and fire walls are not required on lot lines dividing a building for ownership purposes where the aggregate height and area of the portions of the building located on both sides of the lot line do not exceed the maximum height and area requirements of this code. For the building official’s review and approval, the official shall be provided with copies of dedicated access easements and contractual agreements that permit the owners of portions of the building located on either side of the lot line access to the other side for purposes of maintaining fire and life safety systems necessary for the operation of the building.
Click to expand...

And this situation doesn't fit Exception #2 to 706.1.1 because there's no separation of ownership of the proposed canopy between two entities. The building and the canopy will be owned by the fast food company, and the land is owned by a pair of LLCs that are ultimately controlled by the same person.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
And this situation doesn't fit Exception #2 to 706.1.1
Click to expand...
Am confused, 706.1.1's base requirement is "Any wall located on a lot line . . . shall . . . " It doesn't say "Any portion of a structure located on a lot line . . ."

Does the canopy design include a wall located on a lot line? If not, what's the issue?

Cheers, Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top