do the powers that be design buildings dead on the setback even when they have all the room in the world to move them away from it. I'd settle for at least 0.10'.
I don't think they do it to torment us, it's just from living in an ortho world. When I actually had clients that were building houses, I had most of them trained not to put a 40-foot house on a 50-foot lot because there isn't a lot in the world that is a perfect rectangle.
If my clients do that and they have plenty of room on the other side I stake it out 0.10' away from the setback. Oftentimes I don't tell them I'm doing it. They thank me later when issues come up.
What about when they design a house that's wall to wall, setback to setback? You know it won't fit and the designers and inspectors have no idea what you're talking about.
> What about when they design a house that's wall to wall, setback to setback? You know it won't fit and the designers and inspectors have no idea what you're talking about.
Steve you may be referring to what I am always confused about, which is that the foundation tends to be built to setback, yet once the finished material is applied, be it stucco or siding, there is an encroachment.
I never really get this, because say there is the typical "house location" or "site plan" type of survey on an existing house, in many cases one can only measure to the exterior finish, and then you get the existing setback of 4.9 or 4.85 or something and architects freak out because the setbacks are 5 feet.
Bryan
Well, that's another issue I've dealt with recently. What I'm talking about is a lot that's nominally 50' X 100' but it's not a perfect 90 degree rectangle so it might be 49.5 feet wide and the designer wants to put a 40-foot house on it with 5-foot setbacks. It won't fit but if you tell people that, you're the trouble-maker.
I was just involved in a court case as an expert witness that was settled as to the current issues but will probably never be over due to the personality conflicts. The CC&R's of the subdivision called for 30-foot setbacks and my client got a variance from the Architectural Review Committee and the Town Planning Department for a 25-foot setback. The foundation was poured and inspected and signed off. Then they started prepping the house for stucco and the walls got a couple of inches bigger. What should the setback be measured to, the foundation, which is kind of subjective anyway with the rough concrete surface, or the finished stucco wall? It ended up to be the foundation because that's what was there when the inspection was done and signed off. It could have gone either way, I think. This was on one-acre estate lots with plenty of room, but building designers think they can crowd a side line and it's some kind of absolute position that will never be questioned. On a computer screen it is, but out in the dirt, it's a different story.
> do the powers that be design buildings dead on the setback even when they have all the room in the world to move them away from it. I'd settle for at least 0.10'.
Think of it from the other perspective. So you stake out the building so that one corner of the foundation is 4.93'. Ten years from now some smart-alecky measurer comes along and finds the foundation to be 4.93'. He also finds the siding at 4.80, the trim work at 4.7, the eaves at 1.93.
So what? So, nothing. Nothing bad happens. Ever. Unless you are in a zero lot line situation, you really don't need to over think this. If you do feel compelled to, make the necessary adjustments. Stake the building a half inch narrow, or move it over a tenth. But don't lose any sleep over it.
Mark
What if the smart-alecky measurer takes his measurements while the concrete on the foundation is still wet and the inspector says "tear it out"? In the case I was(am?) involved in, the foundation was in compliance with the setback, depending on what expert you believed, but the stucco wouldn't be. After the Town inspector signed off on the foundation, the additional wall width was considered OK, since the plans showed that there was going to be additional width to the wall beyond the foundation.
You might ask who the heck cares if the corner of the house encroaches into the setback by two inches. Well, in this case, everybody is looking for anything to hit the other party over the head with.
Yep..Thats what I do...Move the building .1'
We had this recently. I emailed the contractor and architect and set it back .5'. That was fine with them and maybe they learned something.
I've Had the Same Situation........
......where instead of being a rectangle, the lot is a parallelogram.
The architect designs the setbacks to the max, say 15 foot front yard and 30 foot rear yard, with 5 foot sidelines, and then, unless the build the building as a parallelogram, it doesn't fit the setbacks on at least one side.
I finally had to draw a GREATLY EXAGGERATED sketch in order to get the architect to understand the problem.
Adding to Bryan's idea I've wondered about overhangs like eaves, gutter, awnings and the like.
What if the neighbor wants to go to the setback near the overhangs? Can they just tear it out since the "encroacher" is in "their space"?
> Adding to Bryan's idea I've wondered about overhangs like eaves, gutter, awnings and the like.
> What if the neighbor wants to go to the setback near the overhangs? Can they just tear it out since the "encroacher" is in "their space"?
BigE,
I don't think your question can apply in this scenario, if someone is encroaching across their setback, they are still on their own property. The neighbor can't do anything unless there is an encroachment across the property line onto the neighbor's land. He has a case then. I am sure if you start tearing someone's house apart, encroachment or not, you got a battle on your hands.
Mark
> What if the smart-alecky measurer takes his measurements while the concrete on the foundation is still wet and the inspector says "tear it out"?
Very rare, indeed. I think I could argue over the veracity of these extra special measurements long enough for the concrete to cure.
> You might ask who the heck cares if the corner of the house encroaches into the setback by two inches. Well, in this case, everybody is looking for anything to hit the other party over the head with.
Two inches? That's enough to worry about, I suppose. But that's more than is likely caused by ordinary variation of lot lines originally intended to be perfectly square. One inch? That's within the 0.10' limit imposed by Oregon law for accuracy of corner pins.
If you are in a situation where "everybody is looking for anything to hit the other party over the head with" you might as well unzip your fly and let them all take a whack as worry over a few hundreths of setback.
But, hey, like I said in my original post - do what professionals do and make the necessary adjustments if the situation warrants it. The "situation" includes the interpersonal relationships in play. Just don't blame architects for not knowing your business.
The city kept giving a variance for contractors violating the setback rules.
One contractor in particular was in violation numerous times. The last straw was a house foundation in the ground that he poured that was 60' wide on a 70' wide lot with 5' sideline setbacks. The south side of the foundation ended up 0.15' too close; he went to the board for a variance and the board said no. He ended up out at the house grinding away on the south foundation wall. I never knew if he got it actually cut off but the house is still there.
For the rules here it's only the foundation that counts-not the siding.
I've also had builders that thought the front setback is where the front of the building has to go. Now on my plats I try to remember to state "minimum setback line".
Mark
Steve I am curious on your case. Are you saying that the foundation walls were built to setback, which is the usual case, but the inspector took it upon himself to say "but the finished material is going to violate the setback, so tear it out"? I am always fascinated by the hubris.
Bryan
No, nothing had to be torn out in the case I'm talking about. The house is not parallel with the lot line so just one corner of the foundation was built at the 25-foot setback. Originally, I was asked to measure how far the corner of the house was from the property line so I located the corner of the wall that was prepped for stucco. It was something like 24.75 from the property line. Then, in discussions with the Town people, it was decided that the foundation was the thing that should be measured, which rounded up to 25.0' and it was not a real smooth corner anyway so depending on where you measured it, it could vary a tenth or so.
In deposition, the other side's expert argued that the wall corner was the point the setback should be measured from. That's not the way it's usually done but it kind of made sense when he pointed out that a foundation could be placed at the setback line and the walls could cantilever out several feet from there, which would be a violation of the setback.
Bryan
>
> In deposition, the other side's expert argued that the wall corner was the point the setback should be measured from. That's not the way it's usually done but it kind of made sense when he pointed out that a foundation could be placed at the setback line and the walls could cantilever out several feet from there, which would be a violation of the setback.
What about the basic aspect of the plans, which would show the setback being to the "face of stud"/foundation wall? Here at least it tends to be obvious where the setbacks are to be measured, but I can see where an inspector can make it hard.
Plans for some reason rarely show some relationship to the finished surface. If I am an architect I would think I would verify this. I find this an intriguing issue that should rear its ugly head if the inspector gets it in his head to play that game.
Bump them rebar a tenth.