U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary
 [Register]
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary The Triangle Area
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2019, 06:39 PM
 
916 posts, read 879,174 times
Reputation: 912

Advertisements

Wow, that's crazy. How did this come about? Did somebody complain about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2019, 10:21 PM
 
1,252 posts, read 2,858,701 times
Reputation: 1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlito2002wgn View Post
Oh, and guess what else? The city is taking part of my front yard (eminent domain). Aren't I lucky?
The city doesn't do this without offering financial compensation....especially if it's being done as part of a road improvement project. However, they can legally condemn and take it if you refuse to accept their compensation offer which is negotiable BTW. An attorney negotiated with the city on our behalf when Sandy Forks Road was widened and got us a slightly better offer, and our property value also benefited from the road improvements and new sidewalk.

For both of your issues, I would highly recommend consulting an attorney for advice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2019, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Raleigh - inside the beltline
109 posts, read 64,234 times
Reputation: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses View Post
They can be kind of ridiculous about sand and gravel. Even a sand riding ring, which drains freely downward will be called impervious. Why? Because riding horses on it supposedly packs it down. Yeah like asphalt? No.

So the car driving on your driveway extension must really pack it.
Ridiculous is an understatement. Well, it is ridiculous if you think they are really trying to do any good. If, on the other hand, you look at it from the perspective of them trying to raise revenue, and increase their power, then it all makes sense.

I had no idea they would have anything to say about a sand riding ring. Wow! How can we fight back against this type of thing?

Don't they know where we live? Seriously, I don't know exactly where you live, luv, but were I live in Raleigh, the ground is made of hard compacted red clay. I know toward Durham the clay is more yellow, but it's still clay. I think water more easily passes through gravel (any kind) and sand than it does compacted clay!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2019, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
10,597 posts, read 7,758,985 times
Reputation: 9076
it would be pretty impossible for them to study the runoff/absorption of every single lot, and then determine exactly what the impermeable surface can be by lot.

Now, might a citizen (especially one that was an engineer) be able to effect change to what is considered "impermeable" - like gravel or sand or whatnot? I'm sure one could. You could research the adoption of the ordinance, follow how that process went, and see where perhaps the definition of "impermeable surface" went too far.

I know all the homebuilders would like to see it happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2019, 09:45 AM
 
318 posts, read 136,305 times
Reputation: 641
Well, that's because we don't own our property. The government believes it owns all the land. Naturally they think they can tell you what to do on your own property.

My neighbors and I typically believe what the gubmint don't know won't hurt them.

Can you imagine some pencil neck regulator coming up to our forefathers property back in the 1800s and telling them their driveway is too big? Haha, they'd be tarred, feathered, and rode out of town on a rail for good reason.

Did the regulator have a warrant? Nobody gets on mine without my invitation or a warrant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2019, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Raleigh - inside the beltline
109 posts, read 64,234 times
Reputation: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal View Post
it would be pretty impossible for them to study the runoff/absorption of every single lot, and then determine exactly what the impermeable surface can be by lot.
Sure, it would be impractical to study each individual lot. I understand that, but then don't cause hardship (financial, time, other) on the citizens for such BS. Don't get involved unless there is an actual problem. There should also be some actual training for the inspectors and code enforcers when they look at a situation like mine, and that coupled with some common sense would mean that people like my wife and I don't have to go through what we are currently going through.

This ins't our first experience with this crap. We will probably be out $2k and countless hours for something that isn't actually a problem, and certainly not something that we caused. The last time was in PA, and cost us around $80k! Guess what? That was also from stuff that was done by somebody else!

Quote:
Now, might a citizen (especially one that was an engineer) be able to effect change to what is considered "impermeable" - like gravel or sand or whatnot? I'm sure one could. You could research the adoption of the ordinance, follow how that process went, and see where perhaps the definition of "impermeable surface" went too far.

I know all the homebuilders would like to see it happen.
I don't have the ability myself, nor the resources to outsource such an endeavor. I wish I did. Maybe the answer is in running for office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2019, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
10,597 posts, read 7,758,985 times
Reputation: 9076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Baptist View Post
Well, that's because we don't own our property. The government believes it owns all the land. Naturally they think they can tell you what to do on your own property.

My neighbors and I typically believe what the gubmint don't know won't hurt them.

Can you imagine some pencil neck regulator coming up to our forefathers property back in the 1800s and telling them their driveway is too big? Haha, they'd be tarred, feathered, and rode out of town on a rail for good reason.

Did the regulator have a warrant? Nobody gets on mine without my invitation or a warrant.
a. you live in the city limits?
b. what happens if a crime happens nearby, and a deputy wants to come ask if you saw anything?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2019, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
10,597 posts, read 7,758,985 times
Reputation: 9076
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlito2002wgn View Post
Sure, it would be impractical to study each individual lot. I understand that, but then don't cause hardship (financial, time, other) on the citizens for such BS. Don't get involved unless there is an actual problem. There should also be some actual training for the inspectors and code enforcers when they look at a situation like mine, and that coupled with some common sense would mean that people like my wife and I don't have to go through what we are currently going through.

This ins't our first experience with this crap. We will probably be out $2k and countless hours for something that isn't actually a problem, and certainly not something that we caused. The last time was in PA, and cost us around $80k! Guess what? That was also from stuff that was done by somebody else!



I don't have the ability myself, nor the resources to outsource such an endeavor. I wish I did. Maybe the answer is in running for office.
well, let's ask again - someone before you did this driveway extension AFTER the impermeable surface rules went into effect? Or they're reaching prior to that? What is the inspector asserting - that is IS in violation, or that it COULD BE? Was there any determination orr comment about WHEN the driveway/parking was expanded?

Do you have a survey that you obtained when you bought?

The ordinance - what it says and when it went into effect - is available online.

here's some of it:

Quote:
Any subject lot with an existing detached single family home or duplex (as of November 27, 2016) is entitled to an additional 400 square feet (sf.) above the existing impervious square footage or maximum impervious limitation (whichever is greater) provided that the home still exists when the 400 sf. of additional impervious area is added to the lot.
it "looks like" 11/27/16 is an important date - perhaps anything done before that is grandfathered in ... which would make sense with some of my first comments.

If you're in 5 Points, you're likely R-6 which is a 51% impervious limit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2019, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Boydton, VA
2,551 posts, read 3,249,513 times
Reputation: 4715
"This ins't our first experience with this crap".....not to rub salt in the wound....but after a previous $80K experience with non-permitted work...what happened to your due diligence ? Was the previous owner asked to disclose any non-permitted work ?

Like you, I learned the hard way, the new owner assumes the responsibility for all non-permitted work at closing....previous owner gets off scot-free, unless he/she was not truthful on any disclosure forms.

Good luck
Gemstone1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2019, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Raleigh - inside the beltline
109 posts, read 64,234 times
Reputation: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal View Post
I was not aware they are going back BEFORE the impermeable surface regulations went into effect and enforcing it. Frankly, it's kind of impossible to do so.
I think it is more of what you said below, "it looks like you're in violation, go prove you're not". That includes proving it by hiring a surveyor, engineer, and/or researching when the regulations went into effect.

Quote:
For example, there are single family homes WAY over the % cap for their zoning. I'm talking like 90%+ impermeable, but that was not part of the zoning when they were built.
The neighbor to one side is a 4-plex. Most of their front yard, and their entire (large area) side is paved. The neighbor on the other side has to be about 80% minimum paved. The neighbor in front has a small yard (like everybody else there), and they have a loop driveway taking up most of their front yard. The neighbor diagonally in front of me is a church with a strip of grass, and all the rest paved. I understand that all of that is irrelevant. Just saying.

The city is telling me that I'm allowed 40% impermeable surface. The front yard is already small, and the city is going to be taking some of it away (eminent domain) for expansion of Jones Franklin Rd.

Quote:
Now, if the code guy is saying someone before you did this AFTER the rules went into place - then sure.
The code guy has no idea when the gravel was put down. He found something that looked like it might be in violation, so he wrote us up.

Again, he said he agrees that this is all BS. He has said this on multiple occasions. How the hell can you do a job THAT NEGATIVELY AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES for something they didn't do, and you don't even agree with what you are enforcing? What kind of person can do that?

I've remained very civil in all of my interactions with him because I know he hold all the power, and has A LOT more power behind him, but damn ... I'd like to tell this guy how I really feel.

Quote:
Was there any determination or comment about WHEN the driveway/parking was expanded?
There was no such comment from the code enforcer. I did tell him that Google maps historical views clearly shows that the driveway was installed prior to my buying it. He acknowledged that, but said that it doesn't matter. He didn't ask about the year when it was installed.

Quote:
I suppose he's giving you the "it looks like you're in violation, go prove you're not"? Would you then get a variance, or be forced to remove some impervious surface?
Right, that is what he is doing. It certainly doesn't FEEL right or moral.

I don't know if a variance is even an option at this point. He said that everything would go away if I removed the gravel. Sorry, I just can't call it "impervious surface". Because it isn't impervious! There is one very small area that has [i]crush and run stone[i], and even that is not impervious, but the rest is larger, noncompactable gravel. He and all the other people that I've spoken to at the city have told me that it would be fine if I just picked it up and layed it down in my back yard, or even put concrete back there for parking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top