Required to destroy accessory use building because main no longer exists?

[jbmsurfs]

I am hoping someone can help me before the next obvious step of hiring a lawyer. I am located in Michigan and my wife and I own a residential property to which the house was destroyed by fire and demolished. The city is now trying to make us destroy the pool (untouched by fire) because the house no longer exists. The pool meets all safety requirements and is not in use while the property is actually listed for sale. The city keeps referring to the accessory use code section of ordinance. There is nothing in the ordinance about having to destroy the accessory building (or pool in this instance, which falls under the same code) simply because the main no longer exists. Under their inferred ordinance they are using against us to have us destroy a perfectly good pool, they would also make anyone destroy an unattached garage or pole building simply because the main no longer exists.

They (the city) have 15k of our money tied up in escrow which should have been returned when the house was demolished (6 months ago), and they are threatening to use this money to destroy our pool if we do not. There are many reasons we do not want to destroy the pool but the big one is we had just spent $7k on a new liner, a week before this fire occurred and we do not recoup that money thru insurance. I find it doubly wasteful as it is wasting money to destroy something worth even more money.

Has anyone heard of anything similar? Where a city orders someone to destroy perfectly good buildings simply because the larger does not exist? This logic is laughable to me and I find it hard to think a judge would have someone destroy something worth many thousands simply because something worth even more thousands was destroyed by fire. But maybe I live in a world of to much common sense.

 

[Msradell]

I think your best bet would be to put it on the market immediately. That way you could say that removing the pool would falsify your listing! That being said I've never heard of anything that would Req it or an auxiliary building to be destroyed in codes unless it's a local amendment in your area.

 

[jbmsurfs]

I think your best bet would be to put it on the market immediately. That way you could say that removing the pool would falsify your listing! That being said I've never heard of anything that would Req it or an auxiliary building to be destroyed in codes unless it's a local amendment in your area.

Thank you for your response and I too could not find an instance of anything unharmed having to be destroyed. That said, do you know if "for sale by owner", would still constitute falsifying my listing? We have had it for sale by owner for around 3 months and just signed contracts this week with a realtor to officially put it on the market. Our realtor also did mention something along the lines like she did not think it would be possible of the city so long as it were for sale, we never had her elaborate as to why. Thank you for your time!

 

[ICE]

As long as the pool is rendered safe, there is no obvious compelling reason to remove it. It is worth noting that most planning departments would not allow the construction of a pool on a bare lot. A temporary power pole would be required to maintain the pool equipment.

 

[walker.t]

Has anyone heard of anything similar? Where a city orders someone to destroy perfectly good buildings simply because the larger does not exist? This logic is laughable to me and I find it hard to think a judge would have someone destroy something worth many thousands simply because something worth even more thousands was destroyed by fire. But maybe I live in a world of to much common sense.

I have not heard of a scenario such as yours, but I’ll share my thoughts on what your zoning officials may be thinking.

Your property is in some sort of residential zone which has been established for the construction of (presumably) single-family dwellings. With your house on the property you can have things such as the pool or a detached garage or whatever because these support (are accessory to) the primary use of the house. But after the house was lost the primary residential use ceased to exist and now you have a new primary use (a stand-alone pool) which is a nonconforming primary use on your residential lot.

When a new house is built this matter will be resolved, unfortunately your zoning officials don’t want to wait for that. What they might fear is that you or the buyer are going to start having tailgating pool parties and using the lot for something other than a single-family residence - maybe even renting it out as a below-the-radar commercial use.

I’ve never done a residential pool, but I expect that your health department requires restroom and shower facilities on the property in order to have the pool, so chances are you don’t even have a legal pool, don’t be surprised if someone complains about that.

I would like to see your zoning officials offer a bit of grace to you and let you sell the lot and let someone else build a house. I spoke with a zoning official once who told me they were “complaint driven” - they focus on the things that citizens are complaining to them about, if none of your neighbors are complaining I would give you the time you need. Unfortunately, with no guarantee that the new buyer will build a house any time soon, I can see why the zoning department is insisting that the pool be demolished.

They (the city) have 15k of our money tied up in escrow which should have been returned when the house was demolished (6 months ago), and they are threatening to use this money to destroy our pool if we do not.

I don’t know why the escrow account was established, but I’d be surprised if one of the terms under which the money can be released is to demolish your pool.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It is a zoning issue and a lot of zoning codes have sections that deal with non-conforming issues.

Did they make you remove the foundation.

You could apply for a building permit.

That usually gives you 180 days to start construction after the permit is issued. We allow 180 days before the application expires after the permit is approved to issue.

Check with your building department.

 

[Yikes]

Jbmsurfs, you said “the city is trying to make you…”
What legal mechanism are they using to do this? Have they issued you a code citation, and if so, what exactly does it say, and what code sections does it cite?
(You can omit address-specific identifiers, but please provide more context.)

 

[steveray]

They are kind of right if not a bit draconian.....Last I knew, a fire and/ or demo from fire would not technically abandon the residential use, which is slightly different than the structure thing, but similar....How long has it been?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Any notices the city gives you in writing should also inform you of your right to appeal and how to do the appeal. Wait to the last day permitted and file your appeal. Use the time frame and the appeal process to your advantage by dragging it out. If the property changes ownership the process usually will start all over again with the new owners.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Jbmsurfs, you said “the city is trying to make you…”
What legal mechanism are they using to do this? Have they issued you a code citation, and if so, what exactly does it say, and what code sections does it cite?
(You can omit address-specific identifiers, but please provide more context.)

I have the same question. You posted in the discussion area for the International Property Maintenance Code. Is that the code they cited in ordering demolition of the pool? If so, what section of the IPMC?

If they didn't cite the IPMC, what code, ordinance, or regulation did they cite? If they didn't cite any legal authority, my layman's opinion is that it's not a lawful order. However, you will need a lawyer to fight it.

 

[Yikes]

I have the same question. You posted in the discussion area for the International Property Maintenance Code. Is that the code they cited in ordering demolition of the pool? If so, what section of the IPMC?

If they didn't cite the IPMC, what code, ordinance, or regulation did they cite? If they didn't cite any legal authority, my layman's opinion is that it's not a lawful order. However, you will need a lawyer to fight it.

The OP says "the pool meets all safety requirements". We are taking that at face value, but I'd like to find out more.
Years ago I saw where a house burned down but the pool remained. The former wall of the house had formed part of the pool's perimeter safety fence. The owner fenced off the perimeter of the site, but not with the kind of fences that met pool code.
Also, without power (the house panel burned up) the water circulation stopped, the owner stopped maintaining the pool, it got algae, then they eventually had mosquito vector control issues.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The OP says "the pool meets all safety requirements". We are taking that at face value, but I'd like to find out more.
Years ago I saw where a house burned down but the pool remained. The former wall of the house had formed part of the pool's perimeter safety fence. The owner fenced off the perimeter of the site, but not with the kind of fences that met pool code.
Also, without power (the house panel burned up) the water circulation stopped, the owner stopped maintaining the pool, it got algae, then they eventually had mosquito had vector control issues.

I wondered about the integrity of the enclosure myself. I didn't think about power to the circulation and filtration system. There's also the issue of maintaining the chemical balance.

 

[walker.t]

Years ago I saw where a house burned down but the pool remained. The former wall of the house had formed part of the pool's perimeter safety fence. The owner fenced off the perimeter of the site, but not with the kind of fences that met pool code.
Also, without power (the house panel burned up) the water circulation stopped, the owner stopped maintaining the pool, it got algae, then they eventually had mosquito had vector control issues.

What are the requirements for toilet and shower facilities for residential pools? Commercial pools require toilet and shower facilities within a certain distance of the pool, maybe it’s assumed the residential pool has a toilet and shower within a reasonable distance because it’s on the same lot as the house - but after the house burns down the toilet and shower are gone.

 

[jar546]

I moved this to Planning and Zoning because this is clearly a zoning issue. You cannot have an accessory structure if you don't have a primary structure. When you decided not to rebuild and instead sell the property, the municipality had every right to enforce its ordinances.
If you attempted to get approval to build a pool on a lot that had no primary structure, you would not be allowed to do so. Now that you have a code case, the seller's title company will have difficulty providing title insurance with an open code case. If you were to keep the property and were working on building a new home, your results may be different, but you chose to sell the property.

 

[Msradell]

I moved this to Planning and Zoning because this is clearly a zoning issue. You cannot have an accessory structure if you don't have a primary structure. When you decided not to rebuild and instead sell the property, the municipality had every right to enforce its ordinances.
If you attempted to get approval to build a pool on a lot that had no primary structure, you would not be allowed to do so. Now that you have a code case, the seller's title company will have difficulty providing title insurance with an open code case. If you were to keep the property and were working on building a new home, your results may be different, but you chose to sell the property.

Based in what you are saying then community pools shouldn't be allowed because they don't have a primary structure either. I also don't believe that they ever have placed a code case on is. If they did place a code case against this they would have to specify where the code this is stated, which to my understanding they haven't done yet.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Based in what you are saying then community pools shouldn't be allowed because they don't have a primary structure either. I also don't believe that they ever have placed a code case on is. If they did place a code case against this they would have to specify where the code this is stated, which to my understanding they haven't done yet.

But your original post certainly suggested that there is a code case. They must have sent you a notification of some sort. That notification is an official act, and is a public record. It has to be filed somewhere. That makes it a case.

The city keeps referring to the accessory use code section of ordinance.

 

[jar546]

Based in what you are saying then community pools shouldn't be allowed because they don't have a primary structure either. I also don't believe that they ever have placed a code case on is. If they did place a code case against this they would have to specify where the code this is stated, which to my understanding they haven't done yet.

Zoning rules and regulations outside of residential single-family zones often differ, and community pools always come with restrooms.

 

[TheCommish]

Community or public pools are recreational facility are a public use that is most often in the local zoning ordnance as an allowed use, they are primary uses.

The city is sending you a violation notice, they should be advising you to your right to appeal, follow that procedure.

 

[BN4537]

We have a nuisance ordinance that prohibits any accumulation of stagnant water permitted or maintained on any lot or piece of ground (Mosquito breeding).

Wonder if that is why the city is fired up about this one.

 

[jbmsurfs]

I wondered about the integrity of the enclosure myself. I didn't think about power to the circulation and filtration system. There's also the issue of maintaining the chemical balance.

The pool is drained and covered.

 

[jbmsurfs]

We have a nuisance ordinance that prohibits any accumulation of stagnant water permitted or maintained on any lot or piece of ground (Mosquito breeding).

Wonder if that is why the city is fired up about this one.

The pool is drained and covered. This is not a complaint by the city, the entire premise is an accessory use building (which the pool falls under) can not exist without the main use building (home). Although the actual ordinance states the accessory use building can not be "built" without the main. It says nothing about having to destroy an accessory building.

 

[jbmsurfs]

We have a nuisance ordinance that prohibits any accumulation of stagnant water permitted or maintained on any lot or piece of ground (Mosquito breeding).

Wonder if that is why the city is fired up about this one.

Pool is drained and covered, above is never mentioned at all.

 

[jbmsurfs]

We have a nuisance ordinance that prohibits any accumulation of stagnant water permitted or maintained on any lot or piece of ground (Mosquito breeding).

Wonder if that is why the city is fired up about this one.

The pool is drained and covered. This is not a complaint by the city, the entire premise and ordinance they are using states, an accessory use building (which the pool falls under) can not exist without the main use building (home). Although the actual ordinance states the accessory use building can not be "built" without the main. It says nothing about having to destroy an accessory building. Essentially, even if it were a $100k pole barn, they would force us to destroy it.

 

[jbmsurfs]

Community or public pools are recreational facility are a public use that is most often in the local zoning ordnance as an allowed use, they are primary uses.

The city is sending you a violation notice, they should be advising you to your right to appeal, follow that procedure.

It is on private property and the entire premise and ordinance they refer to is, an accessory use building (which the pool falls under) can not exist without the main use building (home). Although the actual ordinance states the accessory use building can not be "built" without the main. It says nothing about having to destroy an accessory building. Essentially, even if it were a $100k pole barn, they would force us to destroy it.