• 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

The Devil made me do it.

ICE

ICE

Oh Well
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
12,918
Location
California
Planning departments have rules. Those rules are not all that complicated and most projects involve little more than setbacks. Now since they have rules, they come first and are joined at the hip with the building dept.

Lets say a girl wants to build a patio cover. Go see planning with four sets of your plan, pay $$$.$$, expect an answer in three weeks and we're sorry if it took eight. How about a commercial site that wants to add a trash enclosure, same drill only longer and more expensive. And the list goes on.

When planning fees can cost as much as the patio cover, is there a better way? If the time spent in review by a planner is 10 minutes, why is a three week wait the norm? And please don't tell me that you pay a planner $5000.00 per day.

Ya I know there is overhead. A lot of that has to do with the prime real estate you're on. You and the rest of government aught to occupy vacant storefronts.

Be a real achiever and put a few houses on a property. What happens then? You wait a year or more. You could give the government pick of the litter and be able to afford it if they cut the fee to what it cost and did the 8 hours of review in 8 hours instead of 18 months.

The building dept. can turnaround plans in six weeks yet, a planning dept. review can take 1/36th of the average man's life.

I know of a city that requires an inspection by planning and building before any structure can be sold. The fee was $1000.00. On occasion, the hidden cost was 30 times the fee.

A fixer-upper would run $3 million and a beater could be had for a cool million. $2 million got you my house, located there. "Nice" properties were double digit millions.

There were some fabulous bootleg structures.

A few had me wondering about their effect on Earth's rotation.

One girl had a couple acres of manicured forest and three in-ground spas. Each spa was supplied by two large gas fired pool heaters. All of the equipment was located in a building made of logs. The spas were spread out on the property and hidden among the trees. It took less than ten minutes to heat all three spas. It took a lot longer than that to legalize them and for the money, she could have another spa.

Tiger :devil

If you are a planner and you think I just poked you in the eye.....why yes, yes I did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Building Inspectors have to suffer a lot of grief, the zoning/planning folks are on totally thinner ground. Mostly because they've got no occupation to move up from.

Here's a true story about my experiences with the planning department here in Bend Oregon while I worked my way through their approval process on an addition to my residence.

I own two tax lots that were originally plotted as four lots in 1911. In 1957 the eastern most 57 feet of two lots were sold off. I bought that smaller portion of lots 12 and 13 in 1985. That would be 100' by 57' or 5700 square feet. In 2002 I purchased the remainder of the four lots and the old house that was sited thereon. In 2009 I applied to adjust the lot line back to the line that was originally plotted in 1911. The planning folks demanded that I have the line surveyed, estimated cost $2,300,00. I refused because I was not establishing a new line but just asking the city to recognize a line they'd already accepted. With the help of the county surveyor the city backed down and gave me the lot line adjustment.

Empowered with the lot line adjustment I submitted my plans for an addition to my home. The clerk at the permit counter refused my plans because I had two driveways shown, both existing.

Back to the planning desk, Erick says "I can't have two driveways for one tax lot."

I say, "You've got to show me the verbage." Erick whips open the Bend code and quotes me something to the effect of: "Each residential tax lot shall have only one driveway." I asked him to keep reading. The next phrase was "unless the property has two frontages." Every thing I've submitted for the lot line adjustment and the building permit clearly show the site plan. My property is a corner lot.

The addition is almost done.

I can also tell you about the almost requirement for sprinklers, which I beat back because despite the comment from the permit clerk.

The Fire Department does not review residential projects with less than ten units.

The engineer says, " I've got to have $700.00 to tell you that the fire hydrant outside of your house will deliver 1750 GPM, Oh never mind, the system will deliver 1750 GPM at 23 PSI but I cannot put that in writing unless you pay the $700.00.

Yep We're accomplishing a bunch here!

Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Planners drive up the cost of raw land.

A developer finds a piece of land outside the city limits. Priced for a county subdivision requiring a a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. Go talk to the city planners, sure annex in and we will give you a density of 6 units per acre no questions asked we can provide water and sewer. Do this 2 or 3 times at the begining of the last boom cycle and within a short time realtors are overpricing raw land and the developers are buying at the higher prices because they will automatically get the higher density and planners are taught to cram the people together and avoid urban sprawl it is inefficient for a city to maintain the extra length in roads, water and sewer line.

What could have been a $30,000 half acre lotwith a ranch style house becomes a $75,000 5,000 sq ft city lot with a 2 story box with nothing but double car garages fronting the street.
 
I'm the development director for my city, and I am a building official and a planner. I agree with everything everyone says.

In our city, we have a 45 day cycle between submittal and public hearing to get entitlements for any project you want to build. This could include a restaurant with alcoholic beverage sales or a resort hotel, or a property replat. This includes Public Works review for paving, grading, drainage, and utilities. We can usually schedule a preconstruction meeting the day after the public hearing, and you can start work that afternoon, if we haven't let you start work earlier with a temporary sitework permit.

I'm not bragging, although I am proud of our process. I am constantly amazed at the hoops people are forced to jump through, especially given the state of the economy and the importance of economic development to municipalities.

I don't blame planners. I blame the highest level of city leadership for allowing this nonsense. Until the development community revolts and forces change, it's only going to get worse. Smart planning and thoughtful development are critical. No one should be allowed to sidestep the process, and each project should be carefully considered regarding every aspect of its impact on the community. But the burdensome process should be changed, and that will only happen with political pressure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The politicians will not change. It will cost jobs and be too streamlined for them to handle. These issues start in the home towns and accelerate all the way to Washington.

Glad to see one city in Texas has some common sense!
 
The problem is the political pressure is led by the NIMBYs and those who buy a house on a 1/8 acre lot with a pastorial view of the adjacent farm--then scream about controlling growth when the farm becomes the next subdivision.

There is also the campaign contributions to be had by those interested in the process.

And even when all of the local board of supervisors are in the development field-- the process is still convoluted as they seek competative advantages.
 
And if there never was development on this site what historical artifacts might be there or not be there would never be know. At some point all the regulations restricting development may become cost prohibited and a possible goverment "taking" of the land

JMHO
 
I've thought for a long time that the "city planner" must be one of the most frustrating jobs imaginable. He can sit in his office and think how nice it would be to have a clean master plan with clear areas for commercial, residential, multi-unit, buffers, etc. But there is always somebody who wants a variance to do some other project, or a developer with major financing who wants a subdivision where something else had been master-planned. There is a town in Florida with very clear organization on mile grids, residential in walled areas inside the grid with only a few access points to the major roads, all commercial at the mile intersections in neat blocks. The planner there must have a stiff hand to keep the renegade builders in check.
 
texasbo, I can't even imagine wearing both hats, I've always felt that you are either a planner or a building official, kind of a right brain/left brain, one will always overrule. If you can pull it off, then pardon the pun, my hat is off to you. I could not do it, the B.O. would win every time.
 
texasbo said:
I don't blame planners. I blame the highest level of city leadership for allowing this nonsense. Until the development community revolts and forces change, it's only going to get worse. Smart planning and thoughtful development are critical. No one should be allowed to sidestep the process, and each project should be carefully considered regarding every aspect of its impact on the community. But the burdensome process should be changed, and that will only happen with political pressure.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!
 
Frank said:
The problem is the political pressure is led by the NIMBYs and those who buy a house on a 1/8 acre lot with a pastorial view of the adjacent farm--then scream about controlling growth when the farm becomes the next subdivision.There is also the campaign contributions to be had by those interested in the process.

And even when all of the local board of supervisors are in the development field-- the process is still convoluted as they seek competative advantages.
Click to expand...
so so true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top