# What happens if a city approves a deck that seems to violate fire codes



## Jane

I am not a building professional but I have been fighting the city regarding a permit that was issued to my neighbor to build a deck that covers most of the rear yard. Our homes are townhomes so there is no side yard. From my research it seems that the permit was issued even thought violated multiple zoning codes and the city told me it had been approved correctly and then told me I could appeal after the window had passed. The ombudsman is currently assessing the situation as I was initially told I couldn't see the plans as they were copyrighted (that was not the case)n and then on multiple visits and emails to the city I was told that the building permit complied with zoning. 

So, in short, I'm trying to find a way to get the city to bring this deck into compliance. In reading the IBC codes (yep - that's where I'm at  ) I noticed that there were specific rules for fire codes. I'm not sure how to upload a picture of the structure but I can if some can tell me how. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Jane




----------



## jar546

Jane said:


> I am not a building professional but I have been fighting the city regarding a permit that was issued to my neighbor to build a deck that covers most of the rear yard. Our homes are townhomes so there is no side yard. From my research it seems that the permit was issued even thought violated multiple zoning codes and the city told me it had been approved correctly and then told me I could appeal after the window had passed. The ombudsman is currently assessing the situation as I was initially told I couldn't see the plans as they were copyrighted (that was not the case)n and then on multiple visits and emails to the city I was told that the building permit complied with zoning.
> 
> So, in short, I'm trying to find a way to get the city to bring this deck into compliance. In reading the IBC codes (yep - that's where I'm at  ) I noticed that there were specific rules for fire codes. I'm not sure how to upload a picture of the structure but I can if some can tell me how. Thanks in advance.



That is a violation of R302.1 and yet somehow it even got through zoning?


----------



## cda

Welcome!!


What year if the “international residential code”

Does the city currently have adopted ??


Please do not red line my writing.


----------



## cda

This is the 2015 edition with out any local amendments::


https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2015


----------



## cda

This is parr of 302.1::



*SECTIONR302
FIRE-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*
*R302.1 Exterior walls.*
Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1(1); or dwellings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section P2904 shall comply with Table R302.1(2).

Exceptions:
..............


----------



## cda

Is the deck attached to someone else’s house????


----------



## cda

You can also to an open records request for any permits issued and

Any inspections done.

That might be some interesting reading.


----------



## cda

My last resort, if the city does not do anything, is email the media with everything you find.

They are always looking for a filler story/ investigative report.

Only thing after that is a real estate attorney and private code consultant. Which means money out of your pocket.


----------



## cda

I hate HOA’s, but is there one???

And does a homeowner need their approval to build??


----------



## Jane

jar546 said:


> That is a violation of R302.1 and yet somehow it even got through zoning?


Thanks for your response. That's what I'm confused about - I don't know about building code but even I knew when it went up that something was wrong. I sent the city pictures every day and they kept telling me it was compliant. My neighbor is very well known so I'm wondering if the permit was rubber stamped as a favor. What can I do about it at this point?


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Welcome!!
> 
> 
> What year if the “international residential code”
> 
> Does the city currently have adopted ??
> 
> 
> Please do not red line my writing.




The city uses IBC 2015. Is there any way I can get them to make the deck comply with code as it affects my safety and property value.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> You can also to an open records request for any permits issued and
> 
> Any inspections done.
> 
> That might be some interesting reading.



Thanks - I have requested the GRAMA report and I have spoken with an attorney - I am learning a lot about building and zoning but it is not a nice way to have to learn it. My HOA also rubber stamped this without even seeing the plans and so I have a lawsuit against them to recover my attorney fees if I want to. I just really need to know the best way to get the city to "fix" this. If the final inspection hasn't been done - can I red flag the inspection so that it has to be fixed?


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Is the deck attached to someone else’s house????



It is attached to my neighbor's house and goes right up to the garage at the rear.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I hate HOA’s, but is there one???
> 
> And does a homeowner need their approval to build??



We do have an HOA but because this guy is famous they just rubber stamped it without seeing the plans. I know I have plenty against the HOA for a lawsuit but can I get the deck brought into compliance?


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> My last resort, if the city does not do anything, is email the media with everything you find.
> 
> They are always looking for a filler story/ investigative report.
> 
> Only thing after that is a real estate attorney and private code consultant. Which means money out of your pocket.



It would make a good story....a corrupt city, a rogue HOA board and a former Senator!


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> It is attached to my neighbor's house and goes right up to the garage at the rear.



Wow

To me that is degrading the structure, and I would not allow a neighbor to attach a make shift shelter to my house.

Let’s see who pays, when something goes wrong.

I bet the neighbors insurance company would not be happy with the set up.


----------



## cda

So it sounds like you want to go to the mat on this.

Since you talked to an attorney,,,

Might as well hire a good “Code Consultant” private type.

They can look at the install.

They can look at the building and city codes.

They can advise you if it is right or wrong.

They can represent you in front of any city official, and be able to talk code!!!!!!


One other, do you know any of the city council people??? Sometimes they like to get involved and make noise.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Wow
> 
> To me that is degrading the structure, and I would not allow a neighbor to attach a make shift shelter to my house.
> 
> Let’s see who pays, when something goes wrong.
> 
> I bet the neighbors insurance company would not be happy with the set up.



That is the base of a deck which is now almost complete and attached to my neighbors house but comes right up to our shared fence (we live in townhomes and my neighbor did get a permit for this monstrosity). I have tried to get the city to do something about it but they are claiming my appeal for zoning violations was one day too late. Now, I'm trying to get them to do something based on Fire Code violations. This is affecting my safety and property values - apart from the fact it violates at lest 6 zoning codes. What would you suggest I do to get this removed?


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> So it sounds like you want to go to the mat on this.
> 
> Since you talked to an attorney,,,
> 
> Might as well hire a good “Code Consultant” private type.
> 
> They can look at the install.
> 
> They can look at the building and city codes.
> 
> They can advise you if it is right or wrong.
> 
> They can represent you in front of any city official, and be able to talk code!!!!!!
> 
> 
> One other, do you know any of the city council people??? Sometimes they like to get involved and make noise.




The city are fighting my appeal hard as this seems to have been rubber stamped by every department involved. My neighbor is a former Senator who is buddies with the former Mayor and even the HOA has turned a blind eye to it as they want to be invited to his events. I have paid for a State advisory opinion from the A.G.'s office on this but the city are fighting it saying my appeal was a day or two late. I asked repeatedly when I needed to appeal and the city ombudsman said that I could still submit the appeal even after they now say it was due. It seems like a cover up by the city to me - And I'm not a conspiracy theorist! If the final inspection has not been done can I "force" the city to comply with fire code? I sent a complaint to the city today to notify them I was aware this structure violated fire code. I copied in the mayor, the city attorney and the community development department.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Is the deck attached to someone else’s house????



It is attached to my neighbor's town house but comes all the way to the shared common fence. He asked me to share the cost of a 12 foot fence (against city code) so he could have privacy. When I said "No" he hung a 13 foot high curtain across the property line.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> The city are fighting my appeal hard as this seems to have been rubber stamped by every department involved. My neighbor is a former Senator who is buddies with the former Mayor and even the HOA has turned a blind eye to it as they want to be invited to his events. I have paid for a State advisory opinion from the A.G.'s office on this but the city are fighting it saying my appeal was a day or two late. I asked repeatedly when I needed to appeal and the city ombudsman said that I could still submit the appeal even after they now say it was due. It seems like a cover up by the city to me - And I'm not a conspiracy theorist! If the final inspection has not been done can I "force" the city to comply with fire code? I sent a complaint to the city today to notify them I was aware this structure violated fire code. I copied in the mayor, the city attorney and the community development department.





Not into zoning,,,,

But seems like there would be no dead line if there is a zoning or building code violation.


Sounds like you might as well email every media outlet in the area.... someone needs a story,,, and if you can get to the investigative team that is the best.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Not into zoning,,,,
> 
> But seems like there would be no dead line if there is a zoning or building code violation.
> 
> 
> Sounds like you might as well email every media outlet in the area.... someone needs a story,,, and if you can get to the investigative team that is the best.



The City offices say that since they issued the permit they are not going to say there are zoning violations - it seems corrupt to me but they said I only had 10 days to appeal the permit. They wouldn't allow me access to the plans as they were supposedly copyrighted and issued the permit base on their definition of a patio. (a flat structure no higher than 30") A patio is not supposed to project our more than 12 feet or take up more than a certain percentage of lot coverage. This thing is 6 feet plus railings high, 21 feet long and 22 feet wide.


----------



## cda

Also write to every council person

Sometimes you find a good one.


And the media


----------



## cda

Some states have a state wide adopted building code.

Some states let each city adopt whatever they want.


Utah might just be statewide::

https://dopl.utah.gov/programs/ubc/


It is worth a call to this agency to see if they can do anything for you.

If you do not get a good answer the first time try about three more times to different people 

Ask if you can file a complaint with them.


----------



## cda

Forgot about the appeals process::


Appeal InformationIf you would like information about appealing a decision made by Community Development Staff or one of our Boards and Commissions, see our Appeal Information page.


----------



## cda

Appears you can file a building code complaint anytime:::






https://sites.google.com/a/apps.pro...home/community-development/zoning-enforcement


----------



## cda

Maybe write this person, already knows a little



https://www.heraldextra.com/news/lo...cle_c37e18e0-6f60-5f24-8460-f446e5eeec3d.html


----------



## cda

These people may know what they are talking about:::


https://www.jeffslawoffice.com/aop/utah-real-estate-law/land-use-and-zoning/


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> These people may know what they are talking about:::
> 
> 
> https://www.jeffslawoffice.com/aop/utah-real-estate-law/land-use-and-zoning/



I requested to talk to these attorneys - thanks for the link.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Maybe write this person, already knows a little
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.heraldextra.com/news/lo...cle_c37e18e0-6f60-5f24-8460-f446e5eeec3d.html



I will definitely contact this person - thanks.


----------



## ICE

What is the zoning regulation for side yard setback in a rear yard?  If there is a setback....well that's the end of that story.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> What is the zoning regulation for side yard setback in a rear yard?  If there is a setback....well that's the end of that story.



From my understanding the setback is a minimum of three feet from each adjacent property line and a projection can not project further than 12 feet...and that before fire code is considered.

https://provo.municipal.codes/Code/14.11


----------



## ICE

_*The structures listed below may project into* a minimum front or rear yard not more than four (4) feet, *and into a minimum side yard not more than two (2) feet:*

(a) Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses, or other similar architectural features.



(b) Fireplace structures and bays, provided they are not wider than eight (8) feet and are generally parallel to the wall of which they are a part.


(c) Stairways,* balconies*, door stoops, fire escapes, awnings and planter boxes or masonry planters.
_
It looks like a balcony and should be 12" from the fence.  It might not be worth the grief for a foot.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> _*The structures listed below may project into* a minimum front or rear yard not more than four (4) feet, *and into a minimum side yard not more than two (2) feet:*
> 
> (a) Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, buttresses, or other similar architectural features.
> 
> 
> 
> (b) Fireplace structures and bays, provided they are not wider than eight (8) feet and are generally parallel to the wall of which they are a part.
> 
> 
> (c) Stairways,* balconies*, door stoops, fire escapes, awnings and planter boxes or masonry planters.
> _
> It looks like a balcony and should be 12" from the fence.  It might not be worth the grief for a foot.



The city used the definition of a "patio" for the permit. We don't have side yards - only rear yards.


----------



## cda

ICE said:


> What is the zoning regulation for side yard setback in a rear yard?  If there is a setback....well that's the end of that story.




Looks like zero lot lines????

Do they have set backs??

I would question attaching it to neighbors house!!!!!


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Looks like zero lot lines????
> 
> Do they have set backs??
> 
> I would question attaching it to neighbors house!!!!!



The setbacks (if we don't consider fire code) are supposed to be a minimum of 3 feet from the side property lines and projections can't project for more than 12 feet into the rear yard. This thing projects 20 feet into the rear yard to the detached garage at the back of the lot. It also comes within 3 inches of my property line.


----------



## ADAguy

Last I checked patios were 
"on grade" vs balconies which have air space beneath?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Last I checked patios were
> "on grade" vs balconies which have air space beneath?



I agree - but our city doesn't define decks specifically and defines patios to be flat surfaces not more than 30" high. They used the definition of a patio to issue the permit but that also means it can't extend out further than 12 feet. So, this thing is approximately 6 feet high (at the base), 22 feet wide, and 21 feet deep -


----------



## ADAguy

Jane said:


> I agree - but our city doesn't define decks specifically and defines patios to be flat surfaces not more than 30" high. They used the definition of a patio to issue the permit but that also means it can't extend out further than 12 feet. So, this thing is approximately 6 feet high (at the base), 22 feet wide, and 21 feet deep -



Any responses from local news teams?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Any responses from local news teams?



Yes - I was just contacted by the Daily Herald. Fingers Crossed


----------



## ADAguy

Jane said:


> Yes - I was just contacted by the Daily Herald. Fingers Crossed



A pending Pulitzer?


----------



## Mech

What's up with the 5th joist from the bottom?  They cut it twice and it was still too short?


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> What's up with the 5th joist from the bottom?  They cut it twice and it was still too short?



Interesting! Does that make a difference for the quality of the deck or does it just show his construction guys messed up?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> A pending Pulitzer?



Maybe even a TV series


----------



## ICE

It looks like there might be an A/C condenser ....or two.....under the new lumber not a balcony.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> You can also to an open records request for any permits issued and
> 
> Any inspections done.
> 
> That might be some interesting reading.



I applied for the GRAMA report and had it expedited. They have a couple of documents in there that I have never seen. They are now saying that the plans are copyrighted (even though they've changed their minds on that twice and gave me a copy in July). They have included a plan specification sheet that tells the dimensions of the deck to prove I knew the dimensions - even though I've never seen it before. There are no inspector reports or anything. Is that usually the case for a GRAMA record?


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> It looks like there might be an A/C condenser ....or two.....under the new lumber not a balcony.



Is that not allowed?


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> Maybe even a TV series



Rosanne is available..............................to play the senator


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> Is that not allowed?



The installation instructions for the appliance will specify a dimension for clear space above the condenser.  It needs to breath.  Some are three feet and some are four feet.  When they are restricted they lose a great deal of efficiency and wear out sooner.

If that's what I see the location means that they will be out of sight-out of mind.  A service call might get rejected when the tech discovers that he will have to crawl....what with rats and spiders and all.


----------



## Mech

At that fifth joist, did they frame out around a dryer vent?


----------



## ICE

Mech said:


> At that fifth joist, did they frame out around a dryer vent?


Yes they did.  It exhausts not far from what looks like the A/C.


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> The City offices say that since they issued the permit they are not going to say there are zoning violations - it seems corrupt to me but they said I only had 10 days to appeal the permit. They wouldn't allow me access to the plans as they were supposedly copyrighted and issued the permit base on their *definition of a patio. (a flat structure no higher than 30")* A patio is not supposed to project our more than 12 feet or take up more than a certain percentage of lot coverage. This thing is 6 feet plus railings high, 21 feet long and 22 feet wide.



It looks higher than 30".


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> It looks higher than 30".



It is indeed! It is 6 feet high at the base and 14+ feet high at the top


----------



## ICE

The 6’ I understand.....the 14’ I don’t.   So it doesn’t fit the definition of a patio.


----------



## Jane

The base of the deck is 6 foot but they added railings that bring it up to about 14+ feet. It definitely doesn't fit the definition of a patio which doesn't seem to require a building permit at all.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> The 6’ I understand.....the 14’ I don’t.   So it doesn’t fit the definition of a patio.



Sorry - I meant 10+ foot high at the top.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> So it sounds like you want to go to the mat on this.
> 
> Since you talked to an attorney,,,
> 
> Might as well hire a good “Code Consultant” private type.
> 
> They can look at the install.
> 
> They can look at the building and city codes.
> 
> They can advise you if it is right or wrong.
> 
> They can represent you in front of any city official, and be able to talk code!!!!!!
> 
> 
> One other, do you know any of the city council people??? Sometimes they like to get involved and make noise.



I contacted my city councilman at large and he said that he is going to investigate - I'm not holding out much hope as the city are fighting the timelines of the appeal. Do you know if there is a limit on appealing fire code? Also, where could I find a "code consultant" in Utah?


----------



## e hilton

Jane said:


> ! If the final inspection has not been done can I "force" the city to comply with fire code?
> 
> I can tell you from personal experience on commercial projects ... we went through a lengthy permit review process, all the required in-progress inspections, and when the inspector was on site for the final we failed.  He didnt like that we had built a “dog house” on the roof for hvac duct penetration, made us spend about $20k to take it down.  We pointed out that it was on the approved and stamped drawings, he said it didnt matter, it never should have been approved in the first place.


----------



## e hilton

Jane said:


> . They are now saying that the plans are copyrighted ?


So?  That just means that you can't use the same plans to build your deck, it has nothing to do with you cant see them.  
You might contact the architect if the plans, and/or the builder, and see how they feel about building a structure that does not meet code.  “Mr builder, i want to confirm the correct spelling of your name for the investigative reporter”.


----------



## Jane

I'm pretty sure they needed new plans for the new structure but so far they have not submitted any and the GRAMA report does not indicate that any inspections have been done. I would have thought that it would have shown the initial inspection at the very least. They used decks.com to make the plans but it does not say that they are copyrighted. I could contact the builder although I checked today and the builder they named is licensed. The GRAMA report shows nothing except all of a sudden they have a page that shows the dimensions of the deck so that they can say I had enough knowledge to file an appeal earlier. I never saw that page but I know that the city will insist this was public knowledge.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I applied for the GRAMA report and had it expedited. They have a couple of documents in there that I have never seen. They are now saying that the plans are copyrighted (even though they've changed their minds on that twice and gave me a copy in July). They have included a plan specification sheet that tells the dimensions of the deck to prove I knew the dimensions - even though I've never seen it before. There are no inspector reports or anything. Is that usually the case for a GRAMA record?




If inspections have been done there should be something!!
It may depend on how they do it, some hand write and some are on computer.

You can ask for dates of any inspections. 


You cannot copy the plans, but should be able to see them. 
Ask for attorney general opinion if they balk.


----------



## cda

https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/utah/


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I contacted my city councilman at large and he said that he is going to investigate - I'm not holding out much hope as the city are fighting the timelines of the appeal. Do you know if there is a limit on appealing fire code? Also, where could I find a "code consultant" in Utah?




I looked online, not sure why I can’t turn one up. Will keep looking.

That attorney group may know some.


----------



## cda

There should be no dead line to file a code violation complaint.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> If inspections have been done there should be something!!
> It may depend on how they do it, some hand write and some are on computer.
> 
> You can ask for dates of any inspections.
> 
> 
> You cannot copy the plans, but should be able to see them.
> Ask for attorney general opinion if they balk.



The reason the city are fighting so hard on this right now is that I requested an AG Advisory Opinion and they are trying to get the AG's office not to issue it based on my "timliness" of the appeal. The city know that there are zoning and code issues but if they can get it dismissed on timelines then they will not have to address them. My appeal was delayed because the city kept telling me it complied with code but wouldn't show me the plans so I couldn't see it until building was underway. Even then the city said it was code compliant and did not tell me that I could appeal until I had them contact the city attorney. By then the clock had run (according to the city) so I am hoping that the AG's office will issue an opinion despite the city's protests. I will email them for the dates of the inspections - they'll try and get out of that too I'm sure - it's so frustrating.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> There should be no dead line to file a code violation complaint.



Is there somewhere I can find that? There seems to be no links for that and the city are just ignoring that it has a fire code violation. Also, how do I find a zoning consultant that would do a job this small?


----------



## cda

Here is a possible consultant 

http://www.wc-3.com/

Look under contact us


----------



## cda

Appears you can file a building code complaint anytime:::






https://sites.google.com/a/apps.pro...home/community-development/zoning-enforcement


----------



## ADAguy

You are in an HOA?
If so, what does your home owners insurance say about this, would they refuse a claim if a 4th of july BBQ fire on the "patio" spread to surrounding units?
Does Utah require periodic inspections of HOA's to determine reserve requirements?


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Appears you can file a building code complaint anytime:::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://sites.google.com/a/apps.pro...home/community-development/zoning-enforcement



I trued that but they say they don't enforce it unless you appeal within 10 days of knowing there is a building permit. In other words - they can't be held  liable for their mistakes


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> You are in an HOA?
> If so, what does your home owners insurance say about this, would they refuse a claim if a 4th of july BBQ fire on the "patio" spread to surrounding units?
> Does Utah require periodic inspections of HOA's to determine reserve requirements?



The HOA (at least two of them) just allowed their friend to build this. I am going to call the HOA's insurance and ask if a fire code violation voids the policy.

I know we have to do a reserve study every 5 years but they don't make us have a specific amount.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Here is a possible consultant
> 
> http://www.wc-3.com/
> 
> Look under contact us



Thank you! I will try that.


----------



## Glenn

The model IRC is silent in regard to FSD for decks.  Therefore interpretation is all over the place.  This is a hole in the IRC that will likely be fixed over the next few cycles.


----------



## Jane

Glenn said:


> The model IRC is silent in regard to FSD for decks.  Therefore interpretation is all over the place.  This is a hole in the IRC that will likely be fixed over the next few cycles.



Does that mean the monstrous deck next door to me is not a fire code violation? It's got multiple other violations but it looks like the city are going to get off with it which is why fire code is my last resort.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I trued that but they say they don't enforce it unless you appeal within 10 days of knowing there is a building permit. In other words - they can't be held  liable for their mistakes




That makes no sense


----------



## cda

Call the state to see if they will take a complaint and send someone 

I would call a few times till you find some one that will listen

https://dopl.utah.gov/programs/ubc/


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> That makes no sense



That's what I think too. I've told the city I won't sue them (not that it's easy to sue a city) if they just fix their mistakes but they are fighting this to the death it seems.


----------



## Glenn

Jane said:


> Does that mean the monstrous deck next door to me is not a fire code violation? It's got multiple other violations but it looks like the city are going to get off with it which is why fire code is my last resort.


I'm sorry Jane, I can't speak directly to your situation without more research and information about the local codes.  I am a national code consultant in the decking industry, and was simply adding to the greater conversation that this subject of fire spread from decks has not been tackled at a national level.  The code is silent.  The Wildland Urban Interface Code does however have provision for fire spread via decks but it is in relation to a wildland fire spreading to a house, not a house to a house.
There have been proposals in the past to address this, but they weren't well prepared and I spoke against them at the hearings.  I do expect to work on this "hole" in the code for the 2024 or 2027 editions, but that doesn't help you.
Just know you are not alone or crazy in your concerns.  The code development process just hasn't addressed it yet.


----------



## ADAguy

Jane said:


> The HOA (at least two of them) just allowed their friend to build this. I am going to call the HOA's insurance and ask if a fire code violation voids the policy.
> 
> I know we have to do a reserve study every 5 years but they don't make us have a specific amount.



Do they identify nonconforming additions?


----------



## Glenn

What is the story with the porch roof in the unit in the background?  It appears to cover the entire yard all the way to the garage?  I would be more worried about that.


----------



## Jane

Glenn said:


> I'm sorry Jane, I can't speak directly to your situation without more research and information about the local codes.  I am a national code consultant in the decking industry, and was simply adding to the greater conversation that this subject of fire spread from decks has not been tackled at a national level.  The code is silent.  The Wildland Urban Interface Code does however have provision for fire spread via decks but it is in relation to a wildland fire spreading to a house, not a house to a house.
> There have been proposals in the past to address this, but they weren't well prepared and I spoke against them at the hearings.  I do expect to work on this "hole" in the code for the 2024 or 2027 editions, but that doesn't help you.
> Just know you are not alone or crazy in your concerns.  The code development process just hasn't addressed it yet.



I appreciate your input and affirming I'm not "alone or crazy"...I feel like I'm both. Do you know how I could find out the local codes in the State of Utah? It seems crazy that this is not an issue - especially in a desert state.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Do they identify nonconforming additions?



No they don't although an addition this size should never have been approved. Two of the board members who are starry eyed because my neighbor was a Senator verbally approved the deck without seeing plans or approving the materials used.


----------



## cda

Call the state


https://dopl.utah.gov/programs/ubc/


----------



## my250r11

We get request for information all the time and we only give EXACTLY what is asked for so the wording you use in your request is very important. Did you specify you want all permit, zoning & inspection info?

In general building code is for how it is built, and zoning is for where it can be built. The pictures are not clear enough or enough from different angles to verify how many code violations may be present. As for zoning there are usually sideyard and rearyard setbacks as well as ratio's as to how much you can cover as has been state earlier. I would think there are violation to zoning & building codes. The zoning ordinance should be available somewhere.
Most states set what codes are used and should be found also. This info should be online in this day and age.

Would file complaints with the state agencies that over see codes and zoning in your state.

As also already stated when all else fails call the local news.


----------



## Jane

my250r11 said:


> We get request for information all the time and we only give EXACTLY what is asked for so the wording you use in your request is very important. Did you specify you want all permit, zoning & inspection info?
> 
> In general building code is for how it is built, and zoning is for where it can be built. The pictures are not clear enough or enough from different angles to verify how many code violations may be present. As for zoning there are usually sideyard and rearyard setbacks as well as ratio's as to how much you can cover as has been state earlier. I would think there are violation to zoning & building codes. The zoning ordinance should be available somewhere.
> Most states set what codes are used and should be found also. This info should be online in this day and age.
> 
> Would file complaints with the state agencies that over see codes and zoning in your state.
> 
> As also already stated when all else fails call the local news.



I will file another GRAMA request using that wording right now and see if something different comes back. I know that the deck (the city deemed it a "patio" as they have no language in their zoning for a deck but a patio is described as a flat structure no more than 30" high. Either way it violates lot coverage rules and a patio is not allowed to extend more that 12 feet. So it's more than 30" high and extends out approx 20 feet so there is no question that it violates at least one zoning ordinance. Do you work for a city zoning?


----------



## my250r11

Jane said:


> I will file another GRAMA request using that wording right now and see if something different comes back. I know that the deck (the city deemed it a "patio" as they have no language in their zoning for a deck but a patio is described as a flat structure no more than 30" high. Either way it violates lot coverage rules and a patio is not allowed to extend more that 12 feet. So it's more than 30" high and extends out approx 20 feet so there is no question that it violates at least one zoning ordinance. Do you work for a city zoning?




No, a city building inspector. We deal with zoning a lot so it rubs off and we also check to make sure structures are built to the required set backs.


----------



## Jane

Glenn said:


> What is the story with the porch roof in the unit in the background?  It appears to cover the entire yard all the way to the garage?  I would be more worried about that.



That is a side yard for the end unit. The roof has been there since I moved in in 2004 so I don't know if it was part of the original PUD. It certainly looks ugly but their neighbors have not complained. They are they neighbors on the other side of the monstrous deck.


----------



## Jane

my250r11 said:


> No, a city building inspector. We deal with zoning a lot so it rubs off and we also check to make sure structures are built to the required set backs.


 
I filed another GRAMA request using your wording. I have filed for an advisory opinion with the State Utah Property Rights department (the city are fighting that hard) but I don't see anywhere else that covers zoning and code. Thoughts?


----------



## cda

Someone is not going to be invited to the Christmas


----------



## cda

Appears maybe another word for what it is,,,

Balcony???


----------



## cda

Since the hose does not care,

A nice large sign with pictures in your front yard, might do good or bad!!!


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Someone is not going to be invited to the Christmas



It will be Christmas every day if I can get that thing compliant with at least some of the codes


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Since the hose does not care,
> 
> A nice large sign with pictures in your front yard, might do good or bad!!!



If only - the HOA have jurisdiction of the front yard and you can bet I'd be fined for that. Maybe name and shame on twitter since my neighbor is planning a POTUS run


----------



## Jane

my250r11 said:


> No, a city building inspector. We deal with zoning a lot so it rubs off and we also check to make sure structures are built to the required set backs.



So as a building inspector do you think this thing violates R302.1?


----------



## e hilton

With regard to you being late with the zoning appeal ... i assume you have kept copies of all your emails to the city and the responses ... can you document that you raised the issue before the deadline?


----------



## mtlogcabin

A balcony is an extension of the floor with no additional supports
A deck is supported by the structure and additional supports

I would not classify this as a balcony


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> If only - the HOA have jurisdiction of the front yard and you can bet I'd be fined for that. Maybe name and shame on twitter since my neighbor is planning a POTUS run




Ok find all the opponents and ship them info and plenty of pictures


----------



## cda

mtlogcabin said:


> A balcony is an extension of the floor with no additional supports
> A deck is supported by the structure and additional supports
> 
> I would not classify this as a balcony



Tried


----------



## Jane

mtlogcabin said:


> A balcony is an extension of the floor with no additional supports
> A deck is supported by the structure and additional supports
> 
> I would not classify this as a balcony



I agree. I have balconies on my rental condo and they are nothing like this.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> With regard to you being late with the zoning appeal ... i assume you have kept copies of all your emails to the city and the responses ... can you document that you raised the issue before the deadline?



Yes I have and I can. I asked them to issue a stop work order in an email outlining the violations that I knew of within a few days of construction starting. Will this help me?


----------



## cda

Wow 100 replies!!!!

I think you have the record.

I know it cost money, but have you had a chance to talk to those building code Attorneys?

Maybe they need some pro bono work??


----------



## Jane

I'm really appreciative of all the suggestions and I've been overwhelmed by all the responses! I filled out a form for these attorneys and I also left a message. So far I haven't heard anything but maybe it was a busy day for them...


----------



## ADAguy

Do you have access to a drone? If so take photos.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Do you have access to a drone? If so take photos.



I used to have a small one from Costco but it disappeared. Knowing my luck it would land up in the neighbor's yard


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Also write to every council person
> 
> Sometimes you find a good one.
> 
> 
> And the media



I found a council member who is taking this seriously! This is the email he copied to the city ombudsman and a few others today:

_Bill,

Constituent Jane Loftus called me a few days ago and indicated that she believes a patio recently constructed in her neighbor's backyard does not comply with city Code or with fire codes (see her e-mail below and attached picture). I spoke briefly with Gary McGinn yesterday about this and he indicated that this is a permitting issue that now falls under your jurisdiction as Provo's new Director of Development Services. My understanding is that Jane has been a good citizen of Provo for many years and has no intent to harm or embarrass the city. However, it is clear that she sincerely believes code violations have occurred and that she has gone to considerable effort and expense to seek redress. Consequently, I feel a duty to respectfully ask a few questions in my role as a member of the body with executive oversight responsibilities.

Do you believe that a violation of either zoning code or fire code has occurred? If not, would your department please clearly communicate to Jane why the city is confident that the structure as built complies with relevant codes.

If  you believe a violation has occurred, would you please communicate what the city will do to rectify the violation and/or options that Jane may have to seek redress?

Thank you!

Dave S

_
_Fingers crossed _


----------



## JPohling

Nice letter!


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I found a council member who is taking this seriously! This is the email he copied to the city ombudsman and a few others today:
> 
> _Bill,
> 
> Constituent Jane Loftus called me a few days ago and indicated that she believes a patio recently constructed in her neighbor's backyard does not comply with city Code or with fire codes (see her e-mail below and attached picture). I spoke briefly with Gary McGinn yesterday about this and he indicated that this is a permitting issue that now falls under your jurisdiction as Provo's new Director of Development Services. My understanding is that Jane has been a good citizen of Provo for many years and has no intent to harm or embarrass the city. However, it is clear that she sincerely believes code violations have occurred and that she has gone to considerable effort and expense to seek redress. Consequently, I feel a duty to respectfully ask a few questions in my role as a member of the body with executive oversight responsibilities.
> 
> Do you believe that a violation of either zoning code or fire code has occurred? If not, would your department please clearly communicate to Jane why the city is confident that the structure as built complies with relevant codes.
> 
> If  you believe a violation has occurred, would you please communicate what the city will do to rectify the violation and/or options that Jane may have to seek redress?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Dave S
> 
> _
> _Fingers crossed _





Yea

Sometimes you have to call everyone in the phone book,,,

To find someone with common sense!!!!!


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I used to have a small one from Costco but it disappeared. Knowing my luck it would land up in the neighbor's yard




So can we ask what you are a Professor of???

Psychology by chance?


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> So can we ask what you are a Professor of???
> 
> Psychology by chance?


LOL - I wish it was psychology as then I might have recognized the City's tricks. I actually am a professor of mathematics - fortunately this semester I have a flexible schedule which meant I could deal with this deck mess  I'm just so glad that this forum is here to help me navigate the craziness and complexity of the zoning world!


----------



## ADAguy

Point of clarification: councilman refers to it as a patio (typically at grade?), not a deck (typically above grade?); is this only semantics or ?


----------



## my250r11

Jane said:


> So as a building inspector do you think this thing violates R302.1?



In the 2015 IRC 302.1 is for EXTERIOR WALLS only. Since this is a deck and floor framing it is not address by 302.1.


----------



## cda

my250r11 said:


> In the 2015 IRC 302.1 is for EXTERIOR WALLS only. Since this is a deck and floor framing it is not address by 302.1.



Does attaching it to neighbors wall change anything??


----------



## Jane

my250r11 said:


> In the 2015 IRC 302.1 is for EXTERIOR WALLS only. Since this is a deck and floor framing it is not address by 302.1.


Is it not considered a "projection"?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Point of clarification: councilman refers to it as a patio (typically at grade?), not a deck (typically above grade?); is this only semantics or ?



He uses "patio" because that is what the building permit was issued on the basis of. This "thing" does not fit the definition of a patio by Provo city coding as a patio can only be 30" above grade whereas this structure ( it seems to best fit the definition of an "accessory structure") is 6 feet tall at the base.


----------



## my250r11

Jane said:


> Is it not considered a "projection"?



In my opinion, no. It is of my opinion it is a deck.

The major issues are setbacks which are generally ZONING.  The building code generally increases the fire ratings the closer you get to property lines, not that you can't built up to them. If you couldn't built up to property lines you wouldn't have duplexes, townhouses, ect.

Unfortunately your situation is mostly going to be zoning and local, not building or fire code violation.


----------



## my250r11

cda said:


> Does attaching it to neighbors wall change anything??



Zoning & legally probably. Building wise no different than attaching it to primary structure.


----------



## ADAguy

Her point is that you can't / shouldn't be tying "it" to a neighbors wall.


----------



## e hilton

ADAguy said:


> Her point is that you can't / shouldn't be tying "it" to a neighbors wall.


Might by wrong ... but going back to the beginning and reading again ... it is attached to the house of its owner, and comes close to the prop line.  Doesn’t cross any prop lines or attach to any structures of neighbors.


----------



## ICE

Remember the A/C.  If I am correct and there is a compressor under the lumber not a patio...not a balcony....well then there's bound to be a few code violations with that.


----------



## Jane

my250r11 said:


> In my opinion, no. It is of my opinion it is a deck.
> 
> The major issues are setbacks which are generally ZONING.  The building code generally increases the fire ratings the closer you get to property lines, not that you can't built up to them. If you couldn't built up to property lines you wouldn't have duplexes, townhouses, ect.
> 
> Unfortunately your situation is mostly going to be zoning and local, not building or fire code violation.



In the city PD zoning  (since we're R2PD) it says:

_(i) Notwithstanding the above provision, if the development has subdivided one-family lots which abut other parcels of land, the specific zone regulations shall apply for rear and side yard setbacks on the subdivided lots. The required setback area shall be landscaped._

Since we have separate one family lots, then the R2 zoning takes precedent which means that the deck can't project more than 12 feet or be any closer to the side property lines than 3 feet. Also, there can't be more than 40% lot coverage of accessory structures. Currently 98% of his lot is covered with structures.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Remember the A/C.  If I am correct and there is a compressor under the lumber not a patio...not a balcony....well then there's bound to be a few code violations with that.



What would these code violations come under?


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Might by wrong ... but going back to the beginning and reading again ... it is attached to the house of its owner, and comes close to the prop line.  Doesn’t cross any prop lines or attach to any structures of neighbors.



Yes - it's attached to his house but spans the width of the lot. There is no setback at all.


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> What would these code violations come under?


Mechanical and Electrical


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Mechanical and Electrical



So would I find these in the zoning chapter or is there a whole other world out there that I have yet to discover?


----------



## ADAguy

1. Exceeds lot coverage
2. Lacks rear & sideyard setbacks
3. Deck exceeds allowed height
4. Lacks permit?
    (anything else?)


----------



## Mech

ADAguy said:


> 1. Exceeds lot coverage
> 2. Lacks rear & sideyard setbacks
> 3. Deck exceeds allowed height
> 4. Lacks permit?
> (anything else?)



ADAguy - Item 1: Are you referring to exceeding maximum impervious coverage or exceeding the allowable accessory structure size.  This might make two separate violations.


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> So would I find these in the zoning chapter or is there a whole other world out there that I have yet to discover?


It is two codes....Mechanical code and Electrical code.  The mechanical code for the clearance I mentioned earlier and the electrical code for working space at the disconnect.  These are minor issues but it might surprise the building dept. to hear you mention this.

First you must verify that there is an A/C compressor involved.


----------



## ADAguy

Mech: F.A.R. (floor Area Ratio) may be exceeded for the lot size/zoning, impervious coverage is another matter. Also if side yards are only 3' wide that may be a fire issue (typically 5' has been the min. for single family.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> 1. Exceeds lot coverage
> 2. Lacks rear & sideyard setbacks
> 3. Deck exceeds allowed height
> 4. Lacks permit?
> (anything else?)



The weird thing is that it HAS a permit. It seems like a favor was done for my neighbor and the city ran the clock despite my protests so that now they say I can't appeal.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> It is two codes....Mechanical code and Electrical code.  The mechanical code for the clearance I mentioned earlier and the electrical code for working space at the disconnect.  These are minor issues but it might surprise the building dept. to hear you mention this.
> 
> First you must verify that there is an A/c compressor involved.



I will file another zoning violation for that and see what the response is. Thanks so much.


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> I will file another zoning violation for that and see what the response is. Thanks so much.


Those are not zoning code violations. For that matter I don’t know if there are violations at all. 

I am merely an inspector and your issues are beyond my grasp.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Those are not zoning code violations. For that matter I don’t know if there are violations at all.
> 
> I am merely an inspector and your issues are beyond my grasp.



Are those code issues?


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Are those code issues?




I want to say maybe half or better of the items you have talked about, are building, mechanical, fire code related items.

Yes it sounds like there are zoning/ development issues.


To me a "CODE" item should be able to be reported at anytime. There should be no dead line. Like say a water heater not installed correctly.


----------



## e hilton

Mech said:


> exceeding maximum impervious coverage .


Since it is a raised deck, with gaps between the boards for drainage, and the ground cover is probably gravel or mulch ... thats not impervious cover, i don't think.


----------



## ADAguy

Does the city have a zoning or code compliance officer, maybe a complaint line too?


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I want to say maybe half or better of the items you have talked about, are building, mechanical, fire code related items.
> 
> Yes it sounds like there are zoning/ development issues.
> 
> 
> To me a "CODE" item should be able to be reported at anytime. There should be no dead line. Like say a water heater not installed correctly.



Would that include the AC under the deck?


----------



## Mech

Jane said:


> Would that include the AC under the deck?



The AC under the deck, if it is there, would be subject to the mechanical and electrical codes that ICE mentioned in post #128.

The Zoning ORDINANCE is a document separate from the Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire CODES.  Zoning Ordinances are specific to the municipality and it appears you have access to it (see your quote in post #121.)


----------



## cda

ADAguy said:


> Does the city have a zoning or code compliance officer, maybe a complaint line too?



They do, but a citizen is not supposed to use it


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> I found a council member who is taking this seriously! This is the email he copied to the city ombudsman and a few others today:


It's only been a day since the ombudsman replied.  Give a few weeks.


----------



## ADAguy

You have come a long way already, your patience will be rewarded.


----------



## Mech

Is the deck finished yet?  Any new photos?


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> It's only been a day since the ombudsman replied.  Give a few weeks.



The problem is that my Board of Adjustment hearing is on September 19th so a few weeks will go beyond that.


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> Is the deck finished yet?  Any new photos?


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> The problem is that my Board of Adjustment hearing is on September 19th so a few weeks will go beyond that.


I guess I haven't been paying attention because I don't know what a Board of Adjustment hearing is.


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


>


The railing looks to be less than 42" high.  And yes Jane that would be a code violation.


----------



## Mech

Does the HOA say anything about clothes lines?

Oh, that's your neighbor's privacy screen installed over the property line.


----------



## ICE

Mech said:


> Does the HOA say anything about clothes lines?
> 
> Oh, that's your neighbor's privacy screen installed over the property line.


Hey now...he's trying to be a nice guy.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> I guess I haven't been paying attention because I don't know what a Board of Adjustment hearing is.



I'm glad I'm not the only one. It seems that if a violation occurs when the city issues a permit then the public (i.e. me in this case) has 14 days to appeal the permit. It's ridiculous because you may not know your neighbor is building and in my case I was refuse the right to see the plans and was given a rough idea of what the permitted "patio" (not supposed to be more than 30" high) was. It wasn't until I saw the "patio" framing that I realized that this was one Texas sized patio and did not conform with zoning. Even though the city made the mistake they are holding me to the date I called to see if a permit had been issued but I'm arguing that I did not know the basis of the facts on which to base the appeal (_Fox v. Park City. [Mr. Fox and I have become good friends  ] _) until I saw the framing. If the State Ombudsman accepts my argument then I have one shot at proving (the burden of proof is on me (as well as the associated costs) not the city) that they violated zoning by issuing the permit. The city count weekends, holidays and Fridays (our city doesn't work on Friday) for the citizens but only count working days for their appeals. So my 14 days as a resident is equivalencies to three weeks and 2 days for them!


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> Does the HOA say anything about clothes lines?
> 
> Oh, that's your neighbor's privacy screen installed over the property line.



The HOA have gone rogue. Once I've got the city thing organized I'm suing them for loss in property value and not following CC&R's. They like hanging out with the Senator!


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> The railing looks to be less than 42" high.  And yes Jane that would be a code violation.



Good to know. I'm wondering if I can sneak over and measure it...


----------



## Mech

Jane said:


> Good to know. I'm wondering if I can sneak over and measure it...



You should be able to estimate it fairly close.  See which brick level aligns with the floor and which level aligns with the top of the railing (not the post) and then measure from brick level to brick level on your property.


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> You should be able to estimate it fairly close.  See which brick level aligns with the floor and which level aligns with the top of the railing (not the post) and then measure from brick level to brick level on your property.



Sheesh - why didn't I think of that? Let me go count the brick and I'll let you know


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one. It seems that if a violation occurs when the city issues a permit then the public (i.e. me in this case) has 14 days to appeal the permit. It's ridiculous because you may not know your neighbor is building and in my case I was refuse the right to see the plans and was given a rough idea of what the permitted "patio" (not supposed to be more than 30" high) was. It wasn't until I saw the "patio" framing that I realized that this was one Texas sized patio and did not conform with zoning. Even though the city made the mistake they are holding me to the date I called to see if a permit had been issued but I'm arguing that I did not know the basis of the facts on which to base the appeal (_Fox v. Park City. [Mr. Fox and I have become good friends  ] _) until I saw the framing. If the State Ombudsman accepts my argument then I have one shot at proving (the burden of proof is on me (as well as the associated costs) not the city) that they violated zoning by issuing the permit. The city count weekends, holidays and Fridays (our city doesn't work on Friday) for the citizens but only count working days for their appeals. So my 14 days as a resident is equivalencies to three weeks and 2 days for them!



None of the timelines that you mention make any sense.  Any fraudulent construction that goes unnoticed for a period of two weeks is then granted legal status?????  I think that you must be mistaken.  Our permits and most codes state that issuance of a permit does not grant the right to break any laws or ordinances.  If a building permit is issued with an erroneous approval from the planning dept. that permit is null and void.  That lasts forever.  I have seen construction removed as a result.

You seem determined to prevail and barring an intervention by the politician, a lawyer may be the option of last resort.  As absurd as Provo rules sound I suppose anything is possible, to wit, Disneyworld Florida has alligators in the kids wading pond.  The constant worry about sinkholes must have an effect on the reasoning of Floridians....that could explain a few things.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


>





You know normally if a neighbors tree hangs over into your property,,

You can trim it to your property line !!! 


I am thinking I would get a pair of scissors out and start trimming the sail back to the property line.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> You know normally if a neighbors tree hangs over into your property,,
> 
> You can trim it to your property line !!!
> 
> 
> I am thinking I would get a pair of scissors out and start trimming the sail back to the property line.



That thought crossed my mind but I wondered if I'd land up behind bars 


ICE said:


> None of the timelines that you mention make any sense.  Any fraudulent construction that goes unnoticed for a period of two weeks is then granted legal status?????  I think that you must be mistaken.  Our permits and most codes state that issuance of a permit does not grant the right to break any laws or ordinances.  If a building permit is issued with an erroneous approval from the planning dept. that permit is null and void.  That lasts forever.  I have seen construction removed as a result.
> 
> You seem determined to prevail and barring an intervention by the politician, a lawyer may be the option of last resort.  As absurd as Provo rules sound I suppose anything is possible, to wit, Disneyworld Florida has alligators in the kids wading pond.  The constant worry about sinkholes must have an effect on the reasoning of Floridians....that could explain a few things.



Believe me I thought they were kidding when they sent me the email saying I was too late. They kept quoting (Fox v. Park City) but I wrote a response basically using it against them. My attorney helped me determine a date where I could have had all the facts and it falls two days inside the 14 day window. The joke is that when they respond to a zoning violation they have over 3 weeks to respond by which time the average citizen is out of time and the non-refundable $650. If I get a Board of Adjustment hearing then my attorney will present the case but after that I either take it to court or drop it. 

I requested the full GRAMA (including inspections which I suspect were never done) and they can't get a certificate of completion on the current deck as they changed the egress route. They need an amended permit but can't get one based on the zoning violations. I'm pretty sure the city will pull some strings for him.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> None of the timelines that you mention make any sense.  Any fraudulent construction that goes unnoticed for a period of two weeks is then granted legal status?????  I think that you must be mistaken.  Our permits and most codes state that issuance of a permit does not grant the right to break any laws or ordinances.  If a building permit is issued with an erroneous approval from the planning dept. that permit is null and void.  That lasts forever.  I have seen construction removed as a result.
> 
> You seem determined to prevail and barring an intervention by the politician, a lawyer may be the option of last resort.  As absurd as Provo rules sound I suppose anything is possible, to wit, Disneyworld Florida has alligators in the kids wading pond.  The constant worry about sinkholes must have an effect on the reasoning of Floridians....that could explain a few things.



Do you know where I can find "If a building permit is issued with an erroneous approval from the planning dept. that permit is null and void."? My city are saying that because I didn't notice their mistake in time then I can't appeal. It's so frustrating.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> That thought crossed my mind but I wondered if I'd land up behind bars
> 
> 
> Believe me I thought they were kidding when they sent me the email saying I was too late. They kept quoting (Fox v. Park City) but I wrote a response basically using it against them. My attorney helped me determine a date where I could have had all the facts and it falls two days inside the 14 day window. The joke is that when they respond to a zoning violation they have over 3 weeks to respond by which time the average citizen is out of time and the non-refundable $650. If I get a Board of Adjustment hearing then my attorney will present the case but after that I either take it to court or drop it.
> 
> I requested the full GRAMA (including inspections which I suspect were never done) and they can't get a certificate of completion on the current deck as they changed the egress route. They need an amended permit but can't get one based on the zoning violations. I'm pretty sure the city will pull some strings for him.





You call the police,?

Take them in your backyard, scissors in hand

Point out what is on your property

And start to cut, if the police do not do anything.

That way it is documented that the sail is in your property

Either that or a nice colors of spray paint and paint his name on it along with some nice messages, and a good math problem !!!!!


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Do you know where I can find "If a building permit is issued with an erroneous approval from the planning dept. that permit is null and void."? My city are saying that because I didn't notice their mistake in time then I can't appeal. It's so frustrating.




Don’t think it exists will look,,,,

Plus the city would be the one to do it,

And do you think Provo is going to do that ???


----------



## cda

Inspections are supposed to be documented::

*A]104.4 Inspections.*

The building official shall make the required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of such inspections shall be in writing and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agencyor by the responsible individual. The building official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise, subject to the approval of the appointing authority.

*A]104.7 Department records.*
The building official shall keep official records of applications received, permits and certificates issued, fees collected, reports of inspections, and notices and orders issued. Such records shall be retained in the official records for the period required for retention of public records.



This is kind of what you are asking about:::::



*A]105.4 Validity of permit.*
The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. The building official is authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction.



*A]105.6 Suspension or revocation.*
The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.




*A]110.6 Approval required.*
Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, shall make the requested inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or notify the permit holder or his or her agent wherein the same fails to comply with this code. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building official.




*A]111.4 Revocation.*
The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.


----------



## cda

Not sure why you are going to board of appeals??::


*A]113.1 General.*

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be appointed by the applicable governing authority and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business.


Normally it is someone trying to build something and the city says they are not doing it to code.


----------



## cda

*114.1 Unlawful acts.*

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish or occupy any building, structure or equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code.

*[A]114.2 Notice of violation.*
The building official is authorized to serve a notice of violation or order on the person responsible for the erection, construction, alteration, extension, repair, moving, removal, demolition or occupancy of a building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code, or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code. Such order shall direct the discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and the abatement of the violation.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Don’t think it exists will look,,,,
> 
> Plus the city would be the one to do it,
> 
> And do you think Provo is going to do that ???



Provo will not do anything...pretty sure about that. It's like I'm living in a one horse town where the rules are made up as they go along!


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Provo will not do anything...pretty sure about that. It's like I'm living in a one horse town where the rules are made up as they go along!




I see a mayoral run in someone’s future.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I see a mayoral run in someone’s future.



LOL - Provo city wouldn't know what hit them if a feisty Scottish woman took over the reigns of the one horse town


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Inspections are supposed to be documented::
> 
> *A]104.4 Inspections.*
> 
> The building official shall make the required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of such inspections shall be in writing and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agencyor by the responsible individual. The building official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise, subject to the approval of the appointing authority.
> 
> *A]104.7 Department records.*
> The building official shall keep official records of applications received, permits and certificates issued, fees collected, reports of inspections, and notices and orders issued. Such records shall be retained in the official records for the period required for retention of public records.
> 
> 
> 
> This is kind of what you are asking about:::::
> 
> 
> 
> *A]105.4 Validity of permit.*
> The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. The building official is authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> *A]105.6 Suspension or revocation.*
> The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A]110.6 Approval required.*
> Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, shall make the requested inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or notify the permit holder or his or her agent wherein the same fails to comply with this code. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building official.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A]111.4 Revocation.*
> The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.



Is this a national thing? Where would I find it?


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Hey now...he's trying to be a nice guy.



Classy - right?


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Is this a national thing? Where would I find it?




  It is here, just look for the code section you want:::

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2015/chapter-1-scope-and-administration

Plus the city has a copy of it and have adopted it by ordinance/ law.

Some cities amend some of the sections, so that needs to be checked, most do not touch these areas.


----------



## cda

when you have a slow day this is how the city is supposed to operate::

https://provo.municipal.codes/Code/contents


----------



## cda

*2.12.040 Records – Reports.*
The building inspection division shall maintain a record of inspections and the transactions of the division, and shall make periodic reports of the business of the division to the Development Services Director.



https://provo.municipal.codes/Code/2.12.040


----------



## cda

https://provo.municipal.codes/Code/9.52.010



5) Section 1.03.010, Provo City Code (Punishment for Criminal Violations) of these ordinances applies to violations of the technical codes adopted in this Section.


----------



## cda

https://provo.municipal.codes/Code/14


----------



## cda

https://provo.municipal.codes/Code/14.05.030


----------



## cda

I still like this idea::::


You know normally if a neighbors tree hangs over into your property,,

You can trim it to your property line !!! 


I am thinking I would get a pair of scissors out and start trimming the sail back to the property line.

Or paint his name on it along with a math problem!!! 

Than post it on the internet


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I still like this idea::::
> 
> 
> You know normally if a neighbors tree hangs over into your property,,
> 
> You can trim it to your property line !!!
> 
> 
> I am thinking I would get a pair of scissors out and start trimming the sail back to the property line.
> 
> Or paint his name on it along with a math problem!!!
> 
> Than post it on the internet



I'll try the legal way first - I can't fight City Hall if I'm in jail


----------



## JCraver

Jane said:


>




I'm a little confused here, but - are you standing on a deck in your back yard, complaining about a deck in the neighbors back yard? 

Why?  What is it about his deck that you don't like, and/or that is negatively affecting your property?  And why can you have a deck and he can't?

If it's a setback issue - it appears from that pic that he's a couple feet off the fence, and your deck is what, 5 feet?  Is that the issue?  The setback from the house next door can't possibly be a problem for you since it's not your house, right?

I'm all for everyone following the rules, and they should be enforced the same way for everybody.  But I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how this guy's deck is causing troubles for you, after noting that you're taking pictures of it from a deck attached to your (assumed) house that looks to be the same height off the ground and almost as close to the fence as his....


----------



## cda

JCraver said:


> I'm a little confused here, but - are you standing on a deck in your back yard, complaining about a deck in the neighbors back yard?
> 
> Why?  What is it about his deck that you don't like, and/or that is negatively affecting your property?  And why can you have a deck and he can't?
> 
> If it's a setback issue - it appears from that pic that he's a couple feet off the fence, and your deck is what, 5 feet?  Is that the issue?  The setback from the house next door can't possibly be a problem for you since it's not your house, right?
> 
> I'm all for everyone following the rules, and they should be enforced the same way for everybody.  But I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how this guy's deck is causing troubles for you, after noting that you're taking pictures of it from a deck attached to your (assumed) house that looks to be the same height off the ground and almost as close to the fence as his....





One was built to code and one was not??


----------



## cda

Plus the sail that is blowing into someone else's yard?


----------



## ADAguy

Jane said:


> Do you know where I can find "If a building permit is issued with an erroneous approval from the planning dept. that permit is null and void."? My city are saying that because I didn't notice their mistake in time then I can't appeal. It's so frustrating.



Have you reviewed the language of the city charter with regards to the building and zoning codes? Date of inclusion of them, latest revision dates?


----------



## ADAguy

Ouch! an interesting point has been brought up by JC. Google your HOA and note how many have decks extend into the rear yards. How many extend further then allowed? Note that it appears that one beyond the one next to yours appears to have a cover over it extending even further then the one next to you?


----------



## VillageInspector

ADAguy said:


> Ouch! an interesting point has been brought up by JC. Google your HOA and note how many have decks extend into the rear yards. How many extend further then allowed? Note that it appears that one beyond the one next to yours appears to have a cover over it extending even further then the one next to you?



I agree however following the roof line of that rear most bldg. it appears its set back further than the original bldg. in question although it also seems to encroach on separation of bldgs. even more. this single picture really makes it tough to see what's truly going on. The OP seems to have an issue with the deck next to her however it seems she also has a deck as well which would lead me to believe the HOA and the municipality allows decks of some degree. I think we need more details before making an informed comment.


----------



## cda

Never understood an HOA

Doing plan review???


----------



## Mech

Just for kicks, ask the zoning board if the plans meet the ordinance.  If they say yes, ask them how.  If they say no, ask them for a copy of the zoning variance paperwork indicating the zoning board waived the requirements.  I would assume there should have been an opportunity for the affected neighbors to voice their opinions / concerns.  If you were supposed to be notified about a zoning variance, the issue could have been handled before the first scoop of dirt was moved.

Read up on the variance approval process in the zoning ordinance so you can be informed when presenting your argument and counter anything they say that may be contradictory to zoning ordinance policy.


----------



## ADAguy

What we "really" need is the site address so we can google it.


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> I'm a little confused here, but - are you standing on a deck in your back yard, complaining about a deck in the neighbors back yard?
> 
> Why?  What is it about his deck that you don't like, and/or that is negatively affecting your property?  And why can you have a deck and he can't?
> 
> If it's a setback issue - it appears from that pic that he's a couple feet off the fence, and your deck is what, 5 feet?  Is that the issue?  The setback from the house next door can't possibly be a problem for you since it's not your house, right?
> 
> I'm all for everyone following the rules, and they should be enforced the same way for everybody.  But I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how this guy's deck is causing troubles for you, after noting that you're taking pictures of it from a deck attached to your (assumed) house that looks to be the same height off the ground and almost as close to the fence as his....




Yes - I'm standing on my deck which is 6 feet away from the shared property line and does not extend more than 12 feet out. My deck was built as part of the original PUD because I have the wall of the end unit running along the other side of my deck. If you look closely you will see that his deck is actually only a few inches from the shared property and he was allowed to build all the way to the garage. No other homes in the community have been allowed that. His deck is 440+ square feet and the largest deck that has ever been allowed in the community is 120 square feet - and then only if your property was next to an end unit. He can definitely have a deck (I'm ok with that) although the original PUD does not allow for any further structures being built AND he has not been made to abide by the setback rules or the projection rules.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Ouch! an interesting point has been brought up by JC. Google your HOA and note how many have decks extend into the rear yards. How many extend further then allowed? Note that it appears that one beyond the one next to yours appears to have a cover over it extending even further then the one next to you?




There is only one other deck that is in the HOA that is of this magnitude and it is un-permitted and was never approved by the HOA. It belongs to one of the board members and I didn't find out about it until I got into this deck debacle. It is in a different building in the community. The developer of the PUD wrote a letter to the city saying that the only decks that were permitted in the original PUD were the ones next to the end units as the light is already limited in those and it does not affect any neighbor's views. The permitted decks are MUCH smaller and are a minimum of 8 feet from the fence line.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> What we "really" need is the site address so we can google it.


----------



## Jane

Jane said:


>




http://imgsafe.org/image/67c1f78361

His house is the one right in the middle of the row of 5.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> What we "really" need is the site address so we can google it.



http://imgsafe.org/image/67c1f78361

Does this help?


----------



## classicT

No comments on the plat - - http://bmiweb.utahcounty.gov/BmiWeb/?database=Mapfilings&page=Document&MAP_NO=3098

Jane, this seems to be a "Flakey" homeowner.


----------



## Jane

Ty J. said:


> No comments on the plat - - http://bmiweb.utahcounty.gov/BmiWeb/?database=Mapfilings&page=Document&MAP_NO=3098
> 
> Jane, this seems to be a "Flakey" homeowner.



What does "no Comments on the Plat" mean?


----------



## e hilton

Jane said:


> His house is the one right in the middle of the row of 5.


So in the original picture, its his garage on the left and his house on the right, and he is filling the space with deck?


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> So in the original picture, its his garage on the left and his house on the right, and he is filling the space with deck?



Yes - the city permitted the whole space to be filled with deck except over the steps that go to his basement. I personally think it would have been better to cover the basement steps as it saves shoveling snow.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Ouch! an interesting point has been brought up by JC. Google your HOA and note how many have decks extend into the rear yards. How many extend further then allowed? Note that it appears that one beyond the one next to yours appears to have a cover over it extending even further then the one next to you?



On the point of the one beyond - it's an end unit that only has a side yard and no rear yard. I don't know when the thing on the side was built but it was not permitted by the HOA or the city. 

http://imgsafe.org/image/67c1f78361


----------



## classicT

Jane said:


> What does "no Comments on the Plat" mean?


Some jurisdictions will have conditions for development recorded on the face of the plat. Just a way to get rules and regulations permanently recorded.


----------



## Jane

Ty J. said:


> Some jurisdictions will have conditions for development recorded on the face of the plat. Just a way to get rules and regulations permanently recorded.



Our city has the ordinance for PDs:

_(i) Notwithstanding the above provision, if the development has subdivided one- family lots which abut other parcels of land, the specific zone regulations shall apply for rear and side yard setbacks on the subdivided lots. The required setback area shall be landscaped._

Since our development is R2PD that means we'd follow the R2 rules - am I correct? If this is the case then they have violated at least 4 of the R2 ordinances. I could understand one but 4 seems like they hadn't had their coffee that day!


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> You can also to an open records request for any permits issued and
> 
> Any inspections done.
> 
> That might be some interesting reading.



I just received the GRAMA report and no inspections were ever done. Is this unusual?


----------



## classicT

Jane said:


> I just received the GRAMA report and no inspections were ever done. Is this unusual?


Yup. should of at least had a footing inspection by now.


----------



## JCraver

Typically (meaning, these observations are not universal but are most-always true):

When it comes to dealing with the City, any HOA requirements don't matter - the City has no jurisdiction and indeed, no duty, to enforce any HOA and/or subdivision covenants and/or agreements.  Those are entirely between owners and the HOA's.

If this is a PUD - a *P*lanned *U*nit *D*evelopment - then it's an animal of its own.  When a PUD is created, the owner of the development and the City enter into an agreement that creates specific rules/arrangements for that particular development, and generally negates the rest of the City new-construction zoning ordinances.  The owner typically agrees to build to such and such code, follow such and such setbacks, make lots such and such size, install such and such utilities, etc., and in return the City usually agrees to pick up the installation of the rest of the utilities, or pours the sidewalks for them, or builds the streets, or builds a park, etc.  So it's not at all anything like a typical subdivision. Only the rules specific to this particular PUD that the City approved/adopted are the ones that you (and your neighbor) will follow.  The entire rest of the zoning code (probably) does not apply, only the rules written and recorded when the PUD was adopted.

Just as an example to show you how jacked up PUD agreements can be - we have a newish PUD here (that was signed before I started here, thankfully) which is built on the 1999 BOCA building code at a time when my City was enforcing the 2009 IBC.

All that to say - don't go quoting the City code to any City officials or any City boards before knowing that what you're quoting applies.  If your house is in a traditional PUD, whatever is in the general zoning regs. probably doesn't matter.


And I still don't know why you care how big the neighbors deck is.  There's no way that deck makes your half of the townhouse worth any less money.


----------



## Jane

Ty J. said:


> Yup. should of at least had a footing inspection by now.



Given that the deck is now complete and in use how can they inspect the footings? Also, shouldn't they have done an original inspection as the setbacks were not indicated on the plans?


----------



## JCraver

Ty J. said:


> Jane, this seems to be a "Flakey" homeowner.




I'm just being ornery, but if this hint tells us who the "former Senator" is then I hope Jane wins this deal.  My opinion of him is formed solely from the news, but it's not very high...


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> Typically (meaning, these observations are not universal but are most-always true):
> 
> When it comes to dealing with the City, any HOA requirements don't matter - the City has no jurisdiction and indeed, no duty, to enforce any HOA and/or subdivision covenants and/or agreements.  Those are entirely between owners and the HOA's.
> 
> If this is a PUD - a *P*lanned *U*nit *D*evelopment - then it's an animal of its own.  When a PUD is created, the owner of the development and the City enter into an agreement that creates specific rules/arrangements for that particular development, and generally negates the rest of the City new-construction zoning ordinances.  The owner typically agrees to build to such and such code, follow such and such setbacks, make lots such and such size, install such and such utilities, etc., and in return the City usually agrees to pick up the installation of the rest of the utilities, or pours the sidewalks for them, or builds the streets, or builds a park, etc.  So it's not at all anything like a typical subdivision. Only the rules specific to this particular PUD that the City approved/adopted are the ones that you (and your neighbor) will follow.  The entire rest of the zoning code (probably) does not apply, only the rules written and recorded when the PUD was adopted.
> 
> Just as an example to show you how jacked up PUD agreements can be - we have a newish PUD here (that was signed before I started here, thankfully) which is built on the 1999 BOCA building code at a time when my City was enforcing the 2009 IBC.
> 
> All that to say - don't go quoting the City code to any City officials or any City boards before knowing that what you're quoting applies.  If your house is in a traditional PUD, whatever is in the general zoning regs. probably doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> And I still don't know why you care how big the neighbors deck is.  There's no way that deck makes your half of the townhouse worth any less money.



I respectfully disagree. His deck runs the entire length of our shared fence line and does not comply with zoning. My neighbor can now see in all of my windows from his deck as it extends out so far (see attached link) and I suspect that is why there are zoning laws in the first place.

http://imgsafe.org/image/691efdf951


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> I'm just being ornery, but if this hint tells us who the "former Senator" is then I hope Jane wins this deal.  My opinion of him is formed solely from the news, but it's not very high...



My opinion of him is firsthand and he is ok so long as he's getting what he wants. Politically he is planning a run for POTUS 2020. He wants to buy my house and has been putting a lot of pressure on me to sell (at a reduced price). When we had termites he refused to pay his share of the costs until the previous HOA put a lien on his house. He wouldn't let me see the deck plans but assured me that the deck would increase MY property value!!! Thanks for the support - I hope I win too as I can't imagine what this place would be like if everyone built a deck that size. Most people are more neighborly than that and would buy a single family dwelling if they needed a deck that size.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Yes - the city permitted the whole space to be filled with deck except over the steps that go to his basement. I personally think it would have been better to cover the basement steps as it saves shoveling snow.




I think there is something about exiting under a deck, or cover. Not allowed


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I just received the GRAMA report and no inspections were ever done. Is this unusual?




If the there was a permit issued for the work, than normally at least one inspection is done. 

Of course sometime the problem is, the contractor/ home owner does not bother to call for an inspection, and sometimes the city is to busy, or does not care, so no inspection is ever done.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I just received the GRAMA report and no inspections were ever done. Is this unusual?




I would pass this on to the nice counsel person, to ask WHY


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I would pass this on to the nice counsel person, to ask WHY



I did that. I also included the Mayor, the State Ombudsman, and the city attorney. It seems to me that no one was doing their job on this project - or it was a favor for a friend


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I think there is something about exiting under a deck, or cover. Not allowed



That makes sense - at least they're keeping one rule!


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> If the there was a permit issued for the work, than normally at least one inspection is done.
> 
> Of course sometime the problem is, the contractor/ home owner does not bother to call for an inspection, and sometimes the city is to busy, or does not care, so no inspection is ever done.



Does this invalidate the permit?


----------



## Glenn

Jane said:


> Given that the deck is now complete and in use how can they inspect the footings? Also, shouldn't they have done an original inspection as the setbacks were not indicated on the plans?


I would not worry yourself with their footings.  Doing so slowly moves you from a concerned neighbor worried about fire spread to an angry neighbor looking for anyway to enact revenge on something you don't like.  Tread carefully...you don't want to appear as the latter...


----------



## Jane

Glenn said:


> I would not worry yourself with their footings.  Doing so slowly moves you from a concerned neighbor worried about fire spread to an angry neighbor looking for anyway to enact revenge on something you don't like.  Tread carefully...you don't want to appear as the latter...



Good point - I am angry with the city for not doing its job but if they just correct it that would be nice. I'm not an angry person though and you're right - I need to be careful that I don't portray myself as a vengeful neighbor. I'll go back into my nice calm world once this debacle is over - whatever way it turns out.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Does this invalidate the permit?





No 

Just work done and never inspected

Since kind of the only person that cares, is the one who had the work done and is sipping a drink on the deck. 



Like a student turning in homework and never graded.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> No
> 
> Just work done and never inspected
> 
> Since kind of the only person that cares, is the one who had the work done and is sipping a drink on the deck.
> 
> 
> 
> Like a student turning in homework and never graded.



So, I've had a bit of an "email chat" with the city attorney and he has said (Reader's Digest version)  that our homes are not subject to any zoning since lot coverage rules were not applied in our original PD.(This is not true as the city rules say that, once developed, the PD is subject to R2 zoning. He also said that since the garages to the rear of my property are lawful nonconforming structures that the deck is just an addition to that and therefore is allowed. He basically said (and actually said) that if you have one nonconforming structure on your property then it's basically fair game to add more nonconforming structures. Now, I may only teach math but my brain is telling me that he is not correct?


----------



## e hilton

Jane said:


> He also said that since the garages to the rear of my property are lawful nonconforming structures that the deck is just an addition to that and therefore is allowed.


Thats BS smoke screen logic.  Did the attorney used to work for an S&L in the 80’s?   If the deck were attached to the garage there would be some logic, but it's attached to the fully-conforming house.  

I agree about not raising the issue of no inspections during construction, but to answer your question about post mortem footing inspection ... all it takes is a shovel.  You couldnt tell if the correct rebar is inside (if any is required) but you could easily tell if they are deep enough.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Thats BS smoke screen logic.  Did the attorney used to work for an S&L in the 80’s?   If the deck were attached to the garage there would be some logic, but it's attached to the fully-conforming house.
> 
> I agree about not raising the issue of no inspections during construction, but to answer your question about post mortem footing inspection ... all it takes is a shovel.  You couldnt tell if the correct rebar is inside (if any is required) but you could easily tell if they are deep enough.



Ha! Since I'm not in the building profession I don't get the S&L reference but feel free to fill me in. I'm not sure a shovel would help with the footings since they apparently used 86 60lb bags of cement! There may be bodies under that deck!


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> My opinion of him is firsthand and he is ok so long as he's getting what he wants. Politically he is planning a run for POTUS 2020. He wants to buy my house and has been putting a lot of pressure on me to sell (at a reduced price). When we had termites he refused to pay his share of the costs until the previous HOA put a lien on his house. He wouldn't let me see the deck plans but assured me that the deck would increase MY property value!!! Thanks for the support - I hope I win too as I can't imagine what this place would be like if everyone built a deck that size. Most people are more neighborly than that and would buy a single family dwelling if they needed a deck that size.



The Donald might help.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> The Donald might help.



The Donald is my third cousin!! (twice removed)  I'm not sure if that helps or hinders my dilemma with the city


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> Just for kicks, ask the zoning board if the plans meet the ordinance.  If they say yes, ask them how.  If they say no, ask them for a copy of the zoning variance paperwork indicating the zoning board waived the requirements.  I would assume there should have been an opportunity for the affected neighbors to voice their opinions / concerns.  If you were supposed to be notified about a zoning variance, the issue could have been handled before the first scoop of dirt was moved.
> 
> Read up on the variance approval process in the zoning ordinance so you can be informed when presenting your argument and counter anything they say that may be contradictory to zoning ordinance policy.



According to the city attorney we don't have to abide by any zoning ordinances - therefore there is no need for a variance! I'm totally confused.


----------



## Jane

Ty J. said:


> No comments on the plat - - http://bmiweb.utahcounty.gov/BmiWeb/?database=Mapfilings&page=Document&MAP_NO=3098
> 
> Jane, this seems to be a "Flakey" homeowner.



So, can you get the plat map for the second phase of our development? If you tell me how to find it I'll go hunting - you just seem to have magic powers to find that puppy!


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> So, I've had a bit of an "email chat" with the city attorney and he has said (Reader's Digest version)  that our homes are not subject to any zoning since lot coverage rules were not applied in our original PD.(This is not true as the city rules say that, once developed, the PD is subject to R2 zoning. He also said that since the garages to the rear of my property are lawful nonconforming structures that the deck is just an addition to that and therefore is allowed. He basically said (and actually said) that if you have one nonconforming structure on your property then it's basically fair game to add more nonconforming structures. Now, I may only teach math but my brain is telling me that he is not correct?





Wait a minute what made the garage non conforming????

It was part of the original build.

The city approved the entire set up.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Wait a minute what made the garage non conforming????
> 
> It was part of the original build.
> 
> The city approved the entire set up.



That's what I thought - I thought that after the PD was approved then R2 zoning had to be upheld. Am I missing something?


----------



## VillageInspector

I think we are missing a very relevant piece of this puzzle. I understand that a former Senator owns the unit in question but I think there's more to this story that's not been brought to light yet.


----------



## cda

VillageInspector said:


> I think we are missing a very relevant piece of this puzzle. I understand that a former Senator owns the unit in question but I think there's more to this story that's not been brought to light yet.




And that is??


The major question is is the patio/deck legal?


----------



## JCraver

I don't think we're missing a thing, as I tried to explain a couple pages ago.  All conventional zoning goes bye-bye when a PUD is adopted.  Whatever was agreed to and passed in the ordinance AT THE TIME THE PUD WAS ADOPTED rules, now and for all time.  Whatever is in the regular City zoning code has no bearing whatsoever on structures permitted and built within the PUD.

A PUD is a development agreement between a real estate developer and the City.  A binding legal agreement, that is then passed into law by the City when they adopt it as an ordinance.  So whatever those two entities agreed to back in the day and then wrote down and passed as an ordinance, is what rules the PUD you live in.  If the regular R-whatever zone says lots must be 5000 square feet, but the PUD agreement says that lots in the PUD can be 4500 sq. ft., then the PUD rules.  If the regular zoning says a zone has 10' side setbacks, but the PUD agreement says setbacks within the PUD can be 5 feet, the PUD rules.  If the regular zoning says accessory structures can only cover 10% of the lot and can only be 10' high, but the PUD agreement says they can cover 99% of the lot and be 100' high, then the PUD rules.  And on and on and on.

Maybe that's not the news you were looking for, but it is what it is.  Be thankful that it's a decent looking deck he built - you're going to be looking at it for a while.


----------



## VillageInspector

JCraver said:


> I don't think we're missing a thing, as I tried to explain a couple pages ago.  All conventional zoning goes bye-bye when a PUD is adopted.  Whatever was agreed to and passed in the ordinance AT THE TIME THE PUD WAS ADOPTED rules, now and for all time.  Whatever is in the regular City zoning code has no bearing whatsoever on structures permitted and built within the PUD.
> 
> A PUD is a development agreement between a real estate developer and the City.  A binding legal agreement, that is then passed into law by the City when they adopt it as an ordinance.  So whatever those two entities agreed to back in the day and then wrote down and passed as an ordinance, is what rules the PUD you live in.  If the regular R-whatever zone says lots must be 5000 square feet, but the PUD agreement says that lots in the PUD can be 4500 sq. ft., then the PUD rules.  If the regular zoning says a zone has 10' side setbacks, but the PUD agreement says setbacks within the PUD can be 5 feet, the PUD rules.  If the regular zoning says accessory structures can only cover 10% of the lot and can only be 10' high, but the PUD agreement says they can cover 99% of the lot and be 100' high, then the PUD rules.  And on and on and on.
> 
> Maybe that's not the news you were looking for, but it is what it is.  Be thankful that it's a decent looking deck he built - you're going to be looking at it for a while.




I agree and without first hand knowledge of what is in the planned unit agreement we are just speculating


----------



## HForester

Have we "run off the rails" with this one a little bit?  We need to boil this down to two questions:

Is there a zoning ordinance violation? In some areas (not necessarily yours), building a structure on the lot line could be acceptable. Sometimes there is a height restriction as you get closer to the lot line. Look into the zoning ordinances to see what is allowed.

Is there a building code violation? What "building code (and edition year) " is currently in effect for new construction in your jurisdiction? Look it up on your city's website. We can start from there.

Exactly where is the structure in relationship with your lot line? 

How high will the structure be?


One observation is that the wood used looks "different" from what I am used to seeing. Could the lumber be Fire Resistant Treated Lumber and not standard pressure treated lumber? Go look for the stamps on the lumber and report back. It might make a difference in the analysis of the situation.

Typically, going to the city and saying: "I don't like this" or "This can't be right" is a lost cause. You need to do your homework and show how the structure doesn't comply with ordinances and building code.


----------



## Jane

VillageInspector said:


> I think we are missing a very relevant piece of this puzzle. I understand that a former Senator owns the unit in question but I think there's more to this story that's not been brought to light yet.



What are you thinking?


----------



## ADAguy

Is the PUD mentioned in the CC& R's, CCR's should show up on your property title report.
As previously mentioned and a PUD is in place then this boils down to a building code compliance issue with size and location established by the PUD. If no inspections and a permit was waived by city "maybe end game". If permit is required then so would be inspections and code compliance.
Also as this is an improvement to the property does it now show on the Tax Accessors roles?


----------



## Jane

HForester said:


> Have we "run off the rails" with this one a little bit?  We need to boil this down to two questions:
> 
> Is there a zoning ordinance violation? In some areas (not necessarily yours), building a structure on the lot line could be acceptable. Sometimes there is a height restriction as you get closer to the lot line. Look into the zoning ordinances to see what is allowed.
> 
> Is there a building code violation? What "building code (and edition year) " is currently in effect for new construction in your jurisdiction? Look it up on your city's website. We can start from there.
> 
> Exactly where is the structure in relationship with your lot line?
> 
> How high will the structure be?
> 
> 
> One observation is that the wood used looks "different" from what I am used to seeing. Could the lumber be Fire Resistant Treated Lumber and not standard pressure treated lumber? Go look for the stamps on the lumber and report back. It might make a difference in the analysis of the situation.
> 
> Typically, going to the city and saying: "I don't like this" or "This can't be right" is a lost cause. You need to do your homework and show how the structure doesn't comply with ordinances and building code.



This deck has multiple zoning issues. I filed an appeal with the Board of Adjustments but the city is fighting it hard saying it is untimely but I don't think it was as you need to have "the basis of the facts on which to file an appeal" (Fox v. Park City) before the triggering event for the appeal window starts. The State Ombudsman's office is still working on it and they are waiting on a response from the city to my last rebuttal.

I started looking at Fire Code as it would be something the city couldn't ignore if they wouldn't listen to the zoning issues. The plan was filed without property lines, lot size, and no adjacent properties were shown. Their rendering showed a single family dwelling and I think the city just didn't have the resources to check into it (at least I hope that's what happened). The deck was issued a permit based on the definition of a patio (Provo city's definition of a patio is a relatively flat structure no more than 30" high). If a patio had been built it would NOT have needed a building permit and could have spanned the width of the yard but at 30" high that would not have been a problem. It could not have projected into the yard more than 12 feet but I actually wouldn't have cared if it went the whole length of the yard.

I believe the deck is an "Accessory Building" as it fits better with what is there (Provo city's definition is“ *Accessory Building*” *means* a *building* or *structure*, the use of which is incidental to and subordinate to the main *building* or *structure*.) This would have to comply with lot coverage and setbacks pertaining to the R2 zone. Given that we're a PD and the lot coverage limits were reached when the PD was developed, the back yards should not have any additional structures built on them. Once again, even though that is the case I would not have objected if my neighbor had built a modest size deck but the magnitude of this structure, and the fact that it was permitted, was what drew my attention to it. I have learned more about zoning than I ever wanted to and I'm certain the city made multiple mistakes in issuing this permit.


----------



## cda

I would not call it an an accessory building.


----------



## cda

https://www.provo.org/city-services/build-in-provo/residential-projects/decks-fences-retaining-walls




*Decks:*
If you want to build a deck that is attached to your home, you will need to get a building permit. You can start by reviewing and meeting the requirements of the Residential Plan Review Checklist for Additions, Remodels, Basement Finishes and Accessory Structures Submit your Building Permit and all required documentation on the Online Portal. All plans must be drawn to scale. For questions about getting a building permit for your deck, please call the Building Division at (801) 852-6450.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Is the PUD mentioned in the CC& R's, CCR's should show up on your property title report.
> As previously mentioned and a PUD is in place then this boils down to a building code compliance issue with size and location established by the PUD. If no inspections and a permit was waived by city "maybe end game". If permit is required then so would be inspections and code compliance.
> Also as this is an improvement to the property does it now show on the Tax Accessors roles?



That is the strange thing - in Provo you don't need a permit for a Patio but that was what this building permit was issued for. It is clearly not a patio (Provo city says a patio is a relatively flat structure not exceeding 30" in height.) The CC&R's have strict guidelines for building in the development but the HOA did not follow the process. Two members of the ACC board gave verbal agreement to my neighbor without seeing the plans. the third member of the ACC was not asked for any input and knew nothing about the deck until building started and I complained. (That's another battle I have to fight but I already wasted time on that before filing the appeal to the BOA thinking the HOA would enforce the rules!)


----------



## cda

Have you talked to the state:::????


http://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/ComDev/BuildingInsp/index.asp


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Have you talked to the state:::????
> 
> 
> http://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/ComDev/BuildingInsp/index.asp


I have filed an appeal with the State Ombudsman which has stayed the BOA hearing. If the State come out in my favor and say the appeal was timely they will issue an opinion. From what I can gather, if the State opinion supports me then the BOA will pretty much go along with the opinion. If the State is uncertain then I can appeal it in district court.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I would not call it an an accessory building.



What would you call it? Provo city's definitions only have "patio" or "accessory building" to base this on and either way it violates their definition and/or code.


----------



## Mech

When do you anticipate the State's response?


----------



## VillageInspector

Jane said:


> What are you thinking?



I'm thinking that since this seems to be a clear cut issue yet the municipality is not taking action that quite possibly this is not the clear cut issue that its being made out to be. This story seems to be all over the place yet all you are hearing from the municipality is crickets. I think if most of us on here were faced with this type of issue in our offices and there were violations we would had dealt with it long before it got to this forum, senator or no senator which makes me think that we don't yet have all of the facts because if we do it seems to me like you should be speaking with a very good land use attorney rather than us.


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> When do you anticipate the State's response?


 
The State are waiting for the city to reply as the city attorney said he is preparing a response. That was almost two weeks ago and so far they have not responded. Their first response was interesting as it did not focus on the zoning violations only on the timelines of the appeal. They pulled out the big guns citing Fox v. Park City and after chatting with Mr. Fox (I had to get creative  ) and my attorney we determined that the triggering event was when I could see the extent of the structure as I had only been shown the aerial view of the plan on the computer. The city would not let me see the plans as they said they were copyrighted (turns out they weren't). The plans did not include important things like lot size and property lines and showed the home as a home with no neighbors.


----------



## ADAguy

So, has the press shown any interest in this?
Their code has no definition for a deck?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> So, has the press shown any interest in this?
> Their code has no definition for a deck?



I've had a couple of bites from the press but I've been wary to move forward until the Advisory Opinion issues its opinion as given that the city dropped the ball on this permit and the neighbor is a former Senator and the HOA board went rogue this story could grow arms and legs once its out.

The city does not mention "Decks" in their codes. The closest is "Accessory Structure".


----------



## Jane

VillageInspector said:


> I'm thinking that since this seems to be a clear cut issue yet the municipality is not taking action that quite possibly this is not the clear cut issue that its being made out to be. This story seems to be all over the place yet all you are hearing from the municipality is crickets. I think if most of us on here were faced with this type of issue in our offices and there were violations we would had dealt with it long before it got to this forum, senator or no senator which makes me think that we don't yet have all of the facts because if we do it seems to me like you should be speaking with a very good land use attorney rather than us.



I do have an attorney but I'm trying to do as much of the legwork as possible to save costs.


----------



## Jane

VillageInspector said:


> I'm thinking that since this seems to be a clear cut issue yet the municipality is not taking action that quite possibly this is not the clear cut issue that its being made out to be. This story seems to be all over the place yet all you are hearing from the municipality is crickets. I think if most of us on here were faced with this type of issue in our offices and there were violations we would had dealt with it long before it got to this forum, senator or no senator which makes me think that we don't yet have all of the facts because if we do it seems to me like you should be speaking with a very good land use attorney rather than us.



You definitely have the facts - I think the city does not want to lose face by admitting a mistake ...that's why they're fighting the timeliness not the violations. I just want it put right - I've told them I won't sue if they put it right. They're mad because I'm getting an advisory opinion although it may come down against me.


----------



## Jane

THE STATE UPHELD MY APPEAL!!! IT'S OFFICIAL - I CAN GO TO COURT


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> THE STATE UPHELD MY APPEAL!!! IT'S OFFICIAL - I CAN GO TO COURT




Yea 

Appeal there was no time limit to submit a complaint ??


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> What would you call it? Provo city's definitions only have "patio" or "accessory building" to base this on and either way it violates their definition and/or code.





https://www.provo.org/city-services/build-in-provo/residential-projects/decks-fences-retaining-walls




*Decks:*
If you want to build a deck that is attached to your home, you will need to get a building permit. You can start by reviewing and meeting the requirements of the Residential Plan Review Checklist for Additions, Remodels, Basement Finishes and Accessory Structures Submit your Building Permit and all required documentation on the Online Portal. All plans must be drawn to scale. For questions about getting a building permit for your deck, please call the Building Division


----------



## ADAguy

2 for 2, atta lady.
Yeah for the Forum!
See, decks are there.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Yea
> 
> Appeal there was no time limit to submit a complaint ??



There was a time limit but it is based on determining the triggering event. The city said it was the day the permit was issued but I argued (using Fox v. Park City) that my appeal was timely based on the fact that the City refused to show me the plans and therefore I had no "actual knowledge" before the frame was in place. Fortunately, I took pictures


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> https://www.provo.org/city-services/build-in-provo/residential-projects/decks-fences-retaining-walls
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Decks:*
> If you want to build a deck that is attached to your home, you will need to get a building permit. You can start by reviewing and meeting the requirements of the Residential Plan Review Checklist for Additions, Remodels, Basement Finishes and Accessory Structures Submit your Building Permit and all required documentation on the Online Portal. All plans must be drawn to scale. For questions about getting a building permit for your deck, please call the Building Division



I saw that which is why I knew they needed a permit but "patio" doesn't cover it based on their definition of "not higher than 30" " which is why it fits more with "Accessory Structure".


----------



## ADAguy

Now the "fun" really begins (smiling).


----------



## JCraver

Where did patio come from?  His permit, which is easily findable on your City's website, is clearly for a deck.  It says plainly "Permit Type: Deck".  And then in the description it again calls it a deck, when it says (paraphrasing) "we have a little deck and we want to make it bigger".  I'm confused who called it a patio, and/or why we're talking about that?


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> Where did patio come from?  His permit, which is easily findable on your City's website, is clearly for a deck.  It says plainly "Permit Type: Deck".  And then in the description it again calls it a deck, when it says (paraphrasing) "we have a little deck and we want to make it bigger".  I'm confused who called it a patio, and/or why we're talking about that?



When I asked the city which ordinances applied to the permit they said it had been issued based on the definition of a patio. Patio or Accessory structure are the only two options in Provo City's definitions that could apply to a deck.


----------



## Jane

Jane said:


> When I asked the city which ordinances applied to the permit they said it had been issued based on the definition of a patio. Patio or Accessory structure are the only two options in Provo City's definitions that could apply to a deck.





ADAguy said:


> Now the "fun" really begins (smiling).



"Fun" is not what it feels like. At this point if my neighbor offered to make the deck a more modest size I would go with it but I am certain that IF I win against the city then he will need to remove it completely. That has never been what I wanted - I don't care if he has deck but a "yard size" deck in a town home community is not even close to being ok.


----------



## JCraver

Jane said:


> When I asked the city which ordinances applied to the permit they said it had been issued based on the definition of a patio. Patio or Accessory structure are the only two options in Provo City's definitions that could apply to a deck.



This is right from the City of Provo website.  All public info. (I put the X's where the name was just because, but this is the permit record of our unnamed Senator and his wife):

Application Number:
PRDK201900995
*Application Type:  
Deck*
Application Status:
Permit(s) Issued
Property Owner's Full Name:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Category of Work:
New
Occupancy Code:
R-3: Residential, one- and two-family
*Description of Work:  
There is an existing 5x8 deck off the back of our townhouse that connects to stairs to our fenced in back yard. We would like to expand the size of the deck.*
Application Date:
05/28/2019
Issued Date:
07/01/2019
Expiration Date:
12/28/2019


----------



## cda

great turn around time???


Application Date:
05/28/2019
Issued Date:
07/01/2019
Expiration Date:
12/28/2019


----------



## VillageInspector

cda said:


> great turn around time???
> 
> 
> Application Date:
> 05/28/2019
> Issued Date:
> 07/01/2019
> Expiration Date:
> 12/28/2019






JCraver said:


> This is right from the City of Provo website.  All public info. (I put the X's where the name was just because, but this is the permit record of our unnamed Senator and his wife):
> 
> Application Number:
> PRDK201900995
> *Application Type:
> Deck*
> Application Status:
> Permit(s) Issued
> Property Owner's Full Name:
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Category of Work:
> New
> Occupancy Code:
> R-3: Residential, one- and two-family
> *Description of Work:
> There is an existing 5x8 deck off the back of our townhouse that connects to stairs to our fenced in back yard. We would like to expand the size of the deck.*
> Application Date:
> 05/28/2019
> Issued Date:
> 07/01/2019
> Expiration Date:
> 12/28/2019




As I have maintained all along, there's something wrong with this whole issue.


----------



## ADAguy

So Jane, what up?


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> This is right from the City of Provo website.  All public info. (I put the X's where the name was just because, but this is the permit record of our unnamed Senator and his wife):
> 
> Application Number:
> PRDK201900995
> *Application Type:
> Deck*
> Application Status:
> Permit(s) Issued
> Property Owner's Full Name:
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Category of Work:
> New
> Occupancy Code:
> R-3: Residential, one- and two-family
> *Description of Work:
> There is an existing 5x8 deck off the back of our townhouse that connects to stairs to our fenced in back yard. We would like to expand the size of the deck.*
> Application Date:
> 05/28/2019
> Issued Date:
> 07/01/2019
> Expiration Date:
> 12/28/2019



Wow! How do I get hold of that? Our zoning is R2PD not R3 (although I think R3 fits better) but a permit issued in an R3 zone should have been more restrictive. They also didn't have a 5x8 deck before ...they had a 3 foot by 5 foot concrete stoop at the top of concrete steps. Can you send me the link to that information please or instructions on how to find it?


----------



## ADAguy

misinformation or "fake News"?
City zoning maps not up to date?


----------



## cda

https://www.provo.org/departments/community-development/building


https://www.provo.org/departments/community-development/building/-folder-456#docan4329_9595_911

https://www.provo.org/departments/community-development/building/-folder-4120#docan4329_9595_911


Check::

Fifth line down:


https://www.provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=15799

Not sure where the other info came from on size of original deck










https://www.provo.org/departments/community-development/boards-commissions/appeal-information


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> misinformation or "fake News"?
> City zoning maps not up to date?



I double and triple checked with the city and I have it in writing that we're R2PD. It doesn't make much difference as if the current structure violates R2Pd rules then it definitely violates R3 rules more.


----------



## JCraver

Jane said:


> Wow! How do I get hold of that? Our zoning is R2PD not R3 (although I think R3 fits better) but a permit issued in an R3 zone should have been more restrictive. They also didn't have a 5x8 deck before ...they had a 3 foot by 5 foot concrete stoop at the top of concrete steps. Can you send me the link to that information please or instructions on how to find it?



Go here:  https://cvportal.provo.org/cityviewportal

Over on the right, there will be a "Application Search" you click which gets you to here:  https://cvportal.provo.org/CityViewPortal/Permit/Locator

And then you can type in a name, or address, or parcel number, or whatever.  In this case I entered "unnamed Senator" (not really, but hopefully you're sharp enough to pick that up...) in the search bar, which yielded 2 results.  One for a deck, which I copied/pasted, and one for a mechanical permit for a different address which I'm assuming is not what we're talking about.


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> Go here:  https://cvportal.provo.org/cityviewportal
> 
> Over on the right, there will be a "Application Search" you click which gets you to here:  https://cvportal.provo.org/CityViewPortal/Permit/Locator
> 
> And then you can type in a name, or address, or parcel number, or whatever.  In this case I entered "unnamed Senator" (not really, but hopefully you're sharp enough to pick that up...) in the search bar, which yielded 2 results.  One for a deck, which I copied/pasted, and one for a mechanical permit for a different address which I'm assuming is not what we're talking about.



Got it - everything is easier with a little help from a pro!


----------



## ADAguy

OK, so now you have the smoking gun, or not?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> OK, so now you have the smoking gun, or not?



Well, yesterday I would have said "yes" emphatically but yesterday evening the city sent an email to the State with sworn affidavits from two of their staff members saying that they were contesting the State's decision that my appeal was timely. Fortunately, I was able to refute much of what was said in their affidavits because of emails I received from them. It was disappointing to me that the city officials lied in their affidavits. Fingers crossed that the State will not reverse their decision. 

It appears that the city know that they can't support their claim that this structure is compliant with zoning code or they would have just responded to the State's request for proof that the deck is zoning compliant so if the State stand by their decision that my appeal is timely then I think I can show why the permitted structure is non compliant.

The city had the audacity to say I waited until the deck was finished before filing my appeal and the neighbor and his contractor were out a lot of money. Fortunately I could show that I asked for them to investigate the zoning when the framing was in progress. I even said in my email that I was concerned that if building progressed that my neighbor would have to spend a lot of money to make it code compliant.

This is a rollercoaster for sure!


----------



## cda

“””The city had the audacity to say I waited until the deck was finished before filing my appeal and the neighbor and his contractor were out a lot of money. Fortunately I could show that I asked for them to investigate the zoning when the framing was in progress. I even said in my email that I was concerned that if building progressed that my neighbor would have to spend a lot of money to make it code compliant.””””

Not the city’s problem if it cost money


If so I would put that out to the citizens of Provo to use as an excuse not to do stuff!!!!


----------



## ADAguy

closer but no cigar "yet", keep your fingers crossed.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> “””The city had the audacity to say I waited until the deck was finished before filing my appeal and the neighbor and his contractor were out a lot of money. Fortunately I could show that I asked for them to investigate the zoning when the framing was in progress. I even said in my email that I was concerned that if building progressed that my neighbor would have to spend a lot of money to make it code compliant.””””
> 
> Not the city’s problem if it cost money
> 
> 
> If so I would put that out to the citizens of Provo to use as an excuse not to do stuff!!!!



They don't seem to care that I have put out a lot of money trying to fight this nonsense. Are you in Provo?


----------



## cda

Nope but have driven around while visiting in the area


----------



## ADAguy

So Jane, whats up?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> So Jane, whats up?


Well - that's a depressing story. The State ruled in my favor that my appeal was timely and the day after the ruling the city magically came up with two affidavits from city workers claiming they "couldn't recall" if they had let me see the plans. Even though the "couldn't recall" events don't affect the timing of my appeal the State Ombudsman can't issue an advisory opinion if there is a "dispute of the facts". The city lawyers used this as a tool as they knew the opinion would come down against them. Now I'm waiting for the Board of Appeals hearing which was supposed to be on October 17th but I was informed last night by the city that they've moved it to Nov 19th. I know they're yanking my chain   Anyhow, right now I need an opinion from a zoning expert - preferably an affordable one. #deckgate2019


----------



## ADAguy

Ouch! again close but no cigar yet. What will be will be (smiling). Anyone available to pro bono Jane?
Jane have you inquired with your local bar to pro bono this?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Ouch! again close but no cigar yet. What will be will be (smiling). Anyone available to pro bono Jane?
> Jane have you inquired with your local bar to pro bono this?


How do I do that?


----------



## cda

Ohhhhh

Invite all the media to the BOA hearing!!

It is open to the public!!!!

Send out invitations today.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Ohhhhh
> 
> Invite all the media to the BOA hearing!!
> 
> It is open to the public!!!!
> 
> Send out invitations today.



I've actually created a Facebook event - I wish I could get an independent zoning person to look at the zoning and confirm my findings. I'm happy to pay but my pockets aren't very deep


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I've actually created a Facebook event - I wish I could get an independent zoning person to look at the zoning and confirm my findings. I'm happy to pay but my pockets aren't very deep





Has that lawyer group called you back??


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Has that lawyer group called you back??



No they didn't - I think it might be too small a job for them.


----------



## VillageInspector

Jane said:


> I've actually created a Facebook event - I wish I could get an independent zoning person to look at the zoning and confirm my findings. I'm happy to pay but my pockets aren't very deep



what is the name of the Facebook event ? The more exposure you get on social media the more politicos sit up and pay attention.


----------



## JCraver

All of the Provo zoning regs are online.  I'm no expert, but I read through them enough to know that they're poorly written.  It's going to take someone a decent amount of time to decipher the code, figure out what part applies, and then how it affects your appeal.  It's no little job.


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> All of the Provo zoning regs are online.  I'm no expert, but I read through them enough to know that they're poorly written.  It's going to take someone a decent amount of time to decipher the code, figure out what part applies, and then how it affects your appeal.  It's no little job.



I think I've pretty much got all the zoning codes listed that apply to my case. The deck fails on 5 of those. Would a professor of construction management be considered an expert?


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I think I've pretty much got all the zoning codes listed that apply to my case. The deck fails on 5 of those. Would a professor of construction management be considered an expert?





Sorry there is a joke there,,

Anyway it is possible brief them on the details, if they are not they may know someone


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Sorry there is a joke there,,
> 
> Anyway it is possible brief them on the details, if they are not they may know someone


Share the joke


----------



## Jane

Jane said:


> Share the joke


So the quest continues and I'm picking your expert brain again! I need to know where to find the Utah State law that encompasses the quote from our local newspaper _"According to Utah state law, if there is a contractor on the job, it is his or her responsibility to get the permits and handle the inspections. It is important to understand that “if you hire a contractor and take out the permits yourself, you are liable for the work being done to code and not your contractor,” according to Salt Lake City’s building services website. “This means that if there are corrections to be made in the work, we come back to you, not your contractor. If you hire a contractor, make sure that he takes out the permit and has the inspections done.”
_
Any help would be appreciated


----------



## cda

Call the state and ask them to email it to you.


----------



## cda

Just FYI::


https://dopl.utah.gov/licensing/contracting_avoid_costly_mistakes.html


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Call the state and ask them to email it to you.



I know this is obvious to you but which office in the State? I've managed to get an expert opinion from the former Property Rights Ombudsman (since the city blocked the current ombudsman) and now I need to gather up more information so my attorney doesn't cost me my whole life!!


----------



## cda

https://dopl.utah.gov/programs/ubc/


Not sure who to talk to

just keep calling till you get your question answered 

Phone: (801) 530-6628 • Toll-Free in Utah: (866) 275-3675 •


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> https://dopl.utah.gov/programs/ubc/
> 
> 
> Not sure who to talk to
> 
> just keep calling till you get your question answered
> 
> Phone: (801) 530-6628 • Toll-Free in Utah: (866) 275-3675 •


Thanks so much - I appreciate it


----------



## cda

Or call salt lake and see if they can direct you to the statue


If there is a contractor on the job, it is his responsibility according to state law to obtain the permit and see to the inspections. Be aware, if you hire a contractor and take out the permits yourself, you are liable for the work being done to code and not your contractor. This means that if there are corrections to be made in the work, we come back to you, not your contractor. If you hire a contractor, make sure that he takes out the permit and has the inspections done. If you have any questions, call the Permits office at 801-535-6000.


----------



## cda

This form has to be notarized. The city usually has notaries available during working hours, call ahead to make sure. The city will use this form to register you with DOPL when the permit is issued. *The registration will be done automatically by the city. You do not need to do the registration yourself. *Please see the following link for the Utah State Laws regulating Owner-Builder. Once you open this link, scroll down to *58-55-305 Exemptions from licensure *(http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title58/Chapter55/58-55.html)*. *

If you have further question regarding the owner-builder declaration or State laws governing contractors, contact DOPL at (801)530-6628, toll free at (866)275-3675 or www.dopl.utah.gov. *Note: It is illegal to declare owner-builder on any commercial project.*


----------



## e hilton

Jane said:


> since the city blocked the current ombudsman)!!


Now that sure sounds like something the media would want to know.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Now that sure sounds like something the media would want to know.



You would think so - but so far no bites from the media.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> So the quest continues and I'm picking your expert brain again! I need to know where to find the Utah State law that encompasses the quote from our local newspaper _"According to Utah state law, if there is a contractor on the job, it is his or her responsibility to get the permits and handle the inspections. It is important to understand that “if you hire a contractor and take out the permits yourself, you are liable for the work being done to code and not your contractor,” according to Salt Lake City’s building services website. “This means that if there are corrections to be made in the work, we come back to you, not your contractor. If you hire a contractor, make sure that he takes out the permit and has the inspections done.”
> _
> Any help would be appreciated




Thinking about the statement, I want to say this is common practice, 

The person or company that obtains the permit, is responsible for it and any inspections required.


----------



## cda

*The Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing: * The Division licenses Utah's contractors by requiring them to have experience, pass an examination, and establish a degree of financial responsibility.

By law, the Division is authorized to investigate a number of illegal and unprofessional acts. If found guilty, fines may be imposed and the contractor's license may be suspended or revoked.

Contact the Division's Bureau of Investigations at 530-6504 if you suspect any of the following violations or click here  to access our on-line complaint form:


The unlicensed performance of jobs exceeding $1,000 in value including materials (no matter who purchases them) and labor 

Failure to pay for materials and labor within 120 days of payment 

Failure to complete a project without the consent of the owner 

Willful or material departure from the building plans and specifications 

Failure to comply with a lawful order of a building inspector which jeopardizes the public health, safety, and welfare 

Any willful, fraudulent, or deceitful act by a contractor which causes material injury to another or jeopardizes the public health, safety, and welfare 

Failure to pay taxes or unemployment insurance or to provide workers' compensation insurance for employees.   





https://dopl.utah.gov/licensing/contracting_avoid_costly_mistakes.html


----------



## cda

*
Is the person listed licensed????


Choosing a Contractor *

Utah state law requires all contractors and subcontractors doing work in the state to be licensed by the Utah Department of Commerce.  Therefore, it is important that you hire only licensed professionals to work on your building project.  In addition, consider the following tips during your selection process:


Verify that the contractor has a current license by searching our on-line Licensee Lookup & Verification System . You will be able to search by the business name or license number.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> *Is the person listed licensed????
> 
> 
> Choosing a Contractor *
> 
> Utah state law requires all contractors and subcontractors doing work in the state to be licensed by the Utah Department of Commerce.  Therefore, it is important that you hire only licensed professionals to work on your building project.  In addition, consider the following tips during your selection process:
> 
> 
> Verify that the contractor has a current license by searching our on-line Licensee Lookup & Verification System . You will be able to search by the business name or license number.


Long time with no posts...as litigation approaches I have a question and I know you're better at finding this stuff than me. I saw somewhere that If the structure is YOUR primary residence (the one you reside in), you may take out the permits. If this is a rental or commercial property, you will need to have a contractor obtain the permits and do the work required." in the state of Utah but now I can only find it for SLC. I managed to get the top land expert in Utah (the guy that wrote the books on land law in the state) to write an opinion which states that the deck should never have been permitted so now I'm trying to get all the documents in a folder before the BOA hearing. I need everything in the folder or I can't use it in court. Can you help me find this again?


----------



## cda

First answer is call the state and ask if true 

and if true where is it written


Will try to look, not sure if that applies in this case??


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> First answer is call the state and ask if true
> 
> and if true where is it written
> 
> 
> Will try to look, not sure if that applies in this case??



I know it's true for SLC but I'm sure I saw it in IBC and IRC. I just can't find it now and I'm doing as much of the legwork as possible to save on attorney fees. If you can find it that would be great


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Thinking about the statement, I want to say this is common practice,
> 
> The person or company that obtains the permit, is responsible for it and any inspections required.



Turns out no inspections were ever done and the report from the zoning expert shows that the deck is in complete violation of zoning code. It should never have been approved...now the quest is on to get rid of it. I'm guessing the Senator will be very annoyed! Fingers crossed justice prevails.


----------



## Jane

The SLC FAQ says:

"Can I obtain the permit myself?

If the structure is YOUR primary residence (the one you reside in), you may take out the permits. If this is a rental or commercial property, you will need to have a contractor obtain the permits and do the work required. If the work being done can be considered general maintenance or repair under $1000 in valuation, an owner may obtain the permit. General maintenance does include roofing, but does not include anything structural, i.e., cutting in a new window, putting up taking down a structural load bearing wall. The best way to determine if the work is general repair/maintenance or goes beyond this scope is to call the office and speak to a plans examiner."

I'm looking to find if this is statewide as it is not his primary residence and his renter pulled the permit.


----------



## e hilton

Jane said:


> ...now the quest is on to get rid of it.


Just a thought ... if you want to throw out an olive branch at the last minute ... tell them it does not have to be removed, just brought into code compliance.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Just a thought ... if you want to throw out an olive branch at the last minute ... tell them it does not have to be removed, just brought into code compliance.


 I have told them that from day 1 and my neighbor told me to sue him. Since they wouldn't work with me I had to get a zoning expert and it turns out that no decks are allowed except the ones that were approved in the original PD. That was never what I wanted - I would have been happy if they had just conformed with the setbacks that would be in place if the PD had normal sized yards.


----------



## e hilton

If you win the zoning complaint, i wonder if you can sue him to recover your costs.


----------



## cda

Provo right??

Does this help any:::


https://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2488

Contractor must provide their license number and sign the building permit application or the owner must sign the “Owner/Builder Certification form


----------



## cda

This appears to be the last code adoption cycle, but more than likely reads the same as the current::::

15A-1-204 Adoption of State Construction Code -- Amendments by commission -- Approvedcodes -- Exemptions.(1)(a) The State Construction Code is the construction codes adopted with any modifications inaccordance with this section that the state and each political subdivision of the state shallfollow.(b) A person shall comply with the applicable provisions of the State Construction Code wheni) new construction is involved; and(ii) the owner of an existing building, or the owner's agent, is voluntarily engaged inA) the repair, renovation, remodeling, alteration, enlargement, rehabilitation, conservation, orreconstruction of the building; or(B) changing the character or use of the building in a manner that increases the occupancyloads, other demands, or safety risks of the building.




https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title15A/C15A_1800010118000101.pdf


----------



## Jane

I sure hope so - it has been expensive! Since the city blocked the opinion from the State Ombudsman who ruled in my favor until the city provided affidavits disputing the facts saying they "couldn't recall" if they had denied me the opportunity to see the plans although it would have made no difference I hired the previous State Property Attorney to provide an expert opinion. He was appalled at the fact a permit had been issued in the first place and reduced the cost to $1000. The GRAMA records have cost over $900 and the appeal cost $679. I paid $150 to the State and $4000 so far to an attorney. It's been crazy so fingers crossed for a just outcome.


----------



## Mech

I am not suggesting black mail, but I wonder if the Senator is thinking about how this will affect any future political races he may try to win.


----------



## e hilton

Its not called blackmail in politics, its called bipartisan support.  Or lack thereof.


----------



## my250r11

The answers you are looking for are not in the IRC or IBC. They would be in the state laws that administer over the adopted code in your state.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Its not called blackmail in politics, its called bipartisan support.  Or lack thereof.



I think he thinks I will not pursue it and thinks that the Board of Adjustments will come down in favor of the city. I don't think he realizes that a building permit does not guarantee zoning and since he had his son in law pull the permit instead of the contractor that I can sue him directly for a zoning violation. I'm going to go with a one two punch as I have to reveal all my documents to the city 14 days before the appeal. I don't want to give him too much time to have the information before I sue him. It didn't need to come to this - if he had built an average sized deck I would never have questioned it.


----------



## Jane

my250r11 said:


> The answers you are looking for are not in the IRC or IBC. They would be in the state laws that administer over the adopted code in your state.


It seems that my state has its own law but it refers to IBC 2018 and IRC 2015.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Its not called blackmail in politics, its called bipartisan support.  Or lack thereof.



And that's a whole other thread!! If only the Senator had worked with me....


----------



## Jane

So, the latest update is that the "Senator" claimed he was using a contractor on the building certificate but when I called the contractor he said he had refused to do the job. I'm thinking the two guys who built it were not licensed. Do I have any recourse on him doing this?


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> So, the latest update is that the "Senator" claimed he was using a contractor on the building certificate but when I called the contractor he said he had refused to do the job. I'm thinking the two guys who built it were not licensed. Do I have any recourse on him doing this?





I do not think you have any standing,

The city or state should


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I do not think you have any standing,
> 
> The city or state should


So the city or state should hold him accountable?


----------



## cda

If the city or state requires the actual builder to be licensed or other,,,    For that type of work,,,

It seems like the city or state can do something, just a matter will they


----------



## Jane

I think they will have no option as it is going to BOA and then court. The emails that were obtained show that the city is concerned that no inspections were done and they reached out to my neighbor to get them done. Since inspections are owner driven it is unusual for the city to email the neighbor. My State does require a licensed contractor if it is not your main residence or if it's a rental.


----------



## Mech

Is a licensed contractor required if a "friend" does the work for you without payment?


----------



## e hilton

Mech said:


> Is a licensed contractor required if a "friend" does the work for you without payment?


Tricky question.  If the HO was directly involved and did at least 50% of the work ... might be ok.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Tricky question.  If the HO was directly involved and did at least 50% of the work ... might be ok.



No - he can have a friend do it but these guys were not his friends and I don't think they'd claim to be as they'd have to go to court.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Tricky question.  If the HO was directly involved and did at least 50% of the work ... might be ok.



He didn't do any of the work as he was out of the country.


----------



## ADAguy

And the "beat" goes on & on. I feel for her but it seems that it will be up to the court to decide and even if they do and issue an order to remove, will he?


----------



## e hilton

ADAguy said:


> if they do and issue an order to remove, will he?


I can see the lead story on the 10 o’clock news:  “Five On Your Side has learned that a prominent citizen is ignoring city building codes.  Film at 10”.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> And the "beat" goes on & on. I feel for her but it seems that it will be up to the court to decide and even if they do and issue an order to remove, will he?


Surely he will have to if the courts rule in my favor?


----------



## ADAguy

Having to and forcing him to may require a sheriff to enforce the court order to comply
Isn't the local press interested in this?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Having to and forcing him to may require a sheriff to enforce the court order to comply
> Isn't the local press interested in this?


The local press is sending a fit crew to the BOA hearing so I'm hoping that helps the story gain momentum!


----------



## cda

So what is the latest news live at five???


----------



## Jane

Well - the Staff Report is due from the City today and the BOA appeal is next Thursday. My attorney is preparing to fight them on the timliness as the city said I filed late. He believes there are exceptional circumstances in my case. My attorney also believes that the city don't have a leg to stand on with regards the 11 zoning issues so if we can get the appeal classed as timely then it's easy - I'm pretty sure the city is fighting that with everything they've got. Having said that, even if it all goes my way, it is very difficult to get the city to enforce it's own zoning which seems ridiculous.

Also, my neighbor did not use a licensed contractor even though he named one on his permit. Since it's an investment property the State are investigating that....

Next week will be a stressful one


----------



## ADAguy

Give um "H" Jane!


----------



## cda

And I guess you have documentation or lack of it, showing the city has done NO inspections?

Is that correct no inspections have been done?


----------



## cda

I am wondering if the city takes letters for and against stuff, and reads them into the hearing??

If so, I would like to send one to the city!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Give um "H" Jane!


I came home to a huge yellow notice outside my house - I've definitely poked the bear!! It's kind of embarrassing...


----------



## Mech

What type of notice?


----------



## Jane




----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I came home to a huge yellow notice outside my house - I've definitely poked the bear!! It's kind of embarrassing...




Notification of meeting??


----------



## cda

On your property or the violator’s property ??


----------



## cda

Can we get a close up of the wording


----------



## Mech

The number to call and tell them they messed up is at the bottom of the sign.


----------



## e hilton

Well now that’s out in the open.  It will be interesting to see if other neighbors come forward to support you.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Notification of meeting??



I received the staff report which was ridiculous and ended with the threat "If the Board of Adjustments concludes that the appellant’s arguments are valid and concludes that Staff approved the building permit for the deck in violation of the Provo City Code, then it would also need to conclude that the entire Georgetown on the Park PD was approved in error, including the appellant’s own home. Any recommendation to correct such violation would have to also apply to all other properties within the development."

I think they're trying to turn the neighbors against me.


----------



## ICE

Provo appears to lack effective government oversight.  Adult supervision might turn things around.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Provo appears to lack effective government oversight.  Adult supervision might turn things around.


I wish I knew how to fight city hall....


----------



## cda

Highly suggest you attend the pre meeting:::


BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
3rd Thursday, 5:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, Provo City Center (Pre-Meeting, 4:30 p.m., Community Development Conference Room)
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
3rd Wednesday, 12:30 p.m. Community Development Conference Room 




That is where they talk about you.

it has to be open to the public!!!


----------



## cda

You know Mayor sounds good,, you can drain the lake



https://www.provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=16127


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Highly suggest you attend the pre meeting:::
> 
> 
> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
> 3rd Thursday, 5:00 p.m.
> Council Chambers, Provo City Center (Pre-Meeting, 4:30 p.m., Community Development Conference Room)
> LANDMARKS COMMISSION
> 3rd Wednesday, 12:30 p.m. Community Development Conference Room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is where they talk about you.
> 
> it has to be open to the public!!!


I actually got an invite to watch them eat dinner!!


cda said:


> You know Mayor sounds good,, you can drain the lake
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=16127


You mean run for Mayor? I'd fire the lot of them and start with a good, honest team.


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> I'd fire the lot of them and start with a good, honest team.


It’s next to impossible to fire government employees.


----------



## cda

ICE said:


> It’s next to impossible to fire government employees.




But jobs can be eliminated, if non union???


----------



## BLangley

She could probably reorg the departments to be managed by pre-school teachers, better reflecting any un-fireable employee's behavior


----------



## Mech

How can they conclude the entire Georgetown on the Park PD was approved in error?  Didn't the development have a separate set of regulations?  And if the development was approved in error, isn't it too late to do anything?  After, all it's been there how many years while the City argued that you took too long (less than 1 year) to challenge the deck.  The one court case set precedence that it's too late to do anything to fix the entire development.

Maybe you need to put together a quick rebuttal, post it on a sign, and stick it next to the one in your yard so your neighbors can see the facts.


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> How can they conclude the entire Georgetown on the Park PD was approved in error?  Didn't the development have a separate set of regulations?  And if the development was approved in error, isn't it too late to do anything?  After, all it's been there how many years while the City argued that you took too long (less than 1 year) to challenge the deck.  The one court case set precedence that it's too late to do anything to fix the entire development.
> 
> Maybe you need to put together a quick rebuttal, post it on a sign, and stick it next to the one in your yard so your neighbors can see the facts.


The development has been here for 35 years and was found to be fully compliant with existing codes when it was approved in 1984. According to the city they have "lost" the zoning for my development which begs the question of how they could approve the deck in the first place. 

I challenged the deck within 2 weeks and the city took no notice - fortunately I have a paper trail.Which court case are you talking about? That would be a good one to put in a rebuttal...It seems to me that the city staff don't even know what a PD is.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> But jobs can be eliminated, if non union???


The ridiculous thing is that two of the people who caused this problem have been promoted in the last couple of months!


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> It’s next to impossible to fire government employees.


Very true - I don't want them fired per se...I just want them to be competent at there jobs and be able to admit when they made a mistake just like the rest of us have to.


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> I just want them to be competent at there jobs and be able to admit when they made a mistake just like the rest of us have to.



Ya well then....we are not like the rest of you.


----------



## Mech

Jane said:


> I challenged the deck within 2 weeks and the city took no notice - fortunately I have a paper trail.Which court case are you talking about? That would be a good one to put in a rebuttal...It seems to me that the city staff don't even know what a PD is.



It was a case dealing with the building being constructed higher than the maximum allowed by building code or zoning.  The buildings were allowed to remain non-compliant.  I will have to go back through the thread and look.


----------



## Rick18071

JANE FOR MAYOR


----------



## Mech

Jane said:


> Which court case are you talking about? That would be a good one to put in a rebuttal...



In the Fox vs Park City case, the Foxes objected to the non-conforming construction after the 10 day appeal period and their petition was rejected.


----------



## e hilton

Jane ... you should go to the public hearing and sign up to be a public speaker.  Then in 50 words explain what your case is about.  No permit, no inspection, no licensed gc, oversize deck.


----------



## classicT

Here is the staff report

https://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=16180


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> In the Fox vs Park City case, the Foxes objected to the non-conforming construction after the 10 day appeal period and their petition was rejected.


They petitioned about 6 months later - I've chatted to Bret Fox at length about it. The deciding factor of the appeal window is the "triggering event" when the appellant has had access to the information necessary to file the appeal. In my case I was refused access to to plans until the 18th of July (when I was given them accidentally) as I was told they were copyrighted and I couldn't see them. When I went to the city they told me to file a GRAMA request but the plans were not in the GRAMA request because they were copyrighted.


----------



## Jane

Ty J. said:


> Here is the staff report
> 
> https://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=16180


If I knew how to link the property ombudsman's report to here I would - it's a pdf


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Jane ... you should go to the public hearing and sign up to be a public speaker.  Then in 50 words explain what your case is about.  No permit, no inspection, no licensed gc, oversize deck.


Tell me more... do I only get 50 words? Would my attorney do that?


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Ya well then....we are not like the rest of you.


I wasn't intending to offend you - there are plenty of good city officials who do a great job. I just have had some bad luck


----------



## ICE

Jane said:


> I wasn't intending to offend you - there are plenty of good city officials who do a great job. I just have had some bad luck


Oh excuse me if you thought that I am offended.  Not even close.  I was having fun with it.  I'm 100% behind what you are doing.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Oh excuse me if you thought that I am offended.  Not even close.  I was having fun with it.  I'm 100% behind what you are doing.


LOL - my bad!! Thank you for your support


----------



## cda

https://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=16180

Anyone decipher what this is saying??

Any talking points that can be made in the hearing??


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> https://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=16180
> 
> Anyone decipher what this is saying??
> 
> Any talking points that can be made in the hearing??


The city is incorrect in assuming that the whole development is one lot but they need to say that to cover their mistake. They are saying that if it's not one lot then the PD was approved in error and all the houses are non compliant - the very nature of a PD overlay makes it non compliant with the underlying zone but the city don't seem to understand that! I'm going to try and catch a pdf from the zoning expert.

The timeliness is another issue but since the city blocked me from seeing the plans until July 27th and they say the appeal was due 2 days earlier - I think my attorney has that covered. Ok - I'll try and attach the expert opinion from the guy who wrote the zoning books for Utah


----------



## ADAguy

Mech said:


> It was a case dealing with the building being constructed higher than the maximum allowed by building code or zoning.  The buildings were allowed to remain non-compliant.  I will have to go back through the thread and look.



Had a similar case in Palos Verde Estates, builder had to reduce the height of the building. Seems contractor used an architects plans without permission and did a site adapt.


----------



## ADAguy

1985 isn't that long ago, association plans should indicate the legal description. They are trying to cover for their errors.


----------



## ICE

The Provo position is clear.  The entire development is one lot for the purpose of zoning regulation.  Anyone can have 100% parcel coverage until the entire development "lot" has 40% lot coverage.  At such time as there is 40% development "lot" coverage nobody can build anything on individual parcels within the development "lot".

That seems odd to me.  Essentially, lot coverage regulation doesn't kick in until someone demonstrates 40% lot coverage.  I find it suspicious that the original developer left most of the land untouched.

In as much as the city can't find any paperwork on the development perhaps they should be asked to produce similar paperwork on other developments.  Beyond that there must be written instructions for their position that predate the issuance of Flake's permit.  They can't just say. "Well Jane, that's the way it is."


----------



## JCraver

Timeliness aside because I don't care about that - I think the City has a good argument, and I also think no matter which way the BoA decides that if this ever gets to an actual court, the City will prevail.

Remember way back a bunch of pages when I said that a PD has special rules, and that all the approvals/rules/regs/restrictions are done at the time the PD is approved?  That's what happened here.  Whether or not those documents can be found, the building dept. is correct in assuming that the City Council approved the PD as pertaining to the original parcel and not to individual units as far as setbacks, lot coverage, etc.  I think that deck is 100% compliant, and if it was built in my jurisdiction my staff report would have been similar (although with less spelling and punctuation errors..).

I hope it goes your way, Jane, because you've been pleasant and this has been an interesting thread, but I'm pretty sure the BoA (and even more sure a court) will see it Flake's way.


----------



## Mech

Unfortunately for Jane, I too see this going in the city's favor.


Which PD regulations are indicated in the report - current 2019 regulations or the ones indicative of when the whole development was permitted? 

Jane - you asked the developer if he has a copy of any specific agreement that was made, right?

What are the consequences, if any, of not obtaining any inspections, as the report indicates?  An inspector may allow photographs as proof of proper footing depth, so this may not go anywhere.

Is the property currently occupied?  If so, did they ever get their Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion?  The bottom of the permit requires one or the other before the structure is occupied.  I cannot say if this would be waved for a deck.

For the ledger, the plan reviewer indicated 1/2" lag screws at 18" oc.  The notes on the side of the drawing indicates (2) 1/2" bolts with washers or equivalent at 16" oc.  Would the drawing supersede the IRC as it is more stringent?


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> Timeliness aside because I don't care about that - I think the City has a good argument, and I also think no matter which way the BoA decides that if this ever gets to an actual court, the City will prevail.
> 
> Remember way back a bunch of pages when I said that a PD has special rules, and that all the approvals/rules/regs/restrictions are done at the time the PD is approved?  That's what happened here.  Whether or not those documents can be found, the building dept. is correct in assuming that the City Council approved the PD as pertaining to the original parcel and not to individual units as far as setbacks, lot coverage, etc.  I think that deck is 100% compliant, and if it was built in my jurisdiction my staff report would have been similar (although with less spelling and punctuation errors..).
> 
> I hope it goes your way, Jane, because you've been pleasant and this has been an interesting thread, but I'm pretty sure the BoA (and even more sure a court) will see it Flake's way.



Interestingly, the land expert found the amended plat from 1984 which says that our development  (phase 1) was operated into 17 specific lots on 17 specific parcels before the development was built or approved. The original plat map has everything on one parcel. It's certainly an interesting case but I will be selling if I'm told that 35 foot high structures can fill the entire back yards as Heaven only knows what will get built next.


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> Unfortunately for Jane, I too see this going in the city's favor.
> 
> 
> Which PD regulations are indicated in the report - current 2019 regulations or the ones indicative of when the whole development was permitted?
> 
> Jane - you asked the developer if he has a copy of any specific agreement that was made, right?
> 
> What are the consequences, if any, of not obtaining any inspections, as the report indicates?  An inspector may allow photographs as proof of proper footing depth, so this may not go anywhere.
> 
> Is the property currently occupied?  If so, did they ever get their Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion?  The bottom of the permit requires one or the other before the structure is occupied.  I cannot say if this would be waved for a deck.
> 
> For the ledger, the plan reviewer indicated 1/2" lag screws at 18" oc.  The notes on the side of the drawing indicates (2) 1/2" bolts with washers or equivalent at 16" oc.  Would the drawing supersede the IRC as it is more stringent?


 
Oh dear - I hope you're wrong but it will be whatever it is. The land expert (former State Property ombudsman) and my attorney think the city is completely in error as their interpretation of the law means every back yard could be filled with 35 foot high buildings. That will make me move for sure!


----------



## tmurray

I don't agree that the city will prevail.

This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.

No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public. 

Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next election.


----------



## cda

tmurray said:


> I don't agree that the city will prevail.
> 
> This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.
> 
> No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public.
> 
> Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next election.




So should some of this be part of disclosure at the time someone buys a house????????


----------



## Jane

tmurray said:


> I don't agree that the city will prevail.
> 
> This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.
> 
> No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public.
> 
> Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next election.




I hope you're right and the former State Property ombudsman and my attorney agree with you. Somewhere along the line the city has decided that 35 foot high extensions to our homes covering our entire yards was the original intent but if that were to happen then this development would be ridiculous. If anyone would like a copy of the original report and the response to the staff report (prepared by the former State Property Ombudsman) just let me know and I can email them to you. I have no idea how to link pdf's on this forum.

With a last name "Murray" you must be Scottish too! Thanks for the support


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> So should some of this be part of disclosure at the time someone buys a house????????



I think it definitely should so a shake up will be needed. I remember I bought a house in Scotland and when I went to work in my back yard my neighbor came and told me that my back yard belonged to him! It turned out it was shared ground but I hadn't even thought to check. It was still titled to the grandson of the original owner so, long story short, I bought everyone's back yards because the owner wouldn't sell me just part of it as it was causing so much trouble. So, when I sold my house I still own the back yards of about 30 homes! I've just let them keep them although I could actually build a home there but I want to be nice. I don't think I have a good track record with back yards


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I think it definitely should so a shake up will be needed. I remember I bought a house in Scotland and when I went to work in my back yard my neighbor came and told me that my back yard belonged to him! It turned out it was shared ground but I hadn't even thought to check. It was still titled to the grandson of the original owner so, long story short, I bought everyone's back yards because the owner wouldn't sell me just part of it as it was causing so much trouble. So, when I sold my house I still own the back yards of about 30 homes! I've just let them keep them although I could actually build a home there but I want to be nice. I don't think I have a good track record with back yards




Check your conversations/ private mail


----------



## cda

Sorry it double posts sometimes


----------



## cda

the opinions:::


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> the opinions:::


Thanks so much - now everyone can see what I've been rambling about


----------



## cda

Well your expert makes more sense.

Good luck


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Well your expert makes more sense.
> 
> Good luck


He's the guy that wrote the current zoning laws for the State of Utah - I think the city thought they'd stopped me when they blocked my Ombudsman Appeal but I was fortunate enough to get to know this expert. We have become friends and if nothing else comes of this crazy debacle I have got to know some amazing people - including the people that have helped me on this forum!


----------



## ICE

Jane,
Mr. Call all but said that the city staff are a bunch of buffoons.  It's one thing to miss the bullseye but quite another to shoot yourself in the foot. 

The city staff made up a completely new approach to land use law that supported their erroneous position.  And not just new but laughably untenable.   The staff perpetrated a fraud.  Were I you, I would cause the city to pay for the legal lessons they got from this.  Cost plus 15% is reasonable and a formula the city is familiar with.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Jane,
> Mr. Call all but said that the city staff are a bunch of buffoons.  It's one thing to miss the bullseye but quite another to shoot yourself in the foot.
> 
> The city staff made up a completely new approach to land use law that supported their erroneous position.  And not just new but laughably untenable.   The staff perpetrated a fraud.  Were I you, I would cause the city to pay for the legal lessons they got from this.  Cost plus 15% is reasonable and a formula the city is familiar with.



Craig Call's letters (especially the second one) are exceptional. I watched him analyze the documents for the first letter and it was amazing to watch him work - when I initially called him (in Austria!!) he said that either I was exaggerating or the city was completely incompetent. 

How can I get my legal expenses back if I win - small claims court? It would certainly be nice to get some money back as it's been an expensive process.


----------



## ADAguy

Are the local news outlets following this, any have an investigative reporter?


----------



## Jane

I believe my brother in law (he's an attorney but not a land use attorney) is bringing a political reporter from Fox and my son's friend has said someone will be coming from Channel 4 news to the hearing. In the city emails that I paid $500 for the city officials were emailing their friends to tell them that there was going to be a hug amount of "public clamor" at this hearing. You guys might see me on the news - I'll be the one breathing into a brown bag to stop a panic attack


----------



## ADAguy

"Stay" your course Jane.


----------



## Jane

I just hope that the deck size gets reduced - that's all I ever asked for. I'm thinking that Jeff Flake would not want people to know that he had been told about the zoning violations by me - long before he finished it - and did nothing about it. In Utah, State law says that it is the responsibility of the person who pulls the permit (Jeff's son in law on his behalf) to ensure that zoning laws are complied with. In addition, he used a contractor's name and license number to get the permit and then used unlicensed people to build it - that's against State law for an investment home in Utah too. So, hopefully Jeff will quietly take down the deck!


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I just hope that the deck size gets reduced - that's all I ever asked for. I'm thinking that Jeff Flake would not want people to know that he had been told about the zoning violations by me - long before he finished it - and did nothing about it. In Utah, State law says that it is the responsibility of the person who pulls the permit (Jeff's son in law on his behalf) to ensure that zoning laws are complied with. In addition, he used a contractor's name and license number to get the permit and then used unlicensed people to build it - that's against State law for an investment home in Utah too. So, hopefully Jeff will quietly take down the deck!




You might ask your attorney if he wants to lead with that 

Just reduce the size to allowed amount??!


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> You might ask your attorney if he wants to lead with that
> 
> Just reduce the size to allowed amount??!


The problem is that since the city forced me to go all the way it turns out that no additional structures can be built in the development (See Craig's first letter) and I don't have the authority to say what I want. It's all or nothing at this point. My neighbor could apply for a variance but he doesn't actually qualify for one. I did write a letter to the BOA saying I would be happy if the deck was smaller but I don't think they have the authority to grant that. The city should just have worked with me as I really am a reasonable person but they brought out the "BRAVEHEART" in me


----------



## Jane

UPDATE: At least one news station is interested. They messaged me this morning and asked for the details and the documents.


----------



## ADAguy

Should be of interest to local developers and others.
Does your local Attorney's Bar Association have a Land Use committee? State Bar? they both might also be interested.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Should be of interest to local developers and others.
> Does your local Attorney's Bar Association have a Land Use committee? State Bar? they both might also be interested.


Good point - I would expect that they have heard about this debacle but I can check. The news media is now all over it and they want to interview my before the meeting. I'm thinking of waiting until after to see which way it comes down. I don't want to give the city any leverage against me at this late date. My attorney is coming to my house at 8 a.m. - I need a vacation for sure!


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Good point - I would expect that they have heard about this debacle but I can check. The news media is now all over it and they want to interview my before the meeting. I'm thinking of waiting until after to see which way it comes down. I don't want to give the city any leverage against me at this late date. My attorney is coming to my house at 8 a.m. - I need a vacation for sure!




One thing with the media 

If you do it before, do it at your house with the un inspected mess of a deck as a background!!!


Media loves pictures


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> One thing with the media
> 
> If you do it before, do it at your house with the un inspected mess of a deck as a background!!!
> 
> 
> Media loves pictures


My attorney is coming here in an hour or so to go over the details so I'll check with him. I didn't sleep last night because the stress is getting to me. The press already have the pictures of the deck as they asked me to send them some - I'm just camera shy....and scared I'll do or say something wrong


----------



## e hilton

Personally I don’t see a benefit to meeting the media before the hearing.  They don’t care about your situation, all they want is to sell papers (or fill airtime).  They are going to slant the story in a way to benefit themselves.


----------



## ADAguy

Hilton, do you belong to the NRA too? Not all media folks are as jaded as you appear to be (smiling).


----------



## e hilton

Nope, not part of nra.  I look at all of the media as 50% entertainment and 50% infomercial.  In this particular case i would worry about how Jane would look with regard to small town politics.  If she loses, it would be better to just fade into the background.  If she wins, she can be on tv saying “I’m happy that justice was served”.


----------



## fatboy

I am amazed that this thread is approaching 400 posts......Jane you might have set a record for a single post!


----------



## Jane

fatboy said:


> I am amazed that this thread is approaching 400 posts......Jane you might have set a record for a single post!



I'm just so glad I found this forum as I could draw on all the expertise of your collective minds!


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Nope, not part of nra.  I look at all of the media as 50% entertainment and 50% infomercial.  In this particular case i would worry about how Jane would look with regard to small town politics.  If she loses, it would be better to just fade into the background.  If she wins, she can be on tv saying “I’m happy that justice was served”.



My attorney agrees with you and it has definitely insured that the press will be at the meeting tonight. They tried to entice me by saying they could put it on the 5 p.m. news instead of the 10 p.m. news but, hey, who watches news at 5 p.m. anyway  Provo is a small city with a good ole boys network so you have to be careful. One of my colleagues recently committed suicide because he went against the norm and his name was slandered. It's definitely a different place but on the plus side the mountains are beautiful


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> My attorney agrees with you and it has definitely insured that the press will be at the meeting tonight. They tried to entice me by saying they could put it on the 5 p.m. news instead of the 10 p.m. news but, hey, who watches news at 5 p.m. anyway  Provo is a small city with a good ole boys network so you have to be careful. One of my colleagues recently committed suicide because he went against the norm and his name was slandered. It's definitely a different place but on the plus side the mountains are beautiful




Yep ,,,, Been to Downtown Spanish Fork, during the winter. Mountains are fantastic


----------



## JCraver

Good luck at your meeting tonight Miss Jane.  I hope this gets resolved one way or the other for you this evening, and I hope it turns out in your favor.


----------



## cda

LIVE STREAM it!!!!


----------



## ADAguy

please do!


----------



## Mech

Can you provide the channel and call letters so perhaps we can watch it on their website?

If this is picked up by a newspaper, can you let us know that info too?


----------



## cda

https://www.stationindex.com/tv/by-state/ut


----------



## Jane

JCraver said:


> Good luck at your meeting tonight Miss Jane.  I hope this gets resolved one way or the other for you this evening, and I hope it turns out in your favor.



Well -it didn't go in my favor on timeliness - only three out of the 5 board members showed up and the only one who looked like he was old enough to shave was an attorney and said my appeal was timely but the other two didn't get the "triggering event" principle and said that if it was more than 14 days after the construction started then it was not timely. So, since there were only 3 I had to have a unanimous decision and I didn't. On the plus side this was just a (very expensive) hoop I had to jump through to get to the real legal people. So, it's off to court I go


----------



## cda

Sorry

With the board members, you get what you paid for sometimes.

Three people is a quorum?? 

Will have to go back and look at the rules.


----------



## cda

Quorum.
A quorum of the Board shall consist of three members or alternate members. In all cases where there are only three members present, all members must cast a vote upon any action on an application or petition requiring action.

appears majority not unanimous, but you still did not have majority



If a majority of the quorum of the Board members present concurs that the evidence supports favorable findings upon an application or petition before it, or that such findings could be made if conditions and safeguards are established, the decision shall be favorable to the applicant, provided that such conditions and safeguards as may be required for a favorable finding are specified in the decision. Such safeguards and requirements shall be binding upon the applicant or petitioner and his successor and interests.
If a majority of the quorum of the Board members present concurs that the evidence does not support a favorable action or recommendation by the Board, then findings shall be specified in the decision outlining those problems or deficiencies in the application or petition which warrant such action.
If the findings of fact and conclusion


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Sorry
> 
> With the board members, you get what you paid for sometimes.
> 
> Three people is a quorum??
> 
> Will have to go back and look at the rules.



Please let me know what you find out. It seemed crazy that it had to be unanimous because only 3 of the 5 showed up.


----------



## Jane

So, after the crazy meeting tonight there was one city official who came up to me and gave me a hug. As he was hugging me he said that I should email him and ask him questions since his email was not being monitored by the jerky assistant attorney now. So, here are the questions I sent as I think he was trying to let me know there were other ways of dealing with this:
1. Has Jeff obtained an amended permit for his deck?
2. Can a note be put on his file that there is a zoning concern in this neighborhood so an amended permit would need to be very carefully considered?
3. Since Jeff did not use a licensed contractor (the contractor he named was not the one he used) on an investment property can that be held against him by the city? The State are already investigating.
4. Since no inspections were done and he deviated from the permit can he be issued a certificate of occupancy?
5. When his permit runs out on Dec 28th what options do I have?
6. Is it required in Provo City to post a public notice informing the public that a permit/amended permit has been issued?

He also said if he was subpoenaed that he would be able to tell the truth.

Thoughts please my learned friends?
Thanks


----------



## cda

Were you able to present the entire case, before the board???

On expired permits

Some cities will just extend them, with nothing required

Some cities make you reapply, with all documentation and fees.


----------



## cda

So it is interesting 

The city does not post the minutes of any BOA meeting???


----------



## ADAguy

Jane said:


> So, after the crazy meeting tonight there was one city official who came up to me and gave me a hug. As he was hugging me he said that I should email him and ask him questions since his email was not being monitored by the jerky assistant attorney now. So, here are the questions I sent as I think he was trying to let me know there were other ways of dealing with this:
> 1. Has Jeff obtained an amended permit for his deck?
> 2. Can a note be put on his file that there is a zoning concern in this neighborhood so an amended permit would need to be very carefully considered?
> 3. Since Jeff did not use a licensed contractor (the contractor he named was not the one he used) on an investment property can that be held against him by the city? The State are already investigating.
> 4. Since no inspections were done and he deviated from the permit can he be issued a certificate of occupancy?
> 5. When his permit runs out on Dec 28th what options do I have?
> 6. Is it required in Provo City to post a public notice informing the public that a permit/amended permit has been issued?
> 
> He also said if he was subpoenaed that he would be able to tell the truth.
> 
> Thoughts please my learned friends?
> Thanks



"Yeah" a whistle blower steps forward. Rain a little and flowers may bloom.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Were you able to present the entire case, before the board???
> 
> On expired permits
> 
> Some cities will just extend them, with nothing required
> 
> Some cities make you reapply, with all documentation and fees.



No - they shut us down because of timliness although the attorney on the board agreed that it was timely. In the next round the burden of proof is on them so we get the opportunity to rebut anything they claim...unlike last night.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Were you able to present the entire case, before the board???
> 
> On expired permits
> 
> Some cities will just extend them, with nothing required
> 
> Some cities make you reapply, with all documentation and fees.


 It will beed to be amended and renewed. My thought is that if he has to get a new permit then I can oppose it again.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> No - they shut us down because of timliness although the attorney on the board agreed that it was timely. In the next round the burden of proof is on them so we get the opportunity to rebut anything they claim...unlike last night.





Strange the whole case was not allowed to be presented

Than the vote

ok


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> So it is interesting
> 
> The city does not post the minutes of any BOA meeting???


No - but they record it because it's used in court (the next step).


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Strange the whole case was not allowed to be presented
> 
> Than the vote
> 
> ok


 The city wanted desperately to stop me presenting the zoning violations so they used timliness. It's the same strategy they used with the other group of people suing the city.


----------



## ADAguy

That is what many attorneys search for: failure to comply with dates, terms, etc.; technical oversights to "prevent" cases from moving forward.
"Common sense and fairness" are just words to them.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> No - but they record it because it's used in court (the next step).




So going through the hearing, up to your attorney

1. Did the city attorney say that a building permit should not have been issued?

2. Did the city on the first day of you questioning this, Say you can file an Appeal?

3. Most cities work on "business days"

""(2) All appeals and applications made to the Board shall be in writing, on forms prescribed by the Board and within fourteen (14) days of the action or decision appealed from by filing a Notice of Appeal with the officer from whom the appeal is taken or with the Board of Adjustment. The officer from whom the appeal was taken shall forthwith transmit to the Board of Adjustment all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.""


If the fourteenth day is a Saturday or Sunday, how do you file an appeal.????


So if you count business days, you might have been with in the fourteen??


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> So going through the hearing, up to your attorney
> 
> 1. Did the city attorney say that a building permit should not have been issued?
> 
> 2. Did the city on the first day of you questioning this, Say you can file an Appeal?
> 
> 3. Most cities work on "business days"
> 
> ""(2) All appeals and applications made to the Board shall be in writing, on forms prescribed by the Board and within fourteen (14) days of the action or decision appealed from by filing a Notice of Appeal with the officer from whom the appeal is taken or with the Board of Adjustment. The officer from whom the appeal was taken shall forthwith transmit to the Board of Adjustment all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.""
> 
> 
> If the fourteenth day is a Saturday or Sunday, how do you file an appeal.????
> 
> 
> So if you count business days, you might have been with in the fourteen??



1. The  city attorney did not mention the fact that the permit was illegal. He was desperately trying to stop the board hearing those facts.

2. The city did not tell me until 11 days after that I had anything to appeal - until that point they told me it was a valid permit.

3. The city work on business days for their responses but on calendar days for the public. (that doesn't seem fair!)

All appeals are to be filed online but it is incredibly difficult to do it. Their are no instructions given so I had to have a staff member help me and even then it didn't upload. The staff member who filed the affidavit said he was shocked I didn't file the appeal with him but he had just told us that we needed to have all our documents before we filed the appeal online and they hadn't even allowed me to see the plans at that point.

I've just been chatting with the other group of people (I wish I was a group  ) who are suing the city and they say that if Provo City have violated their own ordinances then there is no need for timeliness in District Court.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> That is what many attorneys search for: failure to comply with dates, terms, etc.; technical oversights to "prevent" cases from moving forward.
> "Common sense and fairness" are just words to them.



So true - it is a sad way to look for justice which I believe they make an oath to do.


----------



## ADAguy

Depending on how you look at it, every defendant is entitled to a defense (as to who and how defended leaves room for much debate and appeals) unfortunately the deep pockets often win.


----------



## Jane

I'm in for the next round


----------



## cda

So still working thru the hearing.

Two more things

1. Just because a person sees construction and calls to see if there is a permit,,,  If plans and other information is not available, that person does not know if there is a possible violation. 
Unless the city wants an appeal on every construction going on, before a citizen determines there may be a problem???


2. one bit of advice to your attorney, if you decide to go forth, one of my ex prosecutors loved props,  Get a simple BIG size one showing timeline.
That way it can be seen, there is no doubt what your timeline is, when the is a question on the timeline, take the pointer and point to the display.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> So still working thru the hearing.
> 
> Two more things
> 
> 1. Just because a person sees construction and calls to see if there is a permit,,,  If plans and other information is not available, that person does not know if there is a possible violation.
> Unless the city wants an appeal on every construction going on, before a citizen determines there may be a problem???
> 
> 
> 2. one bit of advice to your attorney, if you decide to go forth, one of my ex prosecutors loved props,  Get a simple BIG size one showing timeline.
> That way it can be seen, there is no doubt what your timeline is, when the is a question on the timeline, take the pointer and point to the display.




!. I agree totally - also, there is the question about if someone arrives home and a new structure has been completed within the 14 day window...can they still appeal?

2. We had submitted a timeline to the BOA and my attorney never got to use it. It was clear that two out of the three on the board had not read any documents at all regarding the appeal.


----------



## e hilton

Good idea for the graphic aid.  Maybe have a giant poster size picture if the deck viewed from your back yard.   And maybe one from a drone.


----------



## Jane

e hilton said:


> Good idea for the graphic aid.  Maybe have a giant poster size picture if the deck viewed from your back yard.   And maybe one from a drone.


Great ideas! I will get on that.


----------



## Mech

cda said:


> Get a simple BIG size one showing timeline.
> That way it can be seen, there is no doubt what your timeline is, when the is a question on the timeline, take the pointer and point to the display.



Good idea cda.  Check with the attorney about placing the time window to file the complaint on the display as well.

I am willing to bet that two board members stayed home so a vote could not be taken.

Have you read about the guy from the UK who built a castle and hid it behind tarps and hay bales for years to try and exploit a code loophole?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-hidden-hay-bales-says-t-claims-sold-it.html


----------



## Jane

Mech said:


> Good idea cda.  Check with the attorney about placing the time window to file the complaint on the display as well.
> 
> I am willing to bet that two board members stayed home so a vote could not be taken.
> 
> Have you read about the guy from the UK who built a castle and hid it behind tarps and hay bales for years to try and exploit a code loophole?
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-hidden-hay-bales-says-t-claims-sold-it.html


That is crazy - I wonder why the neighbors didn't get suspicious when he had the really high stack of hay bales covered with a tarp? Some people are just legitimately weird!!


----------



## ICE

I watched the video....well not all of it.  The attorneys presented well enough even if the city attorney was strident.  I would agree that you should have known the scope and scale of the project early on.  Not so much as to the height but certianly the square footage.

I don't see any advantage to winning the timeline battle.  The war is about the illegality of the structure.  This should be before a court of law.  The facts of what happened are easy to discern and lead to an overwhelming conclusion that city staff committed fraud.

The "one lot" defense came out with such legitimacy and the official seal of the City yet there was no opportunity to contest that.  The entire proceeding was one sided.  It's a hoot that they recorded it to be presented in a court.

Were I the one to decide who's right or wrong I would listen intently to both sides.  I would mull it over.  then I would come to understand that the city staff devised a heretofore unheard of way of applying planning regulations.  A method not founds In the annuls of planning lore.  A set of rules that do not treat people equally. Patently unworkable.  ........You have a renowned expert that says all of that.

Although the world is getting morally weak at the knees, I can't envision illegal construction allowed to continue because nobody complained on time.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> !. I agree totally - also, there is the question about if someone arrives home and a new structure has been completed within the 14 day window...can they still appeal?
> 
> 2. We had submitted a timeline to the BOA and my attorney never got to use it. It was clear that two out of the three on the board had not read any documents at all regarding the appeal.




Well it sounds like case law 

you can appeal and win 

but if built, the owner might not have to do anything



Make a large display and have it next to the attorney, on a tripod or something.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> I watched the video....well not all of it.  The attorneys presented well enough even if the city attorney was strident.  I would agree that you should have known the scope and scale of the project early on.  Not so much as to the height but certianly the square footage.
> 
> I don't see any advantage to winning the timeline battle.  The war is about the illegality of the structure.  This should be before a court of law.  The facts of what happened are easy to discern and lead to an overwhelming conclusion that city staff committed fraud.
> 
> The "one lot" defense came out with such legitimacy and the official seal of the City yet there was no opportunity to contest that.  The entire proceeding was one sided.  It's a hoot that they recorded it to be presented in a court.
> 
> Were I the one to decide who's right or wrong I would listen intently to both sides.  I would mull it over.  then I would come to understand that the city staff devised a heretofore unheard of way of applying planning regulations.  A method not founds In the annuls of planning lore.  A set of rules that do not treat people equally. Patently unworkable.  ........You have a renowned expert that says all of that.
> 
> Although the world is getting morally weak at the knees, I can't envision illegal construction allowed to continue because nobody complained on time.



I wish you could be my judge! For some reason timeliness is a big deal when you're complaining about a new structure but I can file a zoning complaint against my neighbors 3 doors along for their crazy structure and they would have to be made to comply with zoning...and it wouldn't cost me a penny!!

I don't know if you noticed the slide projection screen at the beginning where they claimed it was one lot surrounded by a green line and they very confidently said that there was a 30 foot setback on all the houses....that was a complete joke. Some of the houses are only about 10 feet from their green line. 

When the city attorney came to shake my hand to say "sorry you lost" my husband jumped between him and I and gave him a piece of his mind. He asked what kind of a jerk of an attorney could threaten his wife and our entire community with the demolition of our homes. I wish that had been recorded.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Well it sounds like case law
> 
> you can appeal and win
> 
> but if built, the owner might not have to do anything
> 
> 
> 
> Make a large display and have it next to the attorney, on a tripod or something.



I have found a case law report where I can sue my neighbor for a "nuisance per se" to force the removal of the monstrosity next door. The fact that it is illegal and my neighbor pulled the permit bolsters my case. Fingers crossed that justice prevails.


----------



## Jane

Having added up my costs I realize it could get really bad if I don't get creative with how I approach this next phase, so I was wondering if you could all help me come up with (legal  ) creative ways to get rid of the deck. I realize I still have to go to court but I want it over fast! I think the higher courts will come down in my favor on timeliness but I'm pretty sure that will be appealed by the city so I'm trying to think of ways where timeliness is not a factor.

What we know: 
1. Flake deviated from the permitted structure. The current building permit expires on Dec 28th, 2019. The deviated structure requires an amended set of plans.
2. The city did not know its own zoning for my development (they admitted this in an email on July 22nd) so it's a mystery how the permit was ever issued.
3. The deck has had no inspections and was not built by the licensed contractor named on the permit.
4. As far as I'm aware he needs a certificate of completion before he can use it and I don't think it's been issued.
5. The city violated 11 of its own ordinances in the issuance of this permit.
6. Flake can not put the hot tub on the deck so it is currently stored underneath the deck, along with his air conditioning unit.
7. This is an investment home so different (stricter) rules apply.
8. He does not qualify for a variance.

I think that's all I've got


----------



## ADAguy

Continue to "believe" "that might makes right", Also consider that were a BBQ fire to spread from this raised deck to your residence you can bet your insurance company would "deal" with the illegality of its construction.


----------



## cda

I know you do not want to hear it,,

But until the owner decides he wants to get rid of it, I think the deck is staying.


----------



## cda

“”So, after the crazy meeting tonight there was one city official who came up to me and gave me a hug. As he was hugging me he said that I should email him and ask him questions since his email was not being monitored by the jerky assistant attorney now“””


Is this a city council person??


----------



## cda

I would say if a civil attorney thinks he can get rid of the deck,,,

I would say civil court might be your best shot,


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> I know you do not want to hear it,,
> 
> But until the owner decides he wants to get rid of it, I think the deck is staying.



I hope you're wrong


----------



## ICE

A deck that size lends itself to gatherings.  You'll be able to join in.....pass a tray back and forth with hors d’oeuvres.

All things being relative your efforts must involve a significant investment.  The city is the opponent but Mr. Flake owns the offense.  Sue him and prove that the deck is illegal.  Suggest that he has participated in a fraud without openly stating such.  His money is as good as the city's.


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> A deck that size lends itself to gatherings.  You'll be able to join in.....pass a tray back and forth with hors d’oeuvres.


LOL! I needed that chuckle


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> A deck that size lends itself to gatherings.  You'll be able to join in.....pass a tray back and forth with hors d’oeuvres.
> 
> All things being relative your efforts must involve a significant investment.  The city is the opponent but Mr. Flake owns the offense.  Sue him and prove that the deck is illegal.  Suggest that he has participated in a fraud without openly stating such.  His money is as good as the city's.



I just read the second part of your statement and since I have invested a lot of money in this I am interested.  How do I suggest that he participated in fraud? I did text him and tell him that his deck violated zoning and he basically said "tough". 

I've also been looking at setback violations - there don't seem to be the same time restraints on those as on appealing a building permit. His deck has clear setback violations so would you suggest moving that way forward too?


----------



## ADAguy

Some times a "flanking" offense is better than a "direct" assault.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Some times a "flanking" offense is better than a "direct" assault.



Does that mean coming at him from different angles? So far I've registered a couple of zoning violations against his property, I'm waiting to see if he files for an amended permit/certificate of completion... and we have to file suit before Dec 21st. What are your thoughts?


----------



## ADAguy

Setback, permit, zoning, no contractor's license, denial of your property rights, threat to your property by fire spreading from his deck?
Your attorney should be able to come up with an end around to catch them off balance. Sue him directly vs the city. Make him spend as much as you have to defend himself. Doesn't your HOA have an E&O policy for their directors mistakes? What approvals do your CC&Rs require for onsite alterations?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> Setback, permit, zoning, no contractor's license, denial of your property rights, threat to your property by fire spreading from his deck?
> Your attorney should be able to come up with an end around to catch them off balance. Sue him directly vs the city. Make him spend as much as you have to defend himself. Doesn't your HOA have an E&O policy for their directors mistakes? What approvals do your CC&Rs require for onsite alterations?



Great ideas. I'm thinking Flake probably has lawsuit insurance so if I sue him he will just use his insurance to bankrupt me! It does seem that suing him directly is the best bang for the buck.

Our HOA does have insurance but they went rogue on Flake's deck. It turns out it's almost impossible to sue the HOA and they will say they relied on the city permit even though they denied other people building a deck.


----------



## classicT

Jane said:


> Great ideas. I'm thinking Flake probably has lawsuit insurance so if I sue him he will just use his insurance to bankrupt me! It does seem that suing him directly is the best bang for the buck.
> 
> Our HOA does have insurance but they went rogue on Flake's deck. It turns out it's almost impossible to sue the HOA and they will say they relied on the city permit even though they denied other people building a deck.


This is a government official who probably does not his name associated with anything illegal, given that he has desires for greater political offices.

Long game with media attention is probably your best bet.


----------



## ADAguy

What have been the latest comments from media?


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> What have been the latest comments from media?



Since Jeff didn't show up the other night the latest comments are regarding the law suit. They are wanting to know what the plan is and I don't know just yet.


----------



## Jane

Ty J. said:


> This is a government official who probably does not his name associated with anything illegal, given that he has desires for greater political offices.
> 
> Long game with media attention is probably your best bet.



That is true - I just don't want to get too attached to Flake's deck


----------



## Jane

Happy New Year All!! The deck saga continues and I am trying to take the advice of those of you on the forum who have advised me to flank Jeff Flake on both sides. Currently, my appeal has been filed with the district court and if the judge comes issues a timeliness verdict then I believe I can move forward with the appeal. In addition, my neighbor's permit is officially invalid as in accordance with Section 105.5 of the 2015 IRC, which the State of Utah has adopted, all permits are considered expired after 180 days from issuance or from the last known inspection.
Since the deck has never had an inspection (and wasn't built in accordance with the permit) the permit is now expired. My question is, can the city (legally) extend an expired permit where the permit was not legal in the first place?


----------



## ICE

The permit is not illegal just because you claim that it is illegal.  It will take a court of law to deem the permit illegal.  Now that may not be the case everywhere but you are up against a recalcitrant building department.

I can tell you that from my experience a permit can be old and moldy but not expired as long as the system shows it as not expired.  Okay I get that time has run out but if nobody went into the computer and expired the permit and nobody has written "EXPIRED" with a date and signature on the permit.....well then an inspector can keep it alive with an inspection.  I have done exactly that.  

There's reasons for doing that.  Maybe we dropped the ball.  Perhaps a contractor bailed.  Jobs will get every inspection except the last inspection.  The owner is oblivious.  Should we then make the owner pay a load for a final inspection.  I've had jobs that stalled because of a catastrophic health issue.  

I tell you these things to illustrate that we can do pretty much whatever we want when it comes to expiring permits.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Happy New Year All!! The deck saga continues and I am trying to take the advice of those of you on the forum who have advised me to flank Jeff Flake on both sides. Currently, my appeal has been filed with the district court and if the judge comes issues a timeliness verdict then I believe I can move forward with the appeal. In addition, my neighbor's permit is officially invalid as in accordance with Section 105.5 of the 2015 IRC, which the State of Utah has adopted, all permits are considered expired after 180 days from issuance or from the last known inspection.
> Since the deck has never had an inspection (and wasn't built in accordance with the permit) the permit is now expired. My question is, can the city (legally) extend an expired permit where the permit was not legal in the first place?




It’s a new decade. So fight on. 

No help from city elected officials ?


----------



## VillageInspector

ICE said:


> The permit is not illegal just because you claim that it is illegal.  It will take a court of law to deem the permit illegal.  Now that may not be the case everywhere but you are up against a recalcitrant building department.
> 
> I can tell you that from my experience a permit can be old and moldy but not expired as long as the system shows it as not expired.  Okay I get that time has run out but if nobody went into the computer and expired the permit and nobody has written "EXPIRED" with a date and signature on the permit.....well then an inspector can keep it alive with an inspection.  I have done exactly that.
> 
> There's reasons for doing that.  Maybe we dropped the ball.  Perhaps a contractor bailed.  Jobs will get every inspection except the last inspection.  The owner is oblivious.  Should we then make the owner pay a load for a final inspection.  I've had jobs that stalled because of a catastrophic health issue.
> 
> I tell you these things to illustrate that we can do pretty much whatever we want when it comes to expiring permits.



I agree with all of the above and I'm certain an attorney can make the argument that the applicant/client did not bother to renew the permit pending the outcome of the legal actions. Bottom line, as stated above, don't put much stock in the status of the permit.


----------



## ADAguy

Welcome back Jane, "Fight On"! it is a "new" year.


----------



## cda

So we have been missing the political news lately

Any changes


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> Happy New Year All!! The deck saga continues and I am trying to take the advice of those of you on the forum who have advised me to flank Jeff Flake on both sides. Currently, my appeal has been filed with the district court and if the judge comes issues a timeliness verdict then I believe I can move forward with the appeal. In addition, my neighbor's permit is officially invalid as in accordance with Section 105.5 of the 2015 IRC, which the State of Utah has adopted, all permits are considered expired after 180 days from issuance or from the last known inspection.
> Since the deck has never had an inspection (and wasn't built in accordance with the permit) the permit is now expired. My question is, can the city (legally) extend an expired permit where the permit was not legal in the first place?




So just bumping this along, and see if Jane has made progress?


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> So just bumping this along, and see if Jane has made progress?


Well - things have taken a turn (after $38,000 in legal bills). I had a certificate of non compliance attached to the previous structure as I knew the city were basically making me fight timeliness and then when I won they would say the structure didn't exist. So, next thing I know - Jeff Flake knocks out the rear wall (right beside my fenceline - he's almost in my living room  now) and I knew that if I didn't appeal it I was "giving my consent" to the illegal deck so I got a stop work order issued and Flake applied for a permit. Meanwhile, he has been doing a complete remodel  of his house and told the DOPL guy that the city told me to contact that he had not paid them in cash or in kind. The remodel included knocking down load bearing walls, electrical, plumbing and gas lines and has been going on for 4 months with NO PERMIT.

I checked the permits issued for the French doors and there was no mention of the deck, but given my very expensive land law lesson from last year I knew that there was something else going on. Sure enough, when  I arrived at the city there were plans for the new deck hidden  in a "copyrighted file". So, the short version of the story is the I filed an appeal that the city could not claim was untimely, and I requested a State Property Rights Ombudsman opinion  which "stops  the clock" for me to get evidence in. If the ombudsman comes down in my favor then I believe I get awarded costs. 

Jeff Flake asked to talk to me on our front steps and told me that my husband and I would lose our jobs at the University if we proceeded. Fortunately, I recorded the conversation.

Anyhow, if anyone can offer any suggestions to make sure the city can't provide (and then retract a false affidavit) and how I can get the structure gone I would appreciate it. My neighbor has installed a 12 foot fence which I have reported to the City and the HOA but they are ignoring it.

The new deck failed inspection .but he continues to build. 

Here are some Facebook links which show the issue -  you can tell he made me mad!
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10156681484347255&set=a.99706367254


----------



## cda

That is an update.

Sounds like you are the only one in the battle. Not sure why no one wants to join you.

As you have learned document. One of these days you will win!!!!!


----------



## cda

How about some well placed spot / flood/ Bright lights??


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> How about some well placed spot / flood/ Bright lights??


I've already put the brightest "security lights" I could find up!! According to the plans that were submitted the second time the  property line is about 4 feet inside my living room - definitely need security!


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> That is an update.
> 
> Sounds like you are the only one in the battle. Not sure why no one wants to join you.
> 
> As you have learned document. One of these days you will win!!!!!



The folk on the other side of them are his buddies and are doing some illegal building of their own.  Some of the commenters on  my FB post are actually neighbors and I have received emails of support. The big question they are asking is how this ever got past the HOA - I  know the answer to that. Fingers crossed that my quest for justice pays off!


----------



## Glenn

I always thought decks brought happiness...  Regretting I clicked this.  May you find peace.


----------



## Jane

I agree Glenn  - they should. And I would not have objected to him having a deck at all (even though it broke zoning) if he had kept away from the property line. Now I have that ugly 12 foot wall  to look at and he's planning to make the top half white vinyl. No peace or light for me!


----------



## ADAguy

At what point do your local city officials (as in city attorney) acknowledge their errors? 12' without engineering? of what material?
Consider use of sound, as in ??? as a distraction?
Love your resiliance. Where does the HOA liability lie?


----------



## Min&Max

Jane I do not believe you will win anything. Your 38,000 is gone and to continue the fight will only increase your losses. If you are enjoying the fight, well then fight on. Permits rarely expire because they only have to show some progress within last 180 days. merely adding a screw to a board could qualify as progress. If the HOA was going to help they would have by now. For them to alter course would only call into question their past actions.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> At what point do your local city officials (as in city attorney) acknowledge their errors? 12' without engineering? of what material?
> Consider use of sound, as in ??? as a distraction?
> Love your resiliance. Where does the HOA liability lie?




The local city officials issued a second permit with the same (plus some additional ones) violations as the first. They are going to argue that the development was built on one lot because that's the only way they could permit it - and even then it's a stretch. Fortunately, because of my expensive land law lesson I dug deeper into the "French Door" permit and found the new deck hidden in a "copyrighted" file. This new permit gave me the opportunity to appeal again because Aniston has been made. The state Property ombudsman can now issue an opinion without the distraction of an affidavit which the city tried to retract when they realized it was going to court. If the opinion is in my favor then the city will most likely want to mediate. The city attorney has already contacted my attorney to see if I  would consider dropping the case against the non-compliant structure but I've said that it's the same structure. I also reported the City attorney to the OPC for submitting an affidavit and then trying to retract it at the BOA hearing.

The HOA have totally gone against the CC&R's and will not communicate about it. They are impressed that he is a former Senator - I'm not. He threatened my job if I complained and I have that recorded. 

I guess my Scottish genes want justice - not just for me but for the other people that the city has done this to - someone needs to be held accountable.




ADAguy said:


> At what point do your local city officials (as in city attorney) acknowledge their errors? 12' without engineering? of what material?
> Consider use of sound, as in ??? as a distraction?
> Love your resiliance. Where does the HOA liability lie?


----------



## cda

How about a 24 hour web cam showing the property???

I still like the floodlights on also.


----------



## cda

Any *democrat* reps in the state legislature, that might be interested??, maybe there is a committee on building or oversees the state building dept?


----------



## ADAguy

Stay the course Jane, if we can bring down a city councilman in LA for million dollar bribes this should be winable.


----------



## ICE

Ya you're gonna be fired.


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> How about a 24 hour web cam showing the property???
> 
> I still like the floodlights on also.



The floodlights are for "security"! I think some bagpipe music  might help too  I'd  better not or Karma will bite me in the butt!


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Ya you're gonna be fired.





ADAguy said:


> Stay the course Jane, if we can bring down a city councilman in LA for million dollar bribes this should be winable.


 I  really appreciate the support! I know that he's been getting inside help as there is no way anyone would have though to hide the "new deck" in a French door permit AND then it failed inspection. I'm hoping this goes all the way!


----------



## Jane

ICE said:


> Ya you're gonna be fired.



I just laughed at him and said that a former Senator should not be blackmailing neighbors - and of course he sent me personal pictures  way back before this started - not too bad but definitely inappropriate - so he really doesn't have a leg to stand on!


----------



## Jane

cda said:


> Any *democrat* reps in the state legislature, that might be interested??, maybe there is a committee on building or oversees the state building dept?



I open to all suggestions AND if anyone knows who investigates corrupt HOA's I'd be interested in that too


----------



## Jane

Min&Max said:


> Jane I do not believe you will win anything. Your 38,000 is gone and to continue the fight will only increase your losses. If you are enjoying the fight, well then fight on. Permits rarely expire because they only have to show some progress within last 180 days. merely adding a screw to a board could qualify as progress. If the HOA was going to help they would have by now. For them to alter course would only call into question their past actions.



The last permit expired and he got nailed on it because I held their feet to the fire. This, the Certificate of non-compliance!! He tried to get around that by hiding the new deck in a secret folder in the "French Door" permit so because another administrative decision was made on the deck I was able to appeal  it. It will be interesting to see what shady dealings they come up with this time.


----------



## ADAguy

There are attorneys that specialize in HOA cases and look for these type of cases for only a % of the judgement.


----------



## Jane

ADAguy said:


> There are attorneys that specialize in HOA cases and look for these type of cases for only a % of the judgement.


I will have to look into that - so far I've only found attorneys who defend HOA's but you're right - there must be some who go after the rogue boards.


----------



## ADAguy

That is true, we have them in California.


----------



## cda

Jane said:


> I will have to look into that - so far I've only found attorneys who defend HOA's but you're right - there must be some who go after the rogue boards.




Did not think of that one

Worth a call to one 


https://www.morrissperry.com/owners


----------



## ADAguy

Just how "deep" is your basement? CDA


----------



## Min&Max

Jane said:


> Well - things have taken a turn (after $38,000 in legal bills). I had a certificate of non compliance attached to the previous structure as I knew the city were basically making me fight timeliness and then when I won they would say the structure didn't exist. So, next thing I know - Jeff Flake knocks out the rear wall (right beside my fenceline - he's almost in my living room  now) and I knew that if I didn't appeal it I was "giving my consent" to the illegal deck so I got a stop work order issued and Flake applied for a permit. Meanwhile, he has been doing a complete remodel  of his house and told the DOPL guy that the city told me to contact that he had not paid them in cash or in kind. The remodel included knocking down load bearing walls, electrical, plumbing and gas lines and has been going on for 4 months with NO PERMIT.
> 
> I checked the permits issued for the French doors and there was no mention of the deck, but given my very expensive land law lesson from last year I knew that there was something else going on. Sure enough, when  I arrived at the city there were plans for the new deck hidden  in a "copyrighted file". So, the short version of the story is the I filed an appeal that the city could not claim was untimely, and I requested a State Property Rights Ombudsman opinion  which "stops  the clock" for me to get evidence in. If the ombudsman comes down in my favor then I believe I get awarded costs.
> 
> Jeff Flake asked to talk to me on our front steps and told me that my husband and I would lose our jobs at the University if we proceeded. Fortunately, I recorded the conversation.
> 
> Anyhow, if anyone can offer any suggestions to make sure the city can't provide (and then retract a false affidavit) and how I can get the structure gone I would appreciate it. My neighbor has installed a 12 foot fence which I have reported to the City and the HOA but they are ignoring it.
> 
> The new deck failed inspection .but he continues to build.
> 
> Here are some Facebook links which show the issue -  you can tell he made me mad!
> https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10156681484347255&set=a.99706367254


So if I am your neighbor I am going to call it a guardrail, which code only requires a minimum height, and take the position that the existing guardrail was inadequate. It would appear that the original has a spacing of greater than  4" between the rail openings which does not and has not met code since at least the year 2000.


----------



## cda

Min&Max said:


> So if I am your neighbor I am going to call it a guardrail, which code only requires a minimum height, and take the position that the existing guardrail was inadequate. It would appear that the original has a spacing of greater than  4" between the rail openings which does not and has not met code since at least the year 2000.




The entire patio is new and not permitted or inspected


----------



## ADAguy

Issue order to comply or demo within 30 days


----------



## cda

ADAguy said:


> Issue order to comply or demo within 30 days




The janitor will not do it


----------



## ICE

My goodness Jane this thread has reached near 500 replies.

So you do understand that it's a boy's club in Provo.  The heart of man country where men are men and women..well they're not.

If this case made it to the Utah Supreme Court the judges would wink at Jeff and give him a thumbs up.

Here's a preview:  "It's not like he tore up your rose garden....he just wanted a nice deck....can't a man have a nice deck?    I've got a nice deck...you all have a nice deck....but Jeff can't have a nice deck????  Something's wrong about that. We're just gonna have to change the law around here if a man can't have a nice deck.  By the way Jeff, are you coming to Junior's graduation?"


----------



## cda

Ice ice ice


----------



## VillageInspector

Jane, I gotta be honest if i were you especially after dropping 38,000 and not having any real victory to show for it I would cut my loses and sell. Fighting HOAs is a whole other battle and expense and after everything is said and done it appears all you will have done is created an unhappy place for yourself. Having lived in a few HOA controlled communities I have seen people ban together and take control for the betterment of all and I have seen people cheer others on but not step up when its needed. I think you are seeing the latter. Sorry but even though we only have half the story I just don't see this having a happy conclusion for you long term, yes you might be able to say you won the battle perhaps but I'd bet against it and I'm certain you are going to lose the war. .


----------



## ADAguy

On the surface initialy HOA"s were pitched as cost savers (for who, the developer?) they are proving to be very costly in many instances if poorly managed.


----------



## VillageInspector

ADAguy said:


> On the surface initialy HOA"s were pitched as cost savers (for who, the developer?) they are proving to be very costly in many instances if poorly managed.




Absolutely, most are a lawyers dream come true due to the tendency of members of HOAs to turn to ligation for everything. They don't seem to realize they are suing themselves or maybe they just enjoy the fiscal pain.


----------

