All Forum Posts by: Kyle Kingma

Like Bill said, you should factor in the potential loss of nonconformities. When the structure's gone...they're gone too.

Yes, that is horrible advice. If you're not pulling any permits, YOU open yourself up to closer scrutiny because the inspector doesn't know what you did or didn't do without a permit so they'll assume you did other things. Trust me, they don't want to be out there telling you how to be a decent person by ensuring the safety of the structure that you are going to put people in. Pull the permits you need, get the inspections just for those permits, and you won't have a problem. /rant

As for your particular issue, come clean and tell them what you have had done without a permit. Worst case scenario, they'll have you open it up and/or pay double the fee. If you are noncompliant, it will get worse for you (i.e. cutting services, liens, condemnation, etc.). An attorney isn't going to do anything for you other than take your money and talk to the people you can talk to yourself. Bite the bullet, fix it, learn from it, and move on.

You'll definitely need to comply with the current setback regulations. However sometimes the front yard is determined by the block face (least setback on the street), so if it is in an older neighborhood, you could probably bring the building up closer than the typical 25 feet if the code allows. 

Attorney isn't going to really do anything except take your money to talk to the people you could talk to yourself. If it is a use issue, you'll either need to prove you're grandfathered (use was legal when it started), or you'll need to try to make it conforming by rezoning it to allow for the use. Buying it while it was illegal doesn't make it legal, that was part of your due diligence.

Assisted living centers or community residences are usually special or conditional uses in single-family zoning districts.

Depends on the zoning, if its zoned for duplexes, you could probably get two units on there. You might be able to get three if the zoning allows, but you'll need to take into account parking, setbacks, and open space requirements (lot coverage %). 

put it as a contingency in the contract. Happens all the time. See if you can get them to verify that the use is conforming.

Does it stub to your property? Are you thinking about continuing it through the tract? The city will let you build it, but it'll be pricey. Those properties have apparently illegally encroached into the ROW, so that won't be good for them. Although, you might do some research to see if it was ever abandoned but not updated on the map you're looking at.

So I'm still not clear on if the zoning has indeed changed between 2006 and 2008. The building was converted from SF to duplex at some point. Did the previous zoning allow duplexes? At any rate it sounds like they're telling you that it is nonconforming. The question is whether it is legal nonconforming (grandfathered) or nonconforming (illegal). Sounds like there might be documentation saying that it is grandfathered, however that still wouldn't allow a rebuild if the structure is damaged by more than 50% of the value unless your city has different rules relating to when a nonconformity expires. I wonder what this "variance" is unless its a grandfathering certification saying it could be rebuilt. Typically the only way to ensure that it could be rebuilt is to rezone the land to the proper district that would allow it.

It might be tough to prove it was legally done at the time. Does Washington have an archive of old fire insurance maps that might show the occupancies of structures? You might just have to bite the bullet and see about rezoning it to be compliant.

the zoning was changed with you as the owner knowing it? Did they update their zoning districts in 2008 that effectively make the duplex use grandfathered? Is there a district that you could rezoned to that would allow the duplex to be conforming? Was it a duplex when you bought it? Was it legal when you bought it? I'm wondering if the duplex use is now grandfathered which would go away if the building burned down. In other words, a permit couldn't be pulled for a new duplex.