Hi guys, I am a new member here looking for some advise or suggestions on how to temporarily get away with building without a permit....  Now before you get all flustered and tell me its impossible and I'm an ignoramus ect.  please keep reading and if your in the mood share your optimistic thoughts with me.

I have a nice plot of vacant land with waterfront in an incorporated township with building bi-laws ect.  I have designed a well equipt 24x28 1 1/2 story cottage all to code or better.   The problem is, its going to take 2 or more years to build (foundation next summer, framing 2016) and I would like to build a shack to sleep in while I build.  The cottage will all be done legit with permits and all the associated goodies; septic, water, hydro.

My local bi-law dictates that I cannot erect any kind of structure until the main 'dwelling unit' is complete and certificate of occupancy is acquired.  Due to the remote location of my lot, and the 4 hour drive from home, this will be next to impossible without some kind of bunkie or 'base camp'

I would like to put up a 12x14 bunkie built well over the building code requirement in a discrete location on the lot to assist with the building process.  I have gone the whole summer sleeping in a tent, setting up camp and dismantling every weekend and this eats up way to much precious building time every weekend. 

Say the worst case happens and the building department gets wind of my little forest shack.  What can be done to delay them from ordering me to tear it down?

Here are some ideas that came to mind:
-Beg for forgiveness, explain my situation
-offer to pay in full all applicable permit fees for the main dwelling unit in advance AND permit fees for bunkie and any variance fees for building a shack first
-Appeal there decision to tear it down... Is this possible? and could it buy me enough time to build the main cottage?
-pretend the shack was there for a long time
-set up turrets and fortress walls

Any suggestions would be much appreciated, thanks in advance.

So much depends on location.  Why not request a permit for a shed?

Might be an easier option to get a small camper (if allowed), no setup time and at least you are off the ground while you sleep.
The area where I live is impossible to do anything.  They require full septic, electric, well, before the main dwelling and no campers or even tents are allowed.

I tried, spoke with the 'chief building official'  to test the waters I asked about putting up a small storage shed to store materials and tools while I build and he refereed me back to the bi-law rules.

Same rules here, no camping, no campers, no breathing allowed.

Too add, the township area is huge with a population of under 1000 and only 2 building inspectors.  I am on a privately maintained dirt road.  The bunkie wont be visible from the road but if they looked hard its visible from the lake.

Money talks, my neighbor built a building on forest land with no permit did'nt get caught but felt it wasnt right so he told on himself had to re-zone the land to rr-1 to get a permit and then payed double permit fees thats all that happened. My immediate neighbor built a 20x24 cabin no permits they have done nothing in 20 years except tax him for it. hes getting ready to build a 20x40 soon and will not get any permits. I built my boardwalk with no permits and just paid the fee when I pulled the cabin permit they didnt care.We are on a lake and not very remote we have garbage,mail,fed ex ,utility people up and down the road all the time.I think the true horror stories are few and far between. Its all about generating revenue.

I've seen the full gamut from "tear it down" to having the inspector drive right by unpermitted temporary quarters on the way to the main build and never slowing down.
Worst case, removal and/ or a fine. If you go that route don't build more than you want to risk.
Best case, they don't care... I think your conversation put that to bed.
By "by law", is this part of the zoning ordinance? If so the 4 hr drive might be grounds for a variance for a non habitable accessory structure for storage of construction tools and materials for the build. The zoning official and their appeals board would be the route to take there rather than the building official.

Don can you explain a little more about what a variance is, and about the process?

Ours works like this;
Most counties have a "comprehensive plan" developed by the county planning commission with public input. This lays out how the county is to be developed, where the industrial zones, agricultural zones, residential , recreational, etc zones are to be. This helps with planning infrastructure, an industrial zone is planned with larger road rights of way, heavier power, etc. A residential zone is planned with things like schools, proximity to services and shopping, setbacks to help prevent and control fire, things that preserve property values like not allowing accessory buildings and campers on undeveloped lots, lots large enough to support septic and well while not polluting a neighbor or waterway, etc. By doing this in a planned fashion taxes are lower than if development went anywhere and property values are typically higher, hopefully clashes between incompatable land uses are reduced.

Zoning is the enforcement side of this plan. So when you go in to pull a permit there is usually a visit with the zoning official as part of the process. This person confirms that the structure fits within the established zoning laws, usually by use and by setbacks from streets and property lines.

If the proposed project is denied there is an appeals process. Generally if the denial causes an undue hardship that was not within the original intent of the reason for a particular rule there is grounds for a variance. In this case I could see the long drive and limited time this will be a stand alone shed as being grounds for a variance. There might be language that said "if the primary structure is not complete within X amount of time, the variance sunsets. The shed could not be permitted as a dwelling, if that is the intent then it would be worth investigating what the minimum dwelling would entail and go that route.

It is well worth being involved when zoning is being planned and changed. I was involved in our last round and did make one change and was involved in some others. I showed the planning commission that what they were planning to make a local law was outside of the letter and intent of state law. Hey, the people on those commisions are our own neighbors, with the whole spectrum of human frailty  .

As I have posted before - here in this country you do not want to stretch the boundaries of planning and zoning and permitting.  They are great to work with and real easy going but do not crossover that line.  There is an old couple forced out with a do not occupy order.  This led to his arrest and a plea.  About their  only option is to bunch and burn their small I don't need no stinkin' permits on a couple less than 200 sq foot sheds.  100% correct there but they were built with intent of dwelling therefore they were not sheds.  They were never built close to any code and not much they can do with them.

Second thing I have noticed here and not just here but around the world.  As in this case of the old couple above.  It is never the county goes looking for violations.  It is concerned citizens - neighbors and other do gooders who will turn you in.  We were turned in when we building our shop.  Someone reported we were building a living quarters above.  Complaint was filed and here come everyone short of the dog catcher.  I had shared a set of plans with some people with a dwelling above down at the store.  News got out that we were building that.  Within a week - there was a visitation filed even with a deputy waiting down on the road.  What they found was the shop we took the permit out on.  No apartment above and everything above board and in plan view.  They said it happens all time...... 

So let me give a 'ferinstance.

One story primary residence has a flat roof that is prone to leaks.  Lets say we want to build an outbuilding with a pitched roof, so that leaks may be avoided.

The zoning rule is "No outlying structure can be higher than the primary residence".   

Any pitched roof would rise higher than the primary structure.  There are 10 other properties in the immediate neighborhood that break the zoning rule, and have secondary structures that are higher than the primary.  Yet when asked, Zoning says 'not allowed'.

Would this be an example of grounds to apply for a variance? IE a pitched roof to prevent leaks that goes a higher than the primary residence.

Or is it entirely up to the zoning people to allow or disallow an application for variance?

Thanks for the input everyone, its all helpful.

I did a little more investigating and read through the 180 pages of 'The official Plan' (again)

Don, in this situation its more of a zoning ordinance that applies to all zones.  I can have unlimited guest cabins and accessory buildings in this zone but none can be built before the main dwelling unit.  The minimum requirements (that discourage me from building my shed legally) are, septic, water system design, 600sq. feet.  This just aint in the budget for a simple shed. 

I'd like to do this all legitimately and contribute permit fees to the county, but they've kinda made it impractical for me to do so.  If I were to apply for a variance and be denied,  I'll be more likely to have a visit from the property inspector now that the know of my intentions.

The general feeling I am getting for my situation is that its easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

Assuming I do everything to code and follow all the setbacks ect.  I want to think its unlikely the township will ask me to tear it down as they will gain nothing from this.   There is no set fine for building without a permit, but it says all construction without a permit MAY be applicable to double the permit fees and I will have to open up any concealed framing ect. at the inspectors request. 

Quote from: cabin fever on August 20, 2014, 10:36:20 AM

There is no set fine for building without a permit, but it says all construction without a permit MAY be applicable to double the permit fees and I will have to open up any concealed framing ect. at the inspectors request.

I have friends here who have had to tear open walls, areas selected by the inspector, to have electrical checked.

The double fee is pretty standard from what I have seen. There is nothing to prevent the zoning folks from requiring a tear down is the structure does not meet the regulations.


hpinson, yes I would think that would be grounds for a variance. But then that's just me being logical. I personally wopuld not have a problem with a neighbor having a garage, etc that was higher than the main structure, but still within the local overall limits.

QuoteI want to think its unlikely the township will ask me to tear it down as they will gain nothing from this.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything, it's a case of blind "justice".
If it is to code and to zoning then the double fees and ability to inspect everything are pretty common. If it requires footings our jurisdiction includes uncovering them as well. Don't cover the walls, don't install water or power and don't pollute.

hpinson, were the existing higher roofs built prior to that zoning rule or after? if before they grandfather as a prior non conforming structure. If they were done after then I'd pull a permit and tell zoning to go pound sand. We end up with stupid rules because we don't keep a tight reign on stupid people with a little power. It takes constant vigilance, stupid is the predominant natural human condition  .

There's also the feature on the roof approach, convert to frisbitarianism and put a steeple on the flat roof... yup I spent 10 hours in the hole today 

A friend of mine who was a tax assessor (and who built without a permit like everyone else in a certain place I know of) said "the assessors don't usually care, they just assess and as long as you pay your taxes it doesn't usually matter to them.  What matters is when someone complains, specially if kids are involved, then they send everyone and their brother out to cover their butts".

Word to the wise:  if everyone is permitting and if there are 'by-laws' etc I recommend following those laws or moving to a place where this isn't an issue.

Now I know a place, far from you, where the only likely complaint you'd get would be if you pulled a permit! lol

After.

I like the idea of the steeple. I was actually thinking of putting a big box up there with an air-conditioner in it, which would raise the roof height by four of five feet.

I appreciate the ideas.

Quote from: Don_P on August 20, 2014, 06:19:06 AM
It is well worth being involved when zoning is being planned and changed. I was involved in our last round and did make one change and was involved in some others. I showed the planning commission that what they were planning to make a local law was outside of the letter and intent of state law. Hey, the people on those commisions are our own neighbors, with the whole spectrum of human frailty  .

Words of wisdom!  Up here in our county offgrid building was to be allowed but the house could not be lived in!!!  What they meant was the home had to be built to code as if there was a grid connection (electrical 120/240vac and not DC wiring like the old hippies use to do). Finally when the head of the building department got involved he said as long as a offgrid home is wired normally with AC wiring per code, all is well.

Yes on the human frailty!

Quote from: Dave Sparks on August 21, 2014, 09:47:05 AM
Words of wisdom!  Up here in our county offgrid building was to be allowed but the house could not be lived in!!!  What they meant was the home had to be built to code as if there was a grid connection (electrical 120/240vac and not DC wiring like the old hippies use to do). Finally when the head of the building department got involved he said as long as a offgrid home is wired normally with AC wiring per code, all is well.

Yes on the human frailty!

There is a subdivision or a rather small development above us.  It would be at least two miles off grid.....  Don't know about now but use to be you had to wire for grid and be inspected by the state.  I doubt if in my life time grid power will ever make it up there.  Hardly cost effective with the drop in costing of today's solar power.  Those that have cabins up there are all weekenders or couple weeks in the summer.  Snows closed in the winter time.  Our turn off of USFS 117 - is the end of the line in the winter time.....
   

I've considered buying another lot, putting in a pond, and building a houseboat to live in floating on the pond.   

Quote from: Don_P on August 20, 2014, 09:06:38 PM
We end up with stupid rules because we don't keep a tight reign on stupid people with a little power. It takes constant vigilance, stupid is the predominant natural human condition  .

Couldn't have said it better. 

[/Begin Rant]
I can just picture the crusty old bugger(s) that came up with this idea.  Spending countless hours and efforts at the town meetings to do anything to inconvenience anyone wanting to build.  Motivated by what?  stubbornness, or maybe some loud campers that upset them.  On the other hand, the township encourages people to move in,  'explore and stay' They spend all kinds of resources on improving and planning for expansion yet they (we) allow 'stupid' people to make these rules to discourage future residence from become part of the community by making them feel ashamed of their own existence for trying to be part of the town. 

Some of these 'stupid' rules go so far as being unconstitutional, inhumane with a few contradicting bi-laws:

No camping - I cannot set up a tent to sleep on my own 10 acre property.   Does this mean I have a curfew or specific hours or to visit my land.  What is the definition of camping, Can I sleep standing up against a tree to legally be on my property. 

No structures - This includes an outhouse - I  must drive 1 hour to the nearest public washroom that is only open business hours.

No open storage of equipment, vehicles or building materials - This includes boats, cars, building equipment, lawnmowers ect.  (Unless kept in a storage building)

[/End Rant]

For me to legally build I would have to change a dozen bi-laws before a variance to build a sleeping quarters would even be reviewed.  No matter what route I go about, its not going to be easy.  But I think we all know the easiest route here...

I believe all regulations and rules start form a good place and need, but invariably evolve past where they need to be so it becomes more of a power control issue.  Whenever I get a bit frustrated about building codes and permits, I can just go 30 miles south and see what it's like without them

It starts with the best of intentions... health and safety issues. The old building inspectors were often ex-builders who would offer advice to new builders and weed out dangerously sloppy or intentionally substandard construction. They knew enough to know where they could be flexible and where the limits were.

But once you start regulating you take on liability for your advice. A lawsuit or two will turn any helpful builder into a hard ass policeman. 

I've often considered that a staged set of building codes could be based on the size or the expected cost of construction. Smaller, lower cost structures could have a more simple and flexible path. My rural county had an owner-builder code exemption when I moved here in the 1980s. I don't think it lasted the decade. I didn't go the exemption path when I built as many owners were finding such houses harder to finance and sell.

I think codes should be standardized, clear, and unambiguous.  I can comply with anything; when inspectors have conflicting opinions is when things get frustrating. 

Quote from: flyingvan on August 22, 2014, 03:21:19 PM
I think codes should be standardized, clear, and unambiguous.  I can comply with anything; when inspectors have conflicting opinions is when things get frustrating. 

Our old inspector up here Builder Bob had conflicting opinions with himself every day.....  Was so glad to see him be dismissed. 

The first written laws, codified, or code means written, came from King Hammurabi in Ur around 1900 BC. They were written and posted for everyone to see for exactly the reason flyinvan said, to standardize in a clear and unambiguous way what the laws were and the consequences for breaking them. We have strayed from that path back to where at our last board of supervisors meeting the officials said they wanted to review structures and approval on a case by case basis... some people would be more equal than others  .

In Catawba County, North  Carolina, just across from the county hospital, 20 years ago a man built a whole house with no permit, they gave him no water, no sewer, and no electric.  And there is some funny law in that part of town if there is a building the  lawn must be mowed.  In fact this is the 30 year anniversary of this house and there it sits to this day unoccupied.  all new people ask  if it is for sale.