Non Conforming lots question

[Inspector Gadget]

Whether two lots are "considered" to be one lot for taxation purposes is a different matter than ownership for zoning and building purposes. I can't imagine any jurisdiction in which two parcels, described in the land records by two separate deeds, would or could be arbitrarily merged into one lot -- without the owner's consent.

I'm a building inspector not a development officer or planner, but I'd suggest the logic is something like this:

If the lots are subsumed under one tax bill, the two properties are treated as a singular unit because the singular tax creates the effect of a singular lot.

Or in reverse, if the owner intended on selling one and keeping the other, they would be on two separate tax bills.

 

[tmurray]

I'm a building inspector not a development officer or planner, but I'd suggest the logic is something like this:

If the lots are subsumed under one tax bill, the two properties are treated as a singular unit because the singular tax creates the effect of a singular lot.

Or in reverse, if the owner intended on selling one and keeping the other, they would be on two separate tax bills.

Should the planner/development officer/building official care who is paying the taxes?

I understand where you are coming from. I can certainly see some jurisdictions relying on the taxation system to help support more poorly developed departments, but I strongly question the legitimacy of tying permits to the taxation system.

Taxation tied to permits, yes, but not the other way around.

Anytime I was involved in a similar situation, we just advised of the taxation or utility billing inconsistency to the appropriate department and issued the permit. It was not my problem to solve and the resident/contractor should not be punished because the government made a mistake or does not have the proper processes in place.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Taxation came into it because when RAW12 revived this discussion, he/she wrote that he/she has two deeded lots, but can't build on the second lot because the tax map shows them as one, so the building department won't issue a building permit.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Should the planner/development officer/building official care who is paying the taxes?

I understand where you are coming from. I can certainly see some jurisdictions relying on the taxation system to help support more poorly developed departments, but I strongly question the legitimacy of tying permits to the taxation system.

No, but.... if the government is taxing it as one lot, it provides guidance as to how others might want to do the same. And, as stated before, one of our jurisdictions uses that test to provide guidance to development officers.

Thorny question that arises from that, however: if development considers two PIDs under one PAN to be a "singular lot" what happens when the application lands on the building inspector's desk and we're looking at lot lines for spatial separation?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

No, but.... if the government is taxing it as one lot, it provides guidance as to how others might want to do the same. And, as stated before, one of our jurisdictions uses that test to provide guidance to development officers.

Thorny question that arises from that, however: if development considers two PIDs under one PAN to be a "singular lot" what happens when the application lands on the building inspector's desk and we're looking at lot lines for spatial separation?

IIRC, surveyors don't look at tax maps when doing a property survey, they look at deeds in the land records. So a proper land survey should show this as two lots, and that's what the building department and zoning department should be going by -- a signed and sealed survey map.

R106.2 Site plan or plot plan. The construction documents
submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied
by a site plan showing the size and location of new construction
and existing structures on the site and distances from lot
lines. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show
construction to be demolished and the location and size of
existing structures and construction that are to remain on the
site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or
modify the requirement for a site plan where the application
for permit is for alteration or repair or where otherwise
warranted.

I thought the code required the site plan to be based on an A-2 survey by a licensed land surveyor. That may have been in the old BOCA code -- or perhaps in my state's adopted amendments to the BOCA code.

Aha -- I never realized it, but the IBC requirement for the site plan specifies that it shall be based on an accurate survey -- the IRC requirement does not.

[A] 107.2.6 Site plan. The construction documents
submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied
by a site plan showing to scale the size and
location of new construction and existing structures on
the site, distances from lot lines, the established street
grades and the proposed finished grades and, as applicable,
flood hazard areas, floodways, and design flood
elevations; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an
accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition,
the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and
the location and size of existing structures and construction
that are to remain on the site or plot. The building
official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement
for a site plan where the application for permit is for
alteration or repair or where otherwise warranted.

 

[tmurray]

No, but.... if the government is taxing it as one lot, it provides guidance as to how others might want to do the same. And, as stated before, one of our jurisdictions uses that test to provide guidance to development officers.

Thorny question that arises from that, however: if development considers two PIDs under one PAN to be a "singular lot" what happens when the application lands on the building inspector's desk and we're looking at lot lines for spatial separation?

Well, limiting distance is defined to be measured to the property line.

Modification of taxation and sale of the property does not trigger a code review of the existing structures, so this would be the proper way to approach it.

We need to get away from the mindset that planning and building need to be in lockstep. We regulate many of the same things, but with different objectives. For this reason, we might have opposing views on the same building that are both the correct view.

 

[mtlogcabin]

We have a process where the 2 lots are bound together in a recorded document that results in the two lots are now considered one lot. This is reflected in a title search and a one tax bill assessor number. The legal description and a survey would always indicate two lots however, the AHJ considers them as one lot for zoning and building regulations.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We need to get away from the mindset that planning and building need to be in lockstep. We regulate many of the same things, but with different objectives. For this reason, we might have opposing views on the same building that are both the correct view.

Most of our permit applications don't include a site plan. It seems a lot of people don't understand that the Planning & Zoning Office is a separate entity from the Building Department, so just because they had a site plan approved by P&Z six months or a year ago doesn't mean that we automatically have their site plan in front of us when we open their application package. In noting that they need to provide US with a site plan, I always add that a site plan prepared for P&&Z may not contain the information required by the building code.

For one thing, zoning setback distances are measured differently than building code fire separation distance. The former is perpendicular to the property line; the latter is perpendicular to the face of the building. Second, if there are multiple buildings on a parcel, zoning doesn't require the establishment of a fire separation line between each of the buildings. (What the code describes as "an imaginary property line.") Most architects still think the fire separation distance is the physical distance between two buildings.