A couple years ago, I staked the relocation of a house originally built in the 1860s, along with a new garage. The project required approval from the Board of Appeals, which the architect handled.
I recently completed an as-built plan, and the homeowner submitted it to the Building Inspector. The building inspector is now requiring me to submit the following letter:
'To the Building Commissioner,
I hereby certify that the structures (allowing for overhangs and all parts of the structure) have been checked by me and I do hereby confirm and declare that the sideline yard/setback distances to the front, side, rear, and elevations are correct and that the same comply with site plan/site plan, as filed with the Building Permit, and all applicable provisions of the Town of xxxxx Zoning By- Laws, Site Plan Approval and Special Permits.
Registered Land Surveyor____________________________"
The problem I have is that the as-built setbacks (to the roof) do not exactly match those on the proposed plan. The new garage setbacks are all larger than proposed. Most of the relocated house setbacks are larger, but 3 are slightly less (by 0.1', 0.4' and 0.2'). All are larger than the minimum setbacks in the zoning bylaw. The homeowner told me that at the Board of Appeals meeting last year, he asked how much tolerance they had in the setbacks, and the Board replied that they must match exactly. The architect's plan gave dimensions to all 4 property lines, and his roof overhangs were incorrectly calculated (didn't account for a 30 degree skew), AND the old house is not exactly vertical, so it was impossible to exactly match the setbacks. It was not possible to adjust the roof overhangs on the old 2 story house. I told my client this when I found out, but he wanted to proceed.
I was thinking of adding something like the following to the end of the letter:
"...except for the following: rear house setback of 53.5' (53.6' proposed), left house setback of 142.7' (143.1' proposed), front house setback of 218.7 (218.9' proposed)."
In 35 years, I have never seen anything like this letter. In my experience, the surveyor reports measurements, and it is the Building Inspector that determines if they comply.
It looks like my client needs this letter in order to obtain an occupancy permit.
Would you sign this letter? If so, with or without my addendum? As I said, all as-built setbacks are larger than the minimums set forth in the Zoning Bylaw.
Any other suggestions?
Thanks.
Another job for me to lose sleep over...
Gromaticus, post: 388600, member: 597 wrote: In my experience, the surveyor reports measurements, and it is the Building Inspector that determines if they comply.
This is key. Stand your ground here. I am just a dumb dirt surveyor. All I know is how to measure.
Never seen a letter like that, but I have seen plenty of buildings where the as built doesn't comply with the variances previously granted. Guess what. Back to the ZBA for another variance...
99% of the time it is the architects fault.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Send them a signed and sealed map showing your dimensions. Based on that they can do their own certification.
I would write the letter as you stated "except" and let them figure it all out. If it meets the setbacks then what difference does it make if the dimensions differ slightly from the architectural plans.
If it meets the most current regulations and bylaws I don't think I would have a problem signing it. What's the difference in certifying the house location meets the existing setbacks and certifying any other survey meets its regulations?
I would NOT opine on wether it conforms with any codes other those that I am expert in... boundaries,easements, title, etc.
Setback codes? I have no clue... that is not in my realm.
Provide a sealed plat with measured dimensions from the lot lines. Let someone else mark it up with their stuff.
Gromaticus, post: 388600, member: 597 wrote: and all applicable provisions of the Town of xxxxx Zoning By- Laws, Site Plan Approval and Special Permits.
Nope.
Brad Ott, post: 388616, member: 197 wrote: Nope.
Yeah, I was just noticing that part. There is no way I can sign that,
So what does the client do when I refuse and he can't get his permit?
It sounds to me like you're being asked to certify to something that is out of your area of expertise (unless you happen to be a town planner). I would think the plat speaks for itself and there should be no need to sign a certificate.
Gromaticus, post: 388619, member: 597 wrote: Yeah, I was just noticing that part. There is no way I can sign that,
So what does the client do when I refuse and he can't get his permit?
What I would do, were I in your position, is to rewrite the letter completely, stating the facts, and negotiate from there. If the facts aren't good enough, well, maybe they need a *magician* rather than a surveyor. If you state the setback distances to various points on the building, shouldn't the regulatory authority be able to determine whether or not they comply?
This is a perfect example of bureaucracy running amok.
Tommy Young, post: 388622, member: 703 wrote: This is a perfect example of bureaucracy running amok.
[MEDIA=youtube]jTU1GnOK2YM[/MEDIA]
Any time I sign anything of this sort I insert the phrase "To the best of my knowledge and belief" -- if the I.R.S. can live with it, so can whoever else.
Gromaticus, post: 388600, member: 597 wrote: I hereby certify that the structures (allowing for overhangs and all parts of the structure) have been checked by me and I do hereby confirm and declare that the sideline yard/setback distances to the front, side, rear, and elevations are correct and that the same comply with site plan/site plan, as filed with the Building Permit, and all applicable provisions of the Town of xxxxx Zoning By- Laws, Site Plan Approval and Special Permits.
Registered Land Surveyor____________________________"
Change "Registered Land Surveyor" in the last paragraph to "Registered Architect" and have the Architect sign it. 😎
I do hereby certify that the earth is round. Sorta. Except the parts that are not. It is more like a potato. er... a shape. Now, if we go UP high enough, we can probably meet most any setback... as the land grows, and you get away from the earth. So, there is probably not a problem, up 500 miles. However, down on earth, there might be....
'To the Building Commissioner,
I hereby certify that the structures (allowing for overhangs and all parts of the structure) have been checked by me and I do hereby confirm and declare that the sideline yard/setback distances as shown on "As Built" dated 8/30/2016 to the front, side, rear, and elevations are correct and that the same essentially comply with site plan/site plan, as filed with the Building Permit, and all meet applicable provisions of the Town of xxxxx Zoning By- Laws, Site Plan Approval and Special Permits.'
Paul in PA
I like Paul's response. I would change it to reference the as-built instead of writing the variations in the setbacks in there. You're signing the as-built anyway, so then it would just be an extension of that. If you're going to say that you are confirming it is within the zoning setbacks, you may want to double check those. Did the architect determine what the required building setback lines were?
I never use the word certify, no one has ever objected since I stopped doing it, they are basically asking you to CERTIFY to something you can't know, that the property conforms to the zoning, not just the setbacks.
1860? for all you know there could be a historic foundation underground that straddles the property line, the owners might be running a business at night,,,,,,,,,, you just can't know
Write your own, just STATE what you know about the site and be very specific. I would only include each item that YOU want to deal with,,,,,,,, from my as-built survey on 8-1-2016 the front foundation of the house is 51' from the front line of the property and does not violate the minimum setback requirement as shown on page xxx of zoning resolution xxx for R-1 zoning.
I wouldn't even state that the property is R-1, let them figure that out. I've seen too many zoning location mishaps.
Gromaticus, post: 388600, member: 597 wrote: A couple years ago, I staked the relocation of a house originally built in the 1860s, along with a new garage. The project required approval from the Board of Appeals, which the architect handled.
I recently completed an as-built plan, and the homeowner submitted it to the Building Inspector. The building inspector is now requiring me to submit the following letter:
'To the Building Commissioner,
I hereby certify that the structures (allowing for overhangs and all parts of the structure) have been checked by me and I do hereby confirm and declare that the sideline yard/setback distances to the front, side, rear, and elevations are correct and that the same comply with site plan/site plan, as filed with the Building Permit, and all applicable provisions of the Town of xxxxx Zoning By- Laws, Site Plan Approval and Special Permits.
Registered Land Surveyor____________________________"
The problem I have is that the as-built setbacks (to the roof) do not exactly match those on the proposed plan. The new garage setbacks are all larger than proposed. Most of the relocated house setbacks are larger, but 3 are slightly less (by 0.1', 0.4' and 0.2'). All are larger than the minimum setbacks in the zoning bylaw. The homeowner told me that at the Board of Appeals meeting last year, he asked how much tolerance they had in the setbacks, and the Board replied that they must match exactly. The architect's plan gave dimensions to all 4 property lines, and his roof overhangs were incorrectly calculated (didn't account for a 30 degree skew), AND the old house is not exactly vertical, so it was impossible to exactly match the setbacks. It was not possible to adjust the roof overhangs on the old 2 story house. I told my client this when I found out, but he wanted to proceed.
I was thinking of adding something like the following to the end of the letter:
"...except for the following: rear house setback of 53.5' (53.6' proposed), left house setback of 142.7' (143.1' proposed), front house setback of 218.7 (218.9' proposed)."
In 35 years, I have never seen anything like this letter. In my experience, the surveyor reports measurements, and it is the Building Inspector that determines if they comply.
It looks like my client needs this letter in order to obtain an occupancy permit.
Would you sign this letter? If so, with or without my addendum? As I said, all as-built setbacks are larger than the minimums set forth in the Zoning Bylaw.
Any other suggestions?
Thanks.
Another job for me to lose sleep over...
Well, they only need a surveyor if a surveyor can provide them what they need. Like most surveying these days it's not the measurement they need but the value your knowledge can add to it. As Kent suggested, you should write a report on the map or otherwise. Your post here is an indication of what it might say. A full explanation of why the as-built differs from the plan is in order. And an inclusion of exactly which permits, by-laws, etc. are applicable, based on the current instructions received/communicated to the surveyor from the Town officials along with the surveyors perusing of the codes supplied by the Town. If the surveyor can't do this then the Towns will simply purchase the best robotic survey instruments at taxpayer expense and have the building inspectors perform the measurements. Surveyors have lost a lot of other services in similar fashion. Because it becomes more complicated over the years is a reason to learn more rather than to decline more.
