• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

seasonally convertible pergola

kobin said:
Finally heard back from the city:

"The Section 42 G 3. Of Zoning Ordinance is for projections in the required yard for attached unenclosed patio cover. The permit application and plans submitted
are for enclosed detached pergola. As per Section 42C of Zoning Ordinance, detached accessory structure to be located on the rear one half of the lot, and at least 10’ from any other structure. This section also allows such structure to be 3’ from side and rear lot line."

So by this logic if I purchased a free standing pergola kit from Costco it would either need to be anchored to the house or set back 10 feet?
Click to expand...
Yes...that does appear to be the zoning requirement.
 
I have another email into the city asking which permit I need for an unenclosed patio located next to the house. Hopefully they'll respond sooner than 3 days.

In Section 42 C of the Zoning Ordinance, it states: "An accessory building attached to the main building shall be made structurally a part and have a common wall with the main building and shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this Ordinance applicable to the main building. Unless so attached, an accessory building in a residential district shall be located on the rear one-half of the lot and at least ten (10) feet from any dwelling or building existing or under construction on the same lot or any adjacent lot." The next line states: "In all residential districts, a building or structure attached to the principal building or structure by only a breezeway having a maximum width of six (6) feet shall be considered as being a detached accessory building or structure."

How can an accessory building or structure attached by a breezeway of 6' or less be considered a detached structure when the line before it says that a detached structure must be at least 10' away from the principal building? This statement is contradictory and makes no sense to me.
 
I would leave off any note about plastic,

It is allowed, but noting it may muddy the lake.
 
kobin said:
I have another email into the city asking which permit I need for an unenclosed patio located next to the house. Hopefully they'll respond sooner than 3 days.

In Section 42 C of the Zoning Ordinance, it states: "An accessory building attached to the main building shall be made structurally a part and have a common wall with the main building and shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this Ordinance applicable to the main building. Unless so attached, an accessory building in a residential district shall be located on the rear one-half of the lot and at least ten (10) feet from any dwelling or building existing or under construction on the same lot or any adjacent lot." The next line states: "In all residential districts, a building or structure attached to the principal building or structure by only a breezeway having a maximum width of six (6) feet shall be considered as being a detached accessory building or structure."

How can an accessory building or structure attached by a breezeway of 6' or less be considered a detached structure when the line before it says that a detached structure must be at least 10' away from the principal building? This statement is contradictory and makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

It is poorly written and would be better accompanied with a drawing. The breezway is a maximum of 6' wide. It can be any length, although to be compliant with he by-law, it would have to be at least 10' long. Obviously they would be considering the breezeway part of the main building, otherwise it would be a violation.

For what it's worth, we currently have the same 10' setback rule in our zoning by-law. We are removing it because no one can figure out why it is there.
 
Yep, I argue this with zoning also, if you can have an attached structure in the set backs with no separation why can't you have an unattached structure. Same lot, residential all the same potential and even HUD & FHA usually require 3-5 ft.

personally does not matter to me, hoping to get it amended out.
 
So 8 days after I submitted the third revision of this project to the city, they get back to me with this email:

"In reference to drawings submitted on June 17, provide required information in response to following comments:

Job description and use of structure mentioned on the permit application is for pergola/greenhouse. Clarify if the structure is attached or detached to the house on the application and is it patio cover or pergola. If it is unenclosed open pergola it shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance Section 42 C. If it is attached patio cover it shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance Section 42 G 3. The engineered plan shows Pergola, detail for pergola shows it is enclosed and covered.

The dimensions of the structure shall be consistence on the permit application, site plan and engineered drawings.

The structure shall be made structurally a part of the main building. Provide the engineer report stating that the structure is structurally attached to the bearing member of the existing house. Provide attachment details of the structure to the hose soffit if soffit is bearing part of the house."

Would I be able to bolt into the bricks to have it be structurally a part of the house? I'm not keen to go through the roof shingles. Not sure how I would find a structural attachment under the soffits either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top