Non Conforming - Cannot Be Rebuilt?

[Chuck Parent]

I've never encountered this issue before. My subject is a condo, does not meet the minimum site size, the coverage ratio, setbacks, etc. Page 1 of the 1073 asks if the subject can be built to the current density. The answer is no. I checked no, and type "see addendum" in the adjoining box for the explanation in the addendum. This apparently causes a UAD error. The client is asking me to check the yes box, and type "with variance" in the adjoining box. This is misleading IMHO, as there is no guarantee that a variance will be issued. WinTotal told me to work it out with the client, which seems odd. I've answered the question properly on the 1073, with the detailed explanation in the addendum.

I'm curious as to why simply stating that current zoning does not allow rebuilding to the current density is a UAD issue? Is this simply a work around? The addendum is crystal clear, but addendums rarely get read.

I'm aware that a UAD error is generated, but the client solution seems misleading.

 

[Ca Ar Independent]

I've never encountered this issue before. My subject is a condo, does not meet the minimum site size, the coverage ratio, setbacks, etc. Page 1 of the 1073 asks if the subject can be built to the current density. The answer is no. I checked no, and type "see addendum" in the adjoining box for the explanation in the addendum. This apparently causes a UAD error. The client is asking me to check the yes box, and type "with variance" in the adjoining box. This is misleading IMHO, as there is no guarantee that a variance will be issued. WinTotal told me to work it out with the client, which seems odd. I've answered the question properly on the 1073, with the detailed explanation in the addendum.

I'm curious as to why simply stating that current zoning does not allow rebuilding to the current density is a UAD issue? Is this simply a work around? The addendum is crystal clear, but addendums rarely get read.

I'm aware that a UAD error is generated, but the client solution seems misleading.

Do you still get the error if you check "no" but have no text in the box? And is it an actual "error" or just a "warning" that I see when I have text in a box that has a "no" checked.

 

[Dublin ohio]

How did they build it in the first place. I am guessing from your post that there was a variance to allow original construction or conversion. Was It an actual zoning variance. If so does it revert back to original zoning if complex burns down. Is the project covered by fire insurance. Do not know of any insurance company that would insure a structure if it cannot be rebuilt. Something does not make sense.

 

[Restrain]

Condo probably built and zoning changed.

If you cannot be assured of a variance, then you are correct, but WinTotal is also correct in that you will have to bypass the UAD checker on your software as the client sets the defaults that the various checkers use.

Pick up the phone and call the client.

 

[Howard Klahr]

Do not know of any insurance company that would insure a structure if it cannot be rebuilt.

While that may be you clearly need to get out more then, there are an abundance of companies that provide coverage for non-conforming structures. Ever heard to law and ordinance coverage?

asks if the subject can be built to the current density. The answer is no. I checked no,

Is the answer no because you think it is no or because city officials indicated that this is the case? Is it no for the situation that over 50% of the structure is demolished or in the event of any casualty would require a rebuild?

 

[Dublin ohio]

Ever heard to law and ordinance coverage

Yes I have. But you might want to check on exactly what it means. Do not think it would be applicable in this situation. It usually refers to costs of rebuilding a structure to current building codes or dealing with ordinances that require demolition of complete structure prior to rebuilding or additional costs involved to build to conforming. Not sure it would apply to this situation since it is a density problem. Even with law and ordinance coverage. If it cannot be rebuilt to current density. What happens to the unit(s) that would have to be excluded to meet current density requirements. Are the owners of those units just SOL.

 

[Howard Klahr]

Even with law and ordinance coverage. If it cannot be rebuilt to current density. What happens to the unit(s) that would have to be excluded to meet current density requirements.

The insured is the association in a condo NOT the unit owner. What is not known is the type of structure, layout of the development, etc. If one was to assume a total loss of all the units within the project, the policy limit is then paid to the association to be distributed among the unit owners based on the distribution as laid out in the condo docs. There is no loss of an individual unit. To address other scenarios is pointless in that the potential combinations are endless.

 

[Chuck Parent]

The subject was built in 2005, the zoning changed shortly afterwards. In my markets, and prior experience, almost all non conforming condo uses can be rebuilt to the same footprint without a variance. This is the first time I can recall a zoning officer simply stating "no", and indicating that a variance was not a given. I simply reported my findings. The client kept insisting that I mark it as "yes, with a variance", which appears misleading. However, I was concerned because I was getting a UAD error message/warning (not sure which message, sorry C A Independent...), which indicates that something was amiss.

My main goal is to be accurate and not misleading, but I never saw this UAD error message before because I guess I never checked "no" to the rebuild to current density question and had a comment in the text field.

The client has not sent it back a third time, I'm hoping that it is resolved on their end. I feel as if I addressed it correctly, I'm just not satisfied that I got an error message and that the client wanted it done differently. Thanks to everyone that contributed.

 

[Michigan CG]

In my area if a property is on a non-conforming lot the home can be rebuilt if it is not 50% or 60% destroyed depending on the municipality. The properties are generally non-conforming because zoning laws change.

If the property is destroyed more than 50% or 60% then they must rebuild to the current codes (minimum building size, minimum setbacks, etc.). If it is not possible to rebuild to current zoning then they have to get a variance from what is called the Zoning Board of Appeals. All residents within 300 feet must be notified and they can protest any variance requested. They will be most successful in protesting if the variance request is building setbacks.

About a month ago I was told by some idiot that I needed to call the building department and get a rebuild letter. I had fully explained the laws in the report and stated that the decision to allow rebuilding the subject was solely at the discretion of the ZBA. The lady was absolutely clueless. She said to me that there was no way a lender would give a loan to a property unless there was a rebuild letter. I told her there was this little thing called homeowner's insurance which the lender would require during the term of the loan and that most people have insurance and that loans are made on these properties every single day. I told her she wanted me to say it could be rebuilt so that should something happen down the road they could go after my E and O insurance.

I wanted to tell her to go back to her job at Taco Bell, but kept it professional.

 

[Vermonter]

The subject was built in 2005, the zoning changed shortly afterwards. In my markets, and prior experience, almost all non conforming condo uses can be rebuilt to the same footprint without a variance. This is the first time I can recall a zoning officer simply stating "no", and indicating that a variance was not a given. I simply reported my findings. The client kept insisting that I mark it as "yes, with a variance", which appears misleading. However, I was concerned because I was getting a UAD error message/warning (not sure which message, sorry C A Independent...), which indicates that something was amiss.

I would not simply go by one bureaucrats statement. There has to be some sort of development review process for non-conforming properties.

What did your HBU analysis determine?