Grrrr. Tried to get my Permit today

[classic boost]

'Tried' is the word. My 2.5 acre property consist of 4 parcels. My proposed garage is a few feet into my next parcel. Zoning said 'no go'. It's not a variance/appeal issue, I'm just not allowed to do it. Zoning said I can get the parcels 'merged'. That requires resurveying and getting a new deed. Also involves an attorney. Another option is to shift the garage over. I'm required to have a 10ft setback. I can get a variance to have to closer ($200 fee). I just won't be able to place the garage where it would fit best, but it will work.
Just seems weird that I have a few acres (garage would be 100ft from one neighbor and 65ft from the other), but there is STILL an issue of where I can put it. That is my rant.
edit- forgot to add, I have to wait till May for the next appeals hearing.

 

[ForceFed70]

I could write a book about my experience getting a permit.

Tough choice. Having the property in different parcels is really handy when it comes to sub-dividing, adding more structures/houses, selling off a portion of your land, etc. But I guess it comes with a price. I would try the variance route.

 

[Slick111]

BE CAREFUL on this subject of merged parcels my brother did this very thing at a cost of 6 grand in 1986 involving a very similar situation as yours he combined 3 lots together BUT found out 2 years later his taxes went way up due to his now lot size was considered estate size same as rich people that own large plots of land with there huge mansions homes.He then tried to sub divide it back up was told all new survey and re recording etc $$$$$$$ ended up selling the whole mess at a huge loss.

 

[tyjoja]

I too have had permit issues over the years. This is why people forgo the process and sneak things in. Now most cities use gps mapping and can tell. You have to be patient, the public servants have all the power and like to weild it. I would do the set back and then once everything is final build a lean-to bay where you wanted in the first place. On garages, I tell them its just for storage, and that I can't afford electrical or plumbing, and once the permits signed and the doors are on, I do whatever I want.

 

[rslaback]

You do own it all now. However, this situation exists because if you were to build the garage and then sell the nearest parcel to someone else you now have an illegal garage. It ***** for you for sure but it does have a logical reason.

 

[ddawg16]

I too have had permit issues over the years. This is why people forgo the process and sneak things in. Now most cities use gps mapping and can tell. You have to be patient, the public servants have all the power and like to weild it. I would do the set back and then once everything is final build a lean-to bay where you wanted in the first place. On garages, I tell them its just for storage, and that I can't afford electrical or plumbing, and once the permits signed and the doors are on, I do whatever I want.

Totally wrong.

What most people fail to see or understand is that most of these 'rules' were the result of abuses.....for every person out there that is complaining about the 'rules'...there are twice as many people out there complaining about how issues related to the lack of rules.

There have been plenty of posts here where guys went to build a garage only to find out that someone was already on their land.

It has NOTHING to do with power....it's a simple matter of people doing their job....

 

[Grumpy365]

There have been plenty of posts here where guys went to build a garage only to find out that someone was already on their land.

.

A side bar/ off topic rant:

Why is it in every forum I read , when someone realizes these mistakes happen regarding lot boundaries , people start touting "adverse possession".

Adverse possession is stupid !

I have a survey and I paid the taxes, how is adverse possession ever acceptable?

I hate people laying claim to land that isn't theirs.

And I don't care that your case is / was different. If the road, drive way, garden, or fence isn't in your survey pins, it's not yours.

Rant off, back to the topic at hand.







Sorry dude. I could write not only a book, but an encyclopedia set, on permits and zoning problem.



.

 

[classic boost]

I'm not upset at the zoning board, just my situation. Once I drew up the plans and seen that the garage was on the other parcel, I thought that it might be a problem.
The setback should be a non-issue, as I know someone on the appeals board. He didn't see any problems with building close to my own property.

 

[trbomax]

I have the same issues but worse because we have 4-10 parcels and 2 are in one county and 2 in the adjoining county. Its best to work around it both from a tax standpoint and future sale of all or parts of it. Right now we have buildings on 3 of the 4 and since there are ag buildings involved those parcels with ag buildings are classed as "unimproved",but if it were all combined the whole 40 would be taxed at a different rate. Do some homework.

 

[Charles (in GA)]

In many cases, you do not need a survey, just a simple deed of combination. It depends on where you are located and local regulations, but this is probably the way to go. I would not get to concerned about the tax assessor. If you want, go talk to them, they should be happy to sit and discuss the value and what might change. Generally, larger parcels are worth less per acre than small parcels, it could easily save you some money. You do need to talk to the zoning people and make sure that making one large parcel won't have any other unintended consequences.

Charles

 

[barnee]

You may be able to adjust the boundry line of each lot which is allowable in most areas I have lived. The one condition is that each of the reconfigured lots must have the same square footage that they had prior, and you need to pay attention to "minimums" like minimum front street footage, minimum lot width, etc for the new lot boundries. If this is allowed you will still have four lots but the lot that the garage sites on would meet setbacks, etc.

 

[rsanter]

actually seems reasonable to me. you may own both properties but they are legally different parcials and entities. to put something on the line between them to me is a future danger to you IMOP
I would see if you could move that line, merge the properties , get a variance to build
zero to the line, or move the shop
I know its a pain but to me it seems like there will be a bigger pain later when you try to sell

bob

 

[SGKent]

First I am surprised this issue even made a thread. A parcel is a parcel and unless you combine them you cannot build across lot lines. Generally 4 parcels are worth more than 1 because 4 homes etc can be built instead of 1.

As to the rant on adverse possession. Why does it matter how one feels on this? The law is well established in Common Law and that is that. One can rant about stop lights all day long and say I don't need one but the rant won't get one light removed.

 

[Falcon67]

First I am surprised this issue even made a thread. A parcel is a parcel and unless you combine them you cannot build across lot lines. Generally 4 parcels are worth more than 1 because 4 homes etc can be built instead of 1.

This is generally true - but I can show you an example around the corner from me of a house that sits split on two separate parcels, one taxed at the value of the home and the other at the lot value. Part of the garage, kitchen, dining room and driveway are on the low value lot. Most other lots here have been combined before building, if the house was to sit across the lines. Both lots carry unique lot and block survey designations. How'd that happen? People not paying attention, that's all. City got the permit, then didn't check anything. It's not the only one like it either. Small city doesn't always keep good records or have all the people it takes to keep up with things. They can't find the original permit on our 12yr old house, but they are sure it's around somewhere.

I had the OPs issue on my shop as it was on a separate lot (parcel) and just about all cities have a restriction against accessory buildings on a lot without a primary structure (home). BTW - this isn't recent, this stuff is in the old crusty yellow codes adopted by the city 60~70 years ago. I looked at it personally. My "out" was that many of the surrounding properties had the advantage of merging lots when they built. We bought the house out of foreclosure but paid cash for the lots on either side to the original lot owner (not the foreclosed owner). So combining it all on a survey would be stupid as we'd throw away that cash and encumber the lots that we owned free and clear. Never mind trying to get BoA to not screw up the paperwork and put us out in the street. I pled my case and got my variance - mostly on the condition that I would heed the other restrictions for side and rear setbacks, which we did. Caused some heartburn on the foundation work, but worked through it.

Now - what we did do with the tax assessor was to ask them to assess the lots as a single unit, which they did. Why? To get the homestead exemption to apply to everything and not just the house. That will probably cut what might have been the tax bill by $200~300/yr.

 

[GarageEnvy]

The "merge" of the two parcels is commonly referred to as assemblage. Just a couple of cautionary notes about assemblage from the perspective of an appraiser. If you decided to spend the money and do the survey and combine the lots, what you might end up with is a single lot with little to no more value than one single smaller lot. It depends on what is typical for the area and what the market will pay for but you could create a situation where the additional size is surplus or excess land. I know it sounds nit-picky but from an appraiser's perspective there is a difference between excess and surplus land. Excess land could be split off and sold seperately. Surplus land can't be split off and is not needed to support the highest and best use and may not have any contributory value. If the area outside the new shop couldn't be split off due to size/width/whatever requirements AND the additional size is surplus land for the area, you might have just spent a bunch to devalue the property. That doesn't even consider whether or not the shop actually adds any value.