# Definition of Attached vs Detached Garage



## Norm (Aug 7, 2016)

My neighbour is proposing to build an "attached" garage.  I believe it to be "detached", which would require a greater setback from my house and driveway.  I have no building experience, but I do believe that the definitions in our town laws are not ambiguous.  That said I would appreciate your professional opinion on this issue.

Our town bylaw defines "attached" as a building or structure otherwise complete in itself, which depends for structural support or complete enclosure, upon a division wall or walls shared in common with an adjacent building or structure.

The bylaw defines "detached"  as a building or structure which is physically separated and not dependent on any other building or structure for structural support or enclosure.

The sketch associated with the proposed "attached" garage shows a building set 5' back from the rear wall of the house connected to the house via a breezeway, which my neighbour explained to be a narrow passageway, enclosed on both sides with a roof.  The 16' garage wall closest to the house will have 11' across the driveway plus an additional 5' behind the house.  The peak roof on the garage runs in the same direction as the peak roof on the house, so that the eaves of the house and the eaves of the garage will be about 4' apart.  That 5' by 5' area between the house and the garage will be the breezeway area.

Our town planner has suggested that if the neighbour puts in a proper footing under the breezeway walls, then the garage is attached because it is part of the structure.  I disagree, but what do I know?

Can someone with expertise in this field please help with an interpretation and opinion.
Thank you.


----------



## fatboy (Aug 7, 2016)

Well, welcome Norm.

BTW, this is mostly a building code forum. But I will say that Planners tend to be a fickle bunch, I've found their opinions and interpretations a lot of the time, tend to depend on the mood they are in at that moment.

That being said, if the definition of attached/detached is as straightforward as you have posted, then it certainly appears that the "breezeway" your neighbor in planning, would not qualify as attached. I say this with the suggestion you read really deep into your towns Code, and make sure that there is not a underlying footnote, or exception.

And in the Code world, we live and die by footnotes and exceptions.

FWIW, it would be allowed in my jurisdiction, with merely the breezeway attachment.

Good luck, keep us posted!


----------



## cda (Aug 7, 2016)

I take it we are playing by Canadian rules or USA rules??

You do not speficy which Ontario


----------



## cda (Aug 7, 2016)

I guess could argue the breezeway is;;::


walls shared in common with an adjacent building or structure.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 7, 2016)

It really depends on what code or ordinance applies. 
Building code allows separate buildings to be considered as a single building. Sometimes.
Some municipal codes do not.
What are your concerns?
How is this affecting you?
Are your rights being diminished?
Your rights vs your neighbors property rights that are being diminished.


----------



## Norm (Aug 7, 2016)

fatboy said:


> Well, welcome Norm.
> 
> BTW, this is mostly a building code forum. But I will say that Planners tend to be a fickle bunch, I've found their opinions and interpretations a lot of the time, tend to depend on the mood they are in at that moment.
> 
> ...



thanks for your response.


----------



## Norm (Aug 7, 2016)

cda said:


> I take it we are playing by Canadian rules or USA rules??
> 
> You do not speficy which Ontario


yes, Canada


----------



## Norm (Aug 7, 2016)

mark handler said:


> It really depends on what code or ordinance applies.
> Building code allows separate buildings to be considered as a single building. Sometimes.
> Some municipal codes do not.
> What are your concerns?
> ...



Thanks for your response.  Yes, I feel that my rights are being diminished as the attached garage approval has been facilitated by a minor variance to the lot line setback in a shared driveway that widens towards the back of both houses.  I will end up with a tunnel beside an "attached" garage that I question meeting the intended definition of "attached" in the bylaw.


----------



## Norm (Aug 7, 2016)

cda said:


> I guess could argue the breezeway is;;::
> 
> 
> walls shared in common with an adjacent building or structure.


Hi
what about the "depends for structural support"?
Thanks


----------



## cda (Aug 7, 2016)

Norm said:


> Hi
> what about the "depends for structural support"?
> Thanks




There are some "ors"  in the language


Is what you posted word for word?


----------



## cda (Aug 7, 2016)

Is this a done deal???

Or can You appeal it?


----------



## ICE (Aug 7, 2016)

_"Our town planner has suggested that if the neighbour puts in a proper footing under the breezeway walls, then the garage is attached because it is part of the structure. I disagree, but what do I know?"_

If I understand this there's a house and a separate garage  with a roof between.  One wall of the breezeway that is created is part of the garage and the other wall of the breezeway is part of the house.  Obviously there will be proper footings supporting the breezeway walls.  

The test is in the bylaws.  The structure will be one or the other and it's not hard to tell the difference.

_"Our town bylaw defines "attached" as a building or structure otherwise complete in itself, which depends for structural support or complete enclosure, upon a division wall or walls shared in common with an adjacent building or structure."

"The bylaw defines "detached" as a building or structure which is physically separated and not dependent on any other building or structure for structural support or enclosure."
_
For what it's worth_, _my jurisdiction would declare it to be attached as soon as the roof between the buildings is constructed. That would result in a greater setback dimension than is required for a detached garage.


----------



## Norm (Aug 8, 2016)

cda said:


> Is this a done deal???
> 
> Or can You appeal it?



Hi
The bylaw quoted is word for word.

The planner approved the minor variance based on his belief that the application meets the criteria for an attached garage, stating that the building inspector would make the determination as to whether it was attached or detached.  I did not have the funds to appeal and then fight city hall experts and perhaps have to pay for their costs if I am wrong.  The planner wrote the bylaw (including the definitions of attached and detached) which the town just recently approved, so one would think that he would know the intent of what he wrote.  That said, I can read and I don't think the proposed garage cuts it for being attached.

Now I hope to at least be sure that our building inspector has it right.  If professionals see this as clearly an attached garage, I will know that I was wrong and our town correct.  If the pros don't see it as attached, I am hopeful that I can use their reasoning to inform the building inspector.

Thanks for your assistance.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 8, 2016)

What we will generally look for are that the building shares some structural components. We've had some people "cheat" and extend the foundation wall of the house to become a common foundation wall between the two buildings and construct a deck or patio above, but we will usually see a roofed breezeway in between the two units. Something that really ties it together. We have a smaller setback for detached garages, so we mostly get this for garages that exceed the maximum area permitted by our bylaws.

If you believe the municipality is mis-applying their own bylaws there are a couple courses of action that are typically available. Most provinces have some type of planning appeal board that can overturn the decision of municipal officials, but I'm not sure that Ontario has this as I work in another province. Your next course of action is to speak to the mayor or city manager. If you provide them evidence that the bylaws are being mis-applied they will likely be more receptive to your case. Finally, there is always the possibility of litigation against the municipality. I say finally because your action will not be permitted to proceed by a judge unless you've explored the standard options to have the problem rectified (specifically planning appeals).

Hopefully this helps you out and best of luck.


----------



## ICE (Aug 8, 2016)

Waiting for the building inspector to make a determination is quite odd.  The inspector will see it for the first time at the footing inspection.  A lot of work will have been performed by then and now the inspector is supposed to shoot it down?  The planning dept. seems to be ill-prepared to render decisions.


----------



## cda (Aug 8, 2016)

Agree with Ice

City will not stop work or have them tear it down.

Normally appeals do not cost.

Sounds like you need to talk higher up and talk to anyone and everyone. Till you get an answer


----------



## fatboy (Aug 8, 2016)

I agree with both folks above, once the project gets started, you will not be able to stop it.


----------



## JBI (Aug 8, 2016)

Personally, I feel the walls and roof create an attachment as intended by the poorly written local law. 
I had a predecessor call a wooden walkway between a house and garage an 'attachment' under Zoning once. That was a nightmare...


----------



## JCraver (Aug 8, 2016)

I'd call it attached here. 

Norm-  Welcome to the forum.  Please don't take this question the wrong way, but would your opinion of this be different if the breezeway wasn't there, and instead the garage wall and house wall was a common one?  I can't understand (maybe a picture would help) why the breezeway makes any difference whatsoever?


----------



## steveray (Aug 8, 2016)

Some towns here call a roof attached, some need walls....not really a big deal...Your area it is a greater setback for detached? First I have ever heard of that..


----------



## Norm (Aug 8, 2016)

JCraver said:


> I'd call it attached here.
> 
> Norm-  Welcome to the forum.  Please don't take this question the wrong way, but would your opinion of this be different if the breezeway wasn't there, and instead the garage wall and house wall was a common one?  I can't understand (maybe a picture would help) why the breezeway makes any difference whatsoever?



Hi
Thanks for your interest in my question.
I will try to get you a copy of his sketch, but no promises due to a lack of skill in that department.
FYI, I would have no question with this if the breezeway was not there.  If the garage wall and house wall was a common one, I would see it as attached, as per the bylaw. 

If there was no breezeway, and the garage and house shared a common wall, the neighbour would not have enough room in the driveway adjacent to the house for both a garage door and a man door.  The garage wall parallel to the house is 16' total.  He has 12' of property beside his house, so currently he has 12' of driveway on his side and I have 12' of driveway on my side with no buffer in between.  (It is an old time, narrow, shared driveway.)  So he is proposing to set the garage back 5' behind his house and use 11' of driveway for the garage door and then tie the garage and house together with 5' of breezeway near the back door of his house, for a total garage wall length of 16'.  The breezeway will have a man door on each end.  That said, the breezeway does not enclose his house's back door area, such that he will still have to go outside to get into his garage.  All the breezeway seems to do is to attach the 2 separate buildings together so that he might be able to have a detached garage closer to his house than permitted by trying to call it an attached garage.  Our bylaw requires a 10' setback from the house on detached garages and garages that are truly attached (in my opinion) have zero setback from the house, sharing a common wall, etc.

Thanks for your assistance.


----------



## Norm (Aug 8, 2016)

tmurray said:


> What we will generally look for are that the building shares some structural components. We've had some people "cheat" and extend the foundation wall of the house to become a common foundation wall between the two buildings and construct a deck or patio above, but we will usually see a roofed breezeway in between the two units. Something that really ties it together. We have a smaller setback for detached garages, so we mostly get this for garages that exceed the maximum area permitted by our bylaws.
> 
> If you believe the municipality is mis-applying their own bylaws there are a couple courses of action that are typically available. Most provinces have some type of planning appeal board that can overturn the decision of municipal officials, but I'm not sure that Ontario has this as I work in another province. Your next course of action is to speak to the mayor or city manager. If you provide them evidence that the bylaws are being mis-applied they will likely be more receptive to your case. Finally, there is always the possibility of litigation against the municipality. I say finally because your action will not be permitted to proceed by a judge unless you've explored the standard options to have the problem rectified (specifically planning appeals).
> 
> Hopefully this helps you out and best of luck.



Thanks for the advice.  I did not appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board but at least hope to see the town get this cleared up one way or the other for future similar applications.


----------



## Norm (Aug 8, 2016)

ICE said:


> Waiting for the building inspector to make a determination is quite odd.  The inspector will see it for the first time at the footing inspection.  A lot of work will have been performed by then and now the inspector is supposed to shoot it down?  The planning dept. seems to be ill-prepared to render decisions.





ICE said:


> Waiting for the building inspector to make a determination is quite odd.  The inspector will see it for the first time at the footing inspection.  A lot of work will have been performed by then and now the inspector is supposed to shoot it down?  The planning dept. seems to be ill-prepared to render decisions.


That is what I thought.
Thanks for your interest and advice.


----------



## FLSTF01 (Aug 22, 2016)

My jurisdiction would call it attached.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 15, 2016)

Just some historic perspective.
Breezeways under attached roofs were commomplace in the San Fernando Valley back in the 50 -60's. They were allowed to be enclosed later on.
I had a similar driveway tunnel condition on an older SFR where common driveways provided access to detached garages in the rear. No room for property line walls as the driveways would then be too narrow.
Also many detached garages were allowed in the rear to be only 1' off the side yard, later many attempted to create Granny flats and ran into issues.
Same with attempts to enclose Porte-Cocher's built on property lines.


----------

