On 8/15/2011 12:15 PM, chaniarts wrote:
....

in my area, as long as you leave 1 wall intact, you can raze the entire
rest of the building and expand the footprint to whatever you want, as
long as it meets zoning codes.

But, of course, that was the whole point here--it did _not_ meet zoning
setback reqm'ts...

Undoubtedly more than enough blame to go 'round as to initial fault
here; it would seem unlikely the fella' if he really was an experienced
builder was totally guileless in the initial application; in such a
constricted location it would seem highly unlikely to me a boundary
could be misplaced by the distance w/o being aware of it.

Whether just kept quiet on a favorable outcome or was party to
deliberate deception is unclear and unknowable from the information
provided; it seems the reason for prevailing in the end has less to do
w/ the actual facts of the location than in that the jurisdiction was
apparently faulty in their application of the rules...

There's been a situation in the County here of such retroactive
modification of ground rules for a developer in continually racheting up
the demands after the initial permitting w/ new commissioners demanding
more than was initially required. That's simply wrong, too, altho it
hasn't (yet, anyway) come to the extent as this case of actual lawsuit;
the builder just gave up here.

--