Dan Patterson, post: 450846, member: 1179 wrote: You don't think they'll be able to get variances granted for existing nonconformities? If he's not making any changes why wouldn't they grant the variance(s)?
After the first case I expected that is exactly what would happen. One client has taken a year, and, several approaches since applying for a variance with no luck. This is the second client I've had with the expectation that he was just getting a deal on some foreclosed property. It's becoming a big problem for this town. I think they should grant the variance.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
I guess that we're lucky in MA regarding parcels that existed prior to the enactment of zoning. And lots created under previous zoning bylaws have "grandfathering" protection.
If the use (residential) is not changing and only the setbacks and lot size are the issue it would seem that one could appeal to the fire department for relief or offer to install a sprinkler system. Here, if you have a non-conforming side setback issue you can negotiate a side yard setback easement with the neighbor which ensures the building separation that the fire department requires. Most communities here also allow for deviations to the front yard setback and lot size if the result will be typical of the neighborhood. I agree with the OP that the town needs to revaluate its rules in light of the current situation.
If ownership is a trigger one has to ask if the bank interest in the property constituted ownership. Here it might.
not my real name, post: 450809, member: 8199 wrote: If I buy a product from a merchant that uses the same logic, it would certainly get that merchant a bad reputation.
Haven't you ever bought a used car; off of a used car lot...
not my real name, post: 450809, member: 8199 wrote: If you bought a new car and it did not work... then would you stoically accept your fate?
I can't say I've ever seen a new car that didn't come with a warranty; did your client get a warranty deed?
My guess; it was a Bargain and Sale Deed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargain_and_sale_deed&apos ;">Bargain and sale deeds are commonly used by banks who have acquired property after foreclosure. A bargain and sale deed could also be used in other situations where the grantor is unwilling to make the broad covenants that go along with a warranty deed. A quitclaim deed conveys title with no covenants at all.
Caveat Emptor
What did your client pay for the property?
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...
All of this advice is great; if your client owns a time machine; goes back in time and cancels the deal.
He needs to decide the best way to cut his loses today...
Dougie
not my real name, post: 450849, member: 8199 wrote: After the first case I expected that is exactly what would happen. One client has taken a year, and, several approaches since applying for a variance with no luck. This is the second client I've had with the expectation that he was just getting a deal on some foreclosed property. It's becoming a big problem for this town. I think they should grant the variance.
Yea really. It??s not in the town??s interest to give everyone a hard time and then have a bunch of vacant properties sitting there...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How many times has the bank sold this and other houses in the same predicament, raking in fees with each deal?
How are the banker and planning department employees related?
Dan Patterson, post: 450846, member: 1179 wrote: You don't think they'll be able to get variances granted for existing nonconformities? If he's not making any changes why wouldn't they grant the variance(s)?
Even if they would grant variances, why should a period of vacancy trigger an expensive survey/variance process if no changes have been made to the house?
We have a local city that has had zoning since I believe the 1920's. Some parts of the city have subdivision plats dating to 1880 or earlier. They have a current rule that prevents them from issuing a building permit on a property that is not a platted subdivision lot. Unfortunately, there are a multitude of cases where large original lots have been further divided by deed or the opposite case where large houses have spanned multiple lots. When any of these need a building permit that modifies the footprint of the house they require the lot to be platted.
The first time I ran into this was on a large lot that had been divided by deed into six smaller tracts. Five of them contained 100 year old houses and the sixth was home to a church. A parishioner had willed one of the adjacent houses to the church and they wanted to add on the the church in a manner that would have crossed the tract line. I submitted a plat to remove the line between the two tracts that the church owned, leaving the remainder of the original lot off of the plat. Initial comments from the Planning Commission and the City were that I would need to plat the entire original lot, dedicate required utility and drainage easements, dedicate additional R.O.W. width, and acquire variances for situations where existing structures didn't meet current zoning requirements. None of this could be accomplished without the cooperation of the owners of the other four tracts created from the original lot.
They relented a bit when I pointed out that the adjacent owners had no reason to cooperate and every reason to hold us for ransom. Their legal department came up with a note to be put on such plats stating that the remainder of the original lot is being left without benefit of survey due to separate ownership. The other issue was the variances (many caused by the R.O.W. dedication requirement). The Board of Zoning Appeals meets a week after the Planning Commission and you can't get on the Planning Commission agenda without having all of your zoning variances approved. So you get caught in a catch-22 where a simple building permit takes sixty to ninety days and costs a small fortune.
These days they've come around and when we're platting properties with existing zoning violations we just put a note on the plat indicating that the violations exist and will need to be addressed before a building permit can be obtained.
Stephen Ward, post: 450867, member: 1206 wrote: Even if they would grant variances, why should a period of vacancy trigger an expensive survey/variance process if no changes have been made to the house?
We have a local city that has had zoning since I believe the 1920's. Some parts of the city have subdivision plats dating to 1880 or earlier. They have a current rule that prevents them from issuing a building permit on a property that is not a platted subdivision lot. Unfortunately, there are a multitude of cases where large original lots have been further divided by deed or the opposite case where large houses have spanned multiple lots. When any of these need a building permit that modifies the footprint of the house they require the lot to be platted.
The first time I ran into this was on a large lot that had been divided by deed into six smaller tracts. Five of them contained 100 year old houses and the sixth was home to a church. A parishioner had willed one of the adjacent houses to the church and they wanted to add on the the church in a manner that would have crossed the tract line. I submitted a plat to remove the line between the two tracts that the church owned, leaving the remainder of the original lot off of the plat. Initial comments from the Planning Commission and the City were that I would need to plat the entire original lot, dedicate required utility and drainage easements, dedicate additional R.O.W. width, and acquire variances for situations where existing structures didn't meet current zoning requirements. None of this could be accomplished without the cooperation of the owners of the other four tracts created from the original lot.
They relented a bit when I pointed out that the adjacent owners had no reason to cooperate and every reason to hold us for ransom. Their legal department came up with a note to be put on such plats stating that the remainder of the original lot is being left without benefit of survey due to separate ownership. The other issue was the variances (many caused by the R.O.W. dedication requirement). The Board of Zoning Appeals meets a week after the Planning Commission and you can't get on the Planning Commission agenda without having all of your zoning variances approved. So you get caught in a catch-22 where a simple building permit takes sixty to ninety days and costs a small fortune.
These days they've come around and when we're platting properties with existing zoning violations we just put a note on the plat indicating that the violations exist and will need to be addressed before a building permit can be obtained.
I am assuming there are SOME changes to be made if the property is in disrepair or otherwise dilapidated. I was thinking as part of the rehab and required permit process, a zoning application stating there are no proposed zoning changes and the presence of existing nonconformities would not be totally unreasonable. I'd expect it to consist of a survey showing existing conditions and a zoning checklist filled out with a minimal review fee.
Even where there are disclosure laws in place, foreclosure sales are often exempt. The reasoning is probably that the lienholder will usually be selling to break even or be selling at a loss and that the buyer would be potentially getting a great price, so the burden of who should look into what potential issues might exist is shifted to the buyer.
That would apply to matters that would be found by making diligent inspections. A zoning issue would probably fall into that category. But if your client were able to show that the bank did know as opposed to merely asserting that they must have or should have known, then he may have a basis for some relief. Otherwise, your client is probably S.O.L.
If there is an existing home that is not completely derelict, it was used as single family housing prior to having been abandoned, and there is no proposed change in that use, then I am very surprised that it is not exempt from zoning regulations enacted after it was built.
If this is a problem regarding many properties in the immediate vicinity, as you imply, look into any talk of long term plans about community redevelopment around town. With a certain percentage of abandoned and unmaintained properties in an area, the town can declare it to be blighted and thereby eligible for a redevelopment project. If there are as many properties under similar circumstances in relatively close proximity, which is what I think you're saying, and if the buildings on them aren't so far gone as to be tear-downs, then something seems crooked on a larger scale than just your client's immediate problem. If it's really all that bad, advise your client to start making contact with buyers of similar properties to see what their experiences are.
Sounds like a good example of foreseeable Escheat.... maybe that's what they want.
Man! That stuff never happens on those cheezy house-flipping shows. According to those shows $400K somehow magically appears in your account, you walk into a vacant house and say 'We're gonna redo the kitchen with new appliances and countertops, and light fixtures in the rest of the house' and you're then suddenly $1MM richer !!! 🙂
Around here vacant houses get occupied by the homeless, the homeless do what they do, and pretty soon you've got a burnt out toxic waste dump.
Haven't read all of the above. However, the situation sounds like the government has taken value without just compensation. That could trigger a host of people to sue for compensation. If one owner wins a judgement the local government could soon be facing a massive financial problem.
Would this not essentially be Inverse Condemnation? The Municipality is by their actions denying the Owner the use of their property and thereby destroying the value. The Municipality has the right to condemn the property in the name of the Public Good, but the property owner needs to be compensated. This is clearly a case of governmental overreach.