Greetings everyone,
Well as we all know, plans change and we need to change with them. I'm posting here in hopes of using you all as a sounding board for the changes that just took place with my hunting cabin. I have a lot of questions running thru my head that realtors and the planning dept in my county will not be willing to answer.
Brief background - I purchased 6 acres last year in the foothills of the Cascades just SE of Rimrock Lake, Wa. When I purchased it, a title search came back clear. Access to the property was provided by a DNR road easement. A few months back, I paid the property off and applied for a building permit for a small 450 sqft hunting cabin. The planning dept came back telling me that I could not build as I did not have legal access to the property. Seems as though the easement that came with the property was given to Boise Cascade in the early 50's for "Timber Rights" only. This was not spelled out directly in the easement and was missed by everyone. It was just decided my my attorney and the DNR that because I am not BCC, that this easement no longer applies. Long story short, I can still continue to access my property via DNR road but because it COULD be closed at any time I do not have the legal access needed for building permits. Hope that made sense...
Now my question is just how big should I build with out permits? Code in Yakima County states that I'm limited to 200 sqft and those structures need to be at least 5' apart. So should I build two structures at 200 sqft, or just go for the original design? I'm really torn here considering possible hassles with the county, resale many, many years down the road, etc.
The property sits 10.1 miles down a DNR dirt road parts of which 4wd is needed, so it's not like I'll be having inspectors or county persons driving by daily. I'm not planning on spending a ton of cash on the structure so I'm not really thinking that it would add value to the property when/if it's sold. I'll get the money back out of the structure in good times and game from hunting season.
What type of problems could/should I expect from the county if I build with out a permit? Obviously this will vary from area to area, but any general thoughts? What type of issues could I have if I was to sell? Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated as I'm back to the drawing board with this whole project.
Thanks so much for your time,
Rob
I agree inspectors will not be driving by, BUT nowadays counties check properties via satellites. When they see new structure or an expansion of structure they make a trip. Now, with that said they can not just come on to your property. You will need "No Trespassing" specific signs. Stevens county has been tricky about the 200sf rule. They can not make you get a permit for the building so what they have done is tricky. They require you to have a plot plan. The cost is was about $35, but this is a way to monitor IMO.
So what's the difference between a plot plan and a building permit? How did this, or does this change what you're able to do for building?
A plot plan just allows the county to see where on my property i plan to place a building. To make sure I comply with placing any structure X amount of feet from other buildings, property lines and or any "Set Back".
I would say without a solid easement there is not much need to worry about increasing the value of the property or expecting anything out of it for other than your own benefit.
Around here there are tons of un-permitted structures. You just sell them as is along with the land at the price you want for it. Banks will likely not loan on it.
A plot plan shows where everything is on the land -- in case they missed taxing you on some of it. A permit allows you to build after you pay them off for it. If they won't issue a permit I would do what i wanted possibly considering their 200 sf limits but doing multiples and just figuring that I may have to fight and lose if they are crooked and don't respect our rights.
What you do will have to be your decision. I would study here a bit. Still doesn't address the easement issue though.
http://www.landrights.com/
LANDRIGHTS.COM
http://www.landrights.com/NoTrespassing.htm
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/
Property Rights Research
http://teamlaw.org/
Team Law
If I was checked via satellite I would check their license for use of the software in a revenue generating government environment. Possibly they would be using the satellite program illegally -without paying licensing fees and therefore be violating copyright law.
I like to scrap with them -- may not do any good and may in fact cause me more trouble. I just don't think the fathers of our country intended for things to be the way they are. Read some of the above legal information based on the original laws -- not the ex-post facto laws we are currently governed under and I think you will agree.
How about doing something mobile? I put a park model mobile home on my mountain property. First I got it licensed as an RV and it costs very little to keep the license plate current. About $15 a year or something like that. I don't recall exactly. But it was a fairly instant shelter. The hardest part was getting it in there. I don't think I could ever get it back out. It came with three little slideout additions, one being the bedroom closet and thother two adding 4' per side to the living room. That little 8' trailer has a 16' wide living room now.
That sounds like a good option, desdawg. Thinking out of the wooden box. Good job. :)
I have legal access but it's not for the faint at heart. The county here has lots of rules but not enough people to enforce them so unless they get a complaint nothing much is said. I am so well hidden the chances of that happening are slim to none. But they do use satellite imaging. I was busy at the time so instant house was a good option. No point in having property you can't enjoy.
I'm finally jumping on the cynical about government bandwagon. I was concidering putting a larger RV (have a pop up now) on the lot till I build the 1 1/2. Then I decided to go with a garage w/storage loft ;)
I was wondering about roof pitch requirements and googled that and came up with a meeting just concluded in June 07 in which there is now a minimum pitch ( 3 / 12 ).
What surprised me were the other seemingly "small" rules that rode in on the additions to the local code/ordinances.
One is that all RVs have to be off the lots between Dec 15 and March 15. Lots of foks in this rural and wooded county make do with a travel trailer for years. One is right by me. I wonder if they are going to go tell all these people of the new rule, or if they will only do it when "a neighbor complains" (an explanation I had from the country regarding other matters).
f) Section 2.18 (3 – 5) is repealed and recreated as s
2.18 (4 – 6) and s 2.18 (3) is created new with the
following language: "Recreational vehicles must be
removed from all parcels that permit temporary parking
and living purposes from the dates of December 15th to
March 15th. Temporary parking and living during the
above referenced time period is permissible provided
the recreational vehicle is immediately removed upon
departure. S 2.18 (5) is amended to read "Recreational
vehicles must have an approved waste disposal system
and may not be permanently attached to a private
sewage system as defined in Shawano County Private
On-Site Wastewater Treatment System Ordinance No.
8-02".
g) Section 2.19 (4 – 6) is repealed and recreated as s
2.19 (4 – 5) with the following language:
Minimum Roof Pitch and Overhang : All dwellings shall
have a minimum roof pitch of three inches per twelve
inches of run and a minimum 6 inch roof overhang on
the entire perimeter of the structure. In cases where
an overhang exceeds 24" property line setbacks are
measured from the overhang.
I am appalled at how involved the government is with our daily lives. Don't think the founders EVER imagined it to be like this... (ie. property taxes, which are really just a communist form >:( of land ownership!) My husband and I wanted to build a fence around our yard because we have two small kids and two dogs. However, after checking into it, it was going to cost us more than $500 in permits and inspections before we could even put in one post! We live on a busy side road and because we never did put in the fence, we have to never leave the kids outside alone even for a second, even though they're pretty good about not getting near the road. We were also told what kind of fences we could and couldn't put in!! At least where we lived before, we could do whatever we pleased with our land... including building a chicken house and fences. Here, while we were still unloading our moving truck, our elderly German neighbor met me in our backyard and asked me, "You gat mower?" When I said we did, his reply was, "Gut! Use it! We don't like it the grass get too tall... if you don't mow, the police will come to you!" (Our first welcome to the neighborhood!) And don't get me started on the hostility toward things like homeschooling! If i were you, I'd build what I wanted to build and then fight for my rights...
You are getting me worked up, Homegrown-- but I don't have time for a rant. Don't share you food with them when you live in the country and the city people are all killing each other for the last scraps left on the store shelf after the economy fails. :)
QuoteOne is that all RVs have to be off the lots between Dec 15 and March 15.
And this is a rural area. I guess you're glad it's not city zoned.
What a load of crap. Wonder what councilor owns an RV storage lot.
Get out the camo netting.
Since this kinda went a tad off on about how bad the big G is, I would like to say, we need a Third Party.
Thank You.
Thanks for the impute everyone. I think I've pretty much decided to build my origional design for the cabin, despite my inability to get a permit. I paid to have the place engineered, soil samples, grading, etc. The fact that I can't get "legal access" is BS. I figure I'll speng no more than 7,500 on the place. That much would be more than worth it over the next 20-30 years. Hunting, camping, vacation, etc. I'll go FSBO if I ever try and sell it.
I agree that the county uses the big brother in the sky now, I guess I'll deal the county problems when and if that time comes.
QuoteI have legal access but it's not for the faint at heart.
I'd love to see a picture of some of the obstacles. :)
Well... you could always try to fly under the radar... or build under the radar, I guess. Think underground or something that blends into the landscape well enough to be hard to detect. ;)
Here's a story to put a smile on everyone's face. I wanted to build a 12 x 16 shed in my backyard in Rhode Island. I was told by the building inspector that I could not build one that big unless it was "portable", so I dug down 2 feet, poured 16" square concrete footings reinforced with rebar, then brought the piers up to grade with landscape blocks. When the secret police came to inspect they were happy to see that my shed was "portable". Why it had to be portable is anyone's guess, but I do not get taxed on my structure, so the joke is on them. My suggestion to others is: closely read the ordinances and find a way around them like I did, or spend lots of time and money fighting city hall. Either way is respectable, but I took the easy way out on this one. Long live the people! ;)
QuoteSince this kinda went a tad off on about how bad the big G is, I would like to say, we need a Third Party.
Thank You.
Thanks for saying that, Stink. I'll bring the beer. ;D
QuoteHere's a story to put a smile on everyone's face. I wanted to build a 12 x 16 shed in my backyard in Rhode Island. I was told by the building inspector that I could not build one that big unless it was "portable", so I dug down 2 feet, poured 16" square concrete footings reinforced with rebar, then brought the piers up to grade with landscape blocks. When the secret police came to inspect they were happy to see that my shed was "portable". Why it had to be portable is anyone's guess, but I do not get taxed on my structure, so the joke is on them. My suggestion to others is: closely read the ordinances and find a way around them like I did, or spend lots of time and money fighting city hall. Either way is respectable, but I took the easy way out on this one. Long live the people! ;)
Great success story there, Woodsrule.
QuoteI would like to say, we need a Third Party.
No. Already have too many. There's even a Party called "The Third Party" ::)
[edit]Ooops forgot the link
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm[/edit]
You could try to buy access rights from whoever has those rights currently, I know that the power co has to buy them sometimes from prople who they wantto put power lines over theri land to other landowners. Or you can also build seperate units. The smaller units do have some benefits heating space is smaller and you can maintain more easily I saw an idea for a "compound" that has several small cabins in a square or circular area with a common courtyard and pergolas joining the walkways which I really liked because it will make it easy for me to fence in my darn old dogs.
Compound building... I like it... I also just read thru the small building thread and have tons to think about. I'm glad I ran across this forum!
As far as buying access. The only access to the property is via DNR road. I'm centered in the middle of roughly 20,000 acres and am one of only a few private pieces of land in the area. Access to the area was via easement from Boise Cascade thru the DNR lands. My lawyer and the DNR lawyer decided that the Boise Cascade easement was only for timber rights, not general access. I considered taking this to court, but DNR has far more money and time than I do so I know they'll stone wall me until I go away. According to my lawyer, they're afraid that I'll build a monster estate in the middle of public lands that would sell for millions, or worse yet, a subdivision. So at this point, I have a paper showing that I have a legal right to access my property, but not legal access to the property. Confusing and f'd up but that's the way it is. I even had the case reviewed by another attorney and he too agreed that DNR would bury me if we went to court. So buying access is out of the question.
I'd be interested in this compound idea. Throw a link in there if you get the chance please. Also, anyone have actual pictures of the 200 sqft building with a basement?
Thanks,
Rob
Maybe I'm a little thick, but what's DNR?
And curious... who dropped the ball on this legal access issue? It would seem someone's to blame, wonder if there's a route to pursue there.Of course that could backfire if it was your lawyers fault. How about the other privately owned parcels in your area?
I'm in the middle of public lands as well, National Forest, but the county along with the Forest Service has guaranteed access rights. The quality of the road is another matter, but not a worry to me.
Department of Natural Resources - State Lands.
I would guess the ball was dropped by the title company. However, everyone thought the easement was intact until I went to build and a lawyer from DNR got involved. As far as someone to blame - it's all due to the interpretation of the law. It looked good when the land was purchased, but is now being looked at a different way.
I'm guarenteed access - as stated earlier I have a letter from DNR stating that I "have the legal right to access the property". But according to the county I need "Legal Access". Lawyers interpret the difference is that "legal access" means I can't be denied access to the property for any reason. 24/7 365. Where as DNR can close this access road due to a forest fire, a wash out, timber harvesting, etc.
It was difficult for me to understand and if it wasn't for the fact that I was involved in the whole process I'd be in the dark.
DNR=do not recussitate (spelling?) Just ask the nurses who browse this site. Sassy?
QuoteDNR=do not recussitate (spelling?) Just ask the nurses who browse this site. Sassy?
You are so correct, hobbiest! I think that is their goal... :-/
I saw the coumpound idea at www.balewatch.com it isa straw bale plan but I think it would work jsut as well with any little cabins. It is listed in the 50 strawbale plans under 480 ft compound. as far as your legal issues it sounds like to me that you do have legal access as long as you are willing to maintain the road if DNR quits. Maybe you should take your legal issues to an attorney outside of WA they are all scared of the states stonewalling techniques. And I also think your seller has some liability issues if in fact the access is limited and the contract states differently after all who would buy land for an agreed price only to find out later it is more or less worthless? You may actually be required to build your own road at some point but legal access is legal access and that means you can come and go and use the raod to haul pigs or whatever you choose to haul. I can't see whaty the county would not grant a building permit unless the road is not maintained year round that is becoming an issue more and more here where I live my landlady had to redo the entire driveway jsut because emergency vehicles couldn't get turned around should they ever be called inthe winter. Ridiculas, now I have hoodlums and hunters coming up at all hours because they think my former hideous driveway is now a beautiful road. I have stated here before i prefer the hideous driveway it keeps out the undesireables. Now I have to buy a sling shot.
Tanya, have you considered a gate? Coupling that with some very visible Keep Out, etc signs can go a long ways to keep the riff raff out. We have a shared gate with our neighbors up in the mountains. It's a small bother to pay. When we're there we close it, but don't necessarily lock it. We've never seen an intruder though there is often evidence of some vehicle turning around outside the gate.
I don't understand a few things. You mentioned a title company. If you have title insurance they have to take care of it unless they listed it as an exclusion in the policy.
Most states will not allow landlocking property.
If all else fails, go to DNR and cut a deal. Get deeded access but write in the access papers that they shall have first right of refusal at current market prices, when you sell.
They'll jump on that with both feet.
If none of the above work, get your Congressman to make a congressional inquiry as to why they will not give permanent access. That gets a lot of action.