The Virgin Islands Building Code says that "Architectural Features" are allowed to extend into building setbacks by 2" for every foot of setback. So where the setback is 15 feet, an architectural feature can be 30" into the setback or 15' - 2.5' = 12.5 feet from the property line.
But the code does not have a definition of "Architectural Feature". Apparently this has never gone to court here.
One atty.,representing me a few years ago when my neighbor was clearly building in the setback, said that building codes in the states, if they do define Architectural Features, always exclude roofs which are "Structural Features". So roofs are subject to setbacks the same as walls.
Another atty. recently told me that absent of a definition, roofs can be Architectural Features, and are always considered so in the Virgin Islands.
Any more opinions from this board?
This is becoming important, since Title Companies and Banks are just starting to ask surveyors to certify as to compliance with deeded covenants and restrictions and therefore compliance with zoning setbacks. Compliance with setbacks is very low here. Even new expensive houses often have violations on the approved plans and usually have violations by the time the house is done. Old houses almost always have violations. No one has ever worried about it before and now I'm the bad guy for people not getting approved for mortgages. The roof issue hasn't been the deciding factor yet, but it might be soon.
In my local area, roof overhangs are excluded from setback requirements unless the overhang extends more than 2 feet beyond the exterior wall of the house.
In the Tropics, roof overhangs are functionally enormous because of the rain. Seems to me that Stateside regs are inappropriate for Caribbean climes.
With our pre-rebuild surveys here, we have been having similar discussions - do we show the building footprint, or the envelope.
Our solution is to capture both the eaves and the foundations and to show both on the plans.
In my area most ordinances exclude overhangs from setback requirements. Most, but not all, exclude porches but that can vary if there is a roof over it or it is enclosed. Also, things like heat pumps, propane tanks, etc, may or may not count. An exterior chimney would count. I guess my point is I deal with a lot of variables in many different jurisdictions.
Here in Charlotte, the house eaves don't count for setbacks, but for detached accessory structures the eaves or gutters DO count.
I call it the beartrap setback. It will bite you.
No real help here. Just my comment. It shouldn't be up to a surveyor to have to decide whether a roof is an architectural feature. I don't think it should even be a surveyor who should decide if someone is in violation of a covenant. S/he should only have to show the factual offset to the building and to the roof.
Having said that, at least someone with authority should be able to tell you what constitutes an architectural feature. Off the top of my head, it seems like a roof is a structural feature. I would think an architectural feature would be more of a cosmetic item than something that keeps a shelter over your head and the rain out. I think I would want to see an opinion in writing, a law or a judge's decision to call it an architectural feature and not structural.
I spent some time working in the Virgin Islands and although it is about the most opposite of Alaska’s weather that you could find the impression I got was that it was settled with the same sort of mentality as much of Alaska. Basically, - it is do what you can with what you have. Our compliance to local and national codes / regs has been spotty at best. Currently we are transitioning to what we call the down south way of doing things. Most of the reasoning for this is because of the large influx of people coming from other places for jobs here in Alaska. They bring their experiences from where they worked previously and apply them here. This has led to much more strict interpretations of the rules and a bunch of very disappointed locals due to them all of a sudden having problems that didn’t exist until this change of the way things are done. We have never considered roof overhang when it comes to setbacks, we consider the structure as the part supported by a foundation or in the absence of seeing a foundation than the part of the structure (walls, chimneys, porches, etc) that has skirting.
With that being said I would also include unsupported areas with floor area – such as a dormer sticking out from the first floor, I would not include a bay window if it was just a protrusion but I would if it went to the ground. These are all tough decisions as they can potentially affect the property owner greatly. I think I would request clarification from the enforcers in the area and then remember it’s not you requiring this new way but the enforcers. I would let your client know this.
Thanks for all the comments.
Tom, there is no one in authority here to tell anyone anything. Over a year ago I got a promise from our Lieutenant Governor to get a written opinion from the VI AG as to weather or not the "Public Surveyor" had a legal justification for not recording my surveys. That opinion will never come. And that nightmare continues.
Bear Bait, you have it right about the mentality here. Explaining how things are done Up North doesn't win any friends here. And there are no Enforcers. Just the Bank and Title co. wanting a certification.
I think I will need to make up some wording like "the building may or may not comply with zoning regulations depending on weather or not a roof is judged to be an architectural feature."
In my area local codes have started using eaves or closest point of the structure instead of foundation for setbacks. Given a choice, I can't recall an enforcing agency ever picking the least restrictive interpretation:)
Spelling police: A roof protects you from rainy weather, whether or not it meets setbacks.
How come this thread isn't titled "...rooves"?
Hoof--> hooves, why not roof--> rooves?
So, if, the roof is structural are the eaves also structural?
If the plural of "roof" is "rooves", then the singular for "eaves" must be "eaf"...?
"This is becoming important, since Title Companies and Banks are just starting to ask surveyors to certify as to compliance with deeded covenants and restrictions and therefore compliance with zoning setbacks."
Not knowing what you are dealing with in regard to the local Title Companies, Banks and Realtors, but it sounds to me as if no one knows for sure how to interpret the local codes and therefore are unsure if the sites you survey are in compliance. I interpret their asking the Surveyors to weigh in with a compliance statement as a way to "pass the buck" and shift the liability onto someone else. I wouldn't want to be put in that position and in my experience that compliance statement should come from the title company's legal team in conjunction with their issuing a zoning endorsement for the Lender. There seems to be a lot of confusion on the the local regs there and I wouldn't want to issue a compliance statement on a property that could be legally refuted at a later date and leave me on the hook for a property that is not in compliance. Your E&O provider may frown on you issuing such a statement as you may be opening yourself up to additional risk.
Just my $0.02
Good luck- this is a tough situation to be in with your local clients. I'd be interested to hear how this one plays out if you can post future developments to the situation.
Chuck
Local ordinances can be tricky. That doesn't make navigating them impossible.
If terms are not defined in code they are defined by action. Any other way of doing business is likely to end up in District Court. The municipality cannot change the meaning and manner of enforcement without changing the ordinance.
If they have allowed overhangs in the past they cannot disallow them without some clear change. If I were asked to certify conformance that would be my criteria and the certification would say so.
