|
Post by burnerbill on Feb 23, 2014 23:11:46 GMT -4
redone53 & jackbequick:
Keep in mind the county, with the proposed ordnance, is saying the lots you own are to meet CURRENT codes. Just because you bought a lot when there were no specific building lot codes does not mean you are grandfathered to that "old" or non-existent code. That would be like someone saying they built their house in 1985 and they want to add an addition using 1985 building codes. That happened to me when I went to the county looking to expand an area of my home. New set-back requirements for critical area located homes, effected since my home was built, would not allow for my expansion. More surprising, the home as it sits on my lots could not be built today! As another example, a neighbor down the street completed a significant renovation of their home. Since the original home was built, the building codes for homes in a flood plain requires to have all electrical, HVAC, water pumps and tanks not be located in the crawl space area. As a result, this homeowner, at a considerable additional, unexpected cost, even though the home was built before these new codes were effected, had to pull all the stuff that was located in the crawl space area and move it out and up into the main structure. The upshot - you have to meet current codes regardless of when you home or lot was purchased.
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on Feb 24, 2014 10:40:28 GMT -4
redone53 & jackbequick: Keep in mind the county, with the proposed ordnance, is saying the lots you own are to meet CURRENT codes. Just because you bought a lot when there were no specific building lot codes does not mean you are grandfathered to that "old" or non-existent code. That would be like someone saying they built their house in 1985 and they want to add an addition using 1985 building codes. That happened to me when I went to the county looking to expand an area of my home. New set-back requirements for critical area located homes, effected since my home was built, would not allow for my expansion. More surprising, the home as it sits on my lots could not be built today! As another example, a neighbor down the street completed a significant renovation of their home. Since the original home was built, the building codes for homes in a flood plain requires to have all electrical, HVAC, water pumps and tanks not be located in the crawl space area. As a result, this homeowner, at a considerable additional, unexpected cost, even though the home was built before these new codes were effected, had to pull all the stuff that was located in the crawl space area and move it out and up into the main structure. The upshot - you have to meet current codes regardless of when you home or lot was purchased. I wonder if the people who enforce the required changes to bring houses up to current code are amazed at the number of people who just walk away from homes they cannot afford to "fix". Renting just keeps looking like the better way to go. Out of curiosity, can anyone even sell a house that may have one of these outdated features that require updates once they are identified?
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Feb 24, 2014 15:12:18 GMT -4
redone53 & jackbequick: Keep in mind the county, with the proposed ordnance, is saying the lots you own are to meet CURRENT codes. Just because you bought a lot when there were no specific building lot codes does not mean you are grandfathered to that "old" or non-existent code. That would be like someone saying they built their house in 1985 and they want to add an addition using 1985 building codes. That happened to me when I went to the county looking to expand an area of my home. New set-back requirements for critical area located homes, effected since my home was built, would not allow for my expansion. More surprising, the home as it sits on my lots could not be built today! As another example, a neighbor down the street completed a significant renovation of their home. Since the original home was built, the building codes for homes in a flood plain requires to have all electrical, HVAC, water pumps and tanks not be located in the crawl space area. As a result, this homeowner, at a considerable additional, unexpected cost, even though the home was built before these new codes were effected, had to pull all the stuff that was located in the crawl space area and move it out and up into the main structure. The upshot - you have to meet current codes regardless of when you home or lot was purchased. I wonder if the people who enforce the required changes to bring houses up to current code are amazed at the number of people who just walk away from homes they cannot afford to "fix". Renting just keeps looking like the better way to go. Out of curiosity, can anyone even sell a house that may have one of these outdated features that require updates once they are identified? cruzincat.... I believe folks who walk away from their homes are upside down and failed to refinance or simply could not sell their homes due to the SKI septic issues. As for your question about "outdated" features, what features do you mean? What I do know is if you are trying to sell your home and it fails the septic field test, the county would then require a holding tank be installed as it will not allow a permit be issued to repair the field.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 24, 2014 15:27:25 GMT -4
redone53 & jackbequick: Keep in mind the county, with the proposed ordnance, is saying the lots you own are to meet CURRENT codes. Just because you bought a lot when there were no specific building lot codes does not mean you are grandfathered to that "old" or non-existent code. That would be like someone saying they built their house in 1985 and they want to add an addition using 1985 building codes. That happened to me when I went to the county looking to expand an area of my home. New set-back requirements for critical area located homes, effected since my home was built, would not allow for my expansion. More surprising, the home as it sits on my lots could not be built today! As another example, a neighbor down the street completed a significant renovation of their home. Since the original home was built, the building codes for homes in a flood plain requires to have all electrical, HVAC, water pumps and tanks not be located in the crawl space area. As a result, this homeowner, at a considerable additional, unexpected cost, even though the home was built before these new codes were effected, had to pull all the stuff that was located in the crawl space area and move it out and up into the main structure. The upshot - you have to meet current codes regardless of when you home or lot was purchased. EXACTLY. If you listen very closely to some of the people (specifically a local real estate broker who owns a large number of the lots in question in KIE) in the meetings you will hear them say over again that they should be able to build on their existing lots as they are. I agree with the new ordinance to bring all the proposed building lots up to current county specifications, and if that means 20000 sq ft, then that is what it means. Like I said, I knew when I bought my single lot in the '80's that it didn't meet the building requirements then so it isn't any sweat off my back that it doesn't now. I did my research and paid for it what it was worth based on these facts. I have an example similar to yours, my neighbor applied for a building permit to add on to her house. She had plenty of land to do it but because the new foundation for the addition was not far enough away from the exisiting well, per the new setbacks and requirements that are now different from when her house was built, she had to install a new well, as well as meet all the new requirements you listed above and others have sited. We all have to play by the rules, why shouldn't these unimproved lot owners have to play by them as well?
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 24, 2014 15:32:02 GMT -4
I wonder if the people who enforce the required changes to bring houses up to current code are amazed at the number of people who just walk away from homes they cannot afford to "fix". Renting just keeps looking like the better way to go. Out of curiosity, can anyone even sell a house that may have one of these outdated features that require updates once they are identified? cruzincat.... I believe folks who walk away from their homes are upside down and failed to refinance or simply could not sell their homes due to the SKI septic issues. As for your question about "outdated" features, what features do you mean? What I do know is if you are trying to sell your home and it fails the septic field test, the county would then require a holding tank be installed as it will not allow a permit be issued to repair the field. I believe more of them are walking away because they paid so much more for these homes than they are worth today. I also believe they are walking away more from the possibility of the bill incurred with the new sewer line than the fact they may have a failed septic. Most of the homes that have gone into foreclosure in this community have not been for sale and just failed a septic test, most of them can not sell them for what they owe on the home and they are choosing to walk.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 24, 2014 15:44:48 GMT -4
To jbq: My single lot which is 60 x 175 does not meet the community or county standards of a buildable lot and it hasn't since I have owned it. It might have before the community set minimum square footage standards, but that was long before most of the homes in this community were built. Once the covenants were established and as lots were sold off for building on 1 1/2 lots, many single lots were left, just like mine, that were not purchased for the original building of a home. That left them landlocked with a home on each side and rendered them useless to anyone other than the neighbors on each side. The owners of these lots have never been able to sell them as buildable lots. The combining of lots to build on a parcel large enough to satisfy the codes is nothing new. That is why most of the homes down here are sitting on at least 1 1/2 lots. Many sit on more. I do not know when that standard was set. I do know that some of the older original homes sit on smaller parcels, especially on the waterfront but that was long before the current standards were set. These are probably the ones you mentioned that were grandfathered in. When I requested a permit to erect a pool on my single lot, that is next to my lots that my home sits on, I was denied. I was not allowed to build ANYTHING on that lot, no pool, no shed, no home, nothing because it did not meet the minimum square footage for building. I was required to apply for an administrative subdivision to incorporate that lot in with the lot and a half that I live on, in order to be approved for any building permit. This is the same thing, I had to combine my lots. The administrative subdivision removed the existing property line between my living space and my single lot and recorded it as one parcel, now 2 1/2 lots. This subdivision can never be changed and the property line can never be added back to re-establish the original single lot and the lot 1/2 the home sits on. It will always be one parcel with 2 1/2 lots making up the parcel. So you are wrong that you have always been able to build on a single lot in KIE. Are you telling me that you only have exactly 10000 square feet of ground, no adjacent lot, incorporated or not. That that your house sits only on exactly 10000 square feet? I would find that suspect since I could not obtain a building permit for my lot that was 10500 square feet. What a lot of people do not understand is that their home may sit on one lot and they have an additional lot or 1/2 lot that brought them up to the standards needed for building but they may still have two tax parcels, if a proper subdivision was never completed. That doesn't meant they can sell the house and the one lot separate from the addition lot. Redone53. I am going to stop arguing with you because you have no idea what you are talking about. Get caught up on the facts and then I will discuss this with you. The only reason you could not build on your lot is because it did not perk. Period. If there was a 9,000 sf lot that could meet the setbacks and it perked, someone could put a house on it in KIE. Before you say I am wrong, call the health department or planning and zoning and get the facts. Stop making things up.. This it totally incorrect. I never even tried to get it to perc. Whey would I go through with a test like that when the county told me straight up that my lot was not buildable. A 9000 sq ft lot would not ever meet the county and community requirements. You need to understand that setbacks and perc test are not the only two requirements that have to be satisfied. You need to read the covenants of the community and you will see that your information is incorrect and any time you call the county the first thing they will tell you is that you have to meet the community requirements as well a the county requirements. I have purchased several building permits from the county, submitted plans for approval to the community association, worked at the health department, served on community and county boards and I do know what I am talking about. Again, your attitude will not buy you any votes in your aspirations for county commissioner. You should think about how you speak to people and the accusations you make if really intend to pursue that office.
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on Feb 24, 2014 15:45:42 GMT -4
Looking at a set of plans at work for a house in Mayo that is on the "Mayo system" with a holding tank and step system. About to get an in-depth lesson in how these systems work from a new construction point of view. I'm sure it will mesh with what Bchevy has said thus far but I'll chime in if I find something to add.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 24, 2014 16:03:27 GMT -4
Redone53. I am going to stop arguing with you because you have no idea what you are talking about. Get caught up on the facts and then I will discuss this with you. The only reason you could not build on your lot is because it did not perk. Period. If there was a 9,000 sf lot that could meet the setbacks and it perked, someone could put a house on it in KIE. Before you say I am wrong, call the health department or planning and zoning and get the facts. Stop making things up.. This it totally incorrect. I never even tried to get it to perc. Whey would I go through with a test like that when the county told me straight up that my lot was not buildable. A 9000 sq ft lot would not ever meet the county and community requirements. You need to understand that setbacks and perc test are not the only two requirements that have to be satisfied. You need to read the covenants of the community and you will see that your information is incorrect and any time you call the county the first thing they will tell you is that you have to meet the community requirements as well a the county requirements. I have purchased several building permits from the county, submitted plans for approval to the community association, worked at the health department, served on community and county boards and I do know what I am talking about. Again, your attitude will not buy you any votes in your aspirations for county commissioner. You should think about how you speak to people and the accusations you make if really intend to pursue that office. lets cut to the chase. Exactly why was your 9,000 sf lot not buildable. What exactly disqualified you from building on it. Was it the side yard setbacks. I posed the question to planning and zoning just to see what they would say and as long as it perked and you could meet the setbacks, you could build on the 9,000 sf lot. Even the existing proposed ordinance to consolidate lots says that you can build on a lot that will be non-conforming. After all those assignments, you would think you would know what you are talking about. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 24, 2014 16:42:51 GMT -4
This it totally incorrect. I never even tried to get it to perc. Whey would I go through with a test like that when the county told me straight up that my lot was not buildable. A 9000 sq ft lot would not ever meet the county and community requirements. You need to understand that setbacks and perc test are not the only two requirements that have to be satisfied. You need to read the covenants of the community and you will see that your information is incorrect and any time you call the county the first thing they will tell you is that you have to meet the community requirements as well a the county requirements. I have purchased several building permits from the county, submitted plans for approval to the community association, worked at the health department, served on community and county boards and I do know what I am talking about. Again, your attitude will not buy you any votes in your aspirations for county commissioner. You should think about how you speak to people and the accusations you make if really intend to pursue that office. lets cut to the chase. Exactly why was your 9,000 sf lot not buildable. What exactly disqualified you from building on it. Was it the side yard setbacks. I posed the question to planning and zoning just to see what they would say and as long as it perked and you could meet the setbacks, you could build on the 9,000 sf lot. Even the existing proposed ordinance to consolidate lots says that you can build on a lot that will be non-conforming. After all those assignments, you would think you would know what you are talking about. Just saying. Sir, have you read any of my posts thoroughly. I have never tried to build a home on my lot. I have never failed a perc test. My lot is 10500 feet, not 9000, don't know where you got that from. I stated it is 60 x 175 and 10500 square feet. My lot does not meet the minimum standards for a buildable lot in Queen Anne's County and/or Kent Island Estates. You must satisfy both requirements. The community has a minimum square footage requirement on the lots and the homes. When you called planning and zoning did you ask them if you could supersede the requirements for the community just because you might meet the requirements for the county? If you pose that question they will tell you the answer is no. I am tired of hearing you tell me I don't know what I am talking about. It is quite obvious you don't but I haven't constantly pointed that fact out to you.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 24, 2014 16:51:01 GMT -4
jbq, that is not correct because on 10000 square feet of ground you can not meet the required setbacks, the minimum square footage required for the home (and yes the community has requirements for that too) and the minimum square footage for the lot. That is what makes a single lot unbuildable. For the owners who have two lots it is possible, but sewer or not they would have to combine their lots to reach these requirements. That is why so many homes down here are on 1 1/2 lots, or more. redone53, If you have a lot that is 50 feet by 200 feet lets say which is the standard for KIE- and you build a house 30 feet by 60 for example, you can meet the setbacks. Only thing stopping a vacant lot owner from building on that vacant lot in KIE- is a positive perk. Perk is not going to happen which has something to do with why septic fields are failing and sewer is being discussed for 30 years. Look up John Nickerson and give him a call. And by the way, I don't care if the lots are buildable or not except for the fact that they are going to help reduce the cost for the homeowner to $100 a month. The courts will decide everything you think you know what you are talking about. I know that for sure! You are talking about a side yard variance request to reduce the side yard to 10 ft. on each side. I am not going to say whether you would get that variance or not. I am just saying that size lot with that size house does not meet the specifications therefore renders the lot unbuildable. If you were able to achieve the variance, the square footage of the lot still does not give you the required area for a house, a septic and a well. All those items are required at this point and have been for many, many years, therefore, again, the lot is unbuildable. The lot would have been unbuildable when purchased, is unbuildable now so I don't understand what the big deal is about it being unbuildable in the future.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 24, 2014 17:03:37 GMT -4
redone53, If you have a lot that is 50 feet by 200 feet lets say which is the standard for KIE- and you build a house 30 feet by 60 for example, you can meet the setbacks. Only thing stopping a vacant lot owner from building on that vacant lot in KIE- is a positive perk. Perk is not going to happen which has something to do with why septic fields are failing and sewer is being discussed for 30 years. Look up John Nickerson and give him a call. And by the way, I don't care if the lots are buildable or not except for the fact that they are going to help reduce the cost for the homeowner to $100 a month. The courts will decide everything you think you know what you are talking about. I know that for sure! You are talking about a side yard variance request to reduce the side yard to 10 ft. on each side. I am not going to say whether you would get that variance or not. I am just saying that size lot with that size house does not meet the specifications therefore renders the lot unbuildable. If you were able to achieve the variance, the square footage of the lot still does not give you the required area for a house, a septic and a well. All those items are required at this point, therefore, again, the lot is unbuildable. I don't know why I even care to argu with you. Let some guy who owns one of these lots do that but the county told me that in 95-96, KIE Developement Company ceased to operate and the authority for residential permitting and oversite was trasfered entirely to Queen Anne's County. Even if it was not transfered the KIE Restrictions and Conditions #1 says 10 foot setback from front of 10 feet, rear 10 feet and sides 10 feet.
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Feb 24, 2014 19:35:23 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Feb 24, 2014 19:37:51 GMT -4
I used to keep up with this thread but now I just feel like the image.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 24, 2014 20:04:21 GMT -4
I used to keep up with this thread but now I just feel like the image. is that horse dead or does it still need to be put out of it's misery?
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Feb 24, 2014 20:26:09 GMT -4
I used to keep up with this thread but now I just feel like the image. is that horse dead or does it still need to be put out of it's misery? Either or could fit with this thread.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Feb 24, 2014 21:38:52 GMT -4
redone53, If you have a lot that is 50 feet by 200 feet lets say which is the standard for KIE- and you build a house 30 feet by 60 for example, you can meet the setbacks. Only thing stopping a vacant lot owner from building on that vacant lot in KIE- is a positive perk. Perk is not going to happen which has something to do with why septic fields are failing and sewer is being discussed for 30 years. Look up John Nickerson and give him a call. And by the way, I don't care if the lots are buildable or not except for the fact that they are going to help reduce the cost for the homeowner to $100 a month. The courts will decide everything you think you know what you are talking about. I know that for sure! You are talking about a side yard variance request to reduce the side yard to 10 ft. on each side. I am not going to say whether you would get that variance or not. I am just saying that size lot with that size house does not meet the specifications therefore renders the lot unbuildable. If you were able to achieve the variance, the square footage of the lot still does not give you the required area for a house, a septic and a well. All those items are required at this point and have been for many, many years, therefore, again, the lot is unbuildable. The lot would have been unbuildable when purchased, is unbuildable now so I don't understand what the big deal is about it being unbuildable in the future. sounds good. I am willing to toss them under the bus if you are. Those that were here first should have priority. Just as long as they pay to keep my monthly sewer bill under $100. Who cares about property rights anyway. Our founding fathers had no clue what they were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 25, 2014 12:45:34 GMT -4
Looking at a set of plans at work for a house in Mayo that is on the "Mayo system" with a holding tank and step system. About to get an in-depth lesson in how these systems work from a new construction point of view. I'm sure it will mesh with what Bchevy has said thus far but I'll chime in if I find something to add. If it's to be connected to the Mayo system it's not (at least not reffered to as) a holding tank. It'll be a septic tank with an effluent pump to pump the liquids to the plant.
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on Feb 25, 2014 21:05:00 GMT -4
Looking at a set of plans at work for a house in Mayo that is on the "Mayo system" with a holding tank and step system. About to get an in-depth lesson in how these systems work from a new construction point of view. I'm sure it will mesh with what Bchevy has said thus far but I'll chime in if I find something to add. If it's to be connected to the Mayo system it's not (at least not reffered to as) a holding tank. It'll be a septic tank with an effluent pump to pump the liquids to the plant. The site plan called it a holding tank, but I'll find out in a couple of weeks from my sitework guy what it is going to entail and how it will work. Another interesting feature on the site plan is a 5000 gallon "fire suppression tank" about 100 feet south of our site. Not sure if that will be strictly for fire department use of if it is intended for sprinkler systems. Guess I'll stop learning when I die!
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 26, 2014 19:28:14 GMT -4
If it's to be connected to the Mayo system it's not (at least not reffered to as) a holding tank. It'll be a septic tank with an effluent pump to pump the liquids to the plant. The site plan called it a holding tank, but I'll find out in a couple of weeks from my sitework guy what it is going to entail and how it will work. Another interesting feature on the site plan is a 5000 gallon "fire suppression tank" about 100 feet south of our site. Not sure if that will be strictly for fire department use of if it is intended for sprinkler systems. Guess I'll stop learning when I die! Is this for a residence? I've only seen the fire suppression tank on commercial properties, there's a big one on Central Ave, in edgewater, between Beard's point rd. and the highs store at the county garage. Holding tanks generally don't have pumps and need pumped out much more often. They refer to the effluent from the pump tanks as pre-treated, since it's been through the septic tank (and has a chance to digest for a bit I guess)
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on Feb 27, 2014 9:48:04 GMT -4
Yes, for a small subdivision. Probably 5-6 lots. We are only doing one. This thing might be a BAT/aerobic tank and then the juicy bits get pumped out after it stirs for a while. Should find out late next week, got 5 jobs ahead of this one before I can "dig in" to the sewer issue.
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on Mar 2, 2014 9:37:39 GMT -4
Last week I noticed surveyors walking down South Carolina Rd. Could this mean someone is about to reach into our pockets?
|
|
|
Post by redone53 on Mar 5, 2014 22:03:17 GMT -4
Last week I noticed surveyors walking down South Carolina Rd. Could this mean someone is about to reach into our pockets? Probably means someone has a contract in on a house and needs a survey.
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on Mar 5, 2014 22:10:49 GMT -4
Last week I noticed surveyors walking down South Carolina Rd. Could this mean someone is about to reach into our pockets? Probably means someone has a contract in on a house and needs a survey. Maybe, but why park at one end of the road and walk down to the house?
|
|
|
Post by markp on Mar 6, 2014 10:52:07 GMT -4
Maybe they were doing an elevation certification as well to get out of flood insurance... who knows... surveyors do much more than big projects that cost the tax payers.
|
|