Subdivision covenants

[rstemen]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?Ohio

I am interested in purchasing a home, but I really need to buy one where I can construct a separate garage for my hobbies (building a plane).
The home I'm interested in is in an older subdivision circa 1973, the home has an attached 2 car garage, and the plot drawing has the following wording: "ALL LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE KNOWN AND DESCRIBED AS RESIDENTIAL LOTS. NO STRUCTURES SHALL BE ERECTED PLACED OR PERMITTED TO REMAIN ON ANY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PLOT OTHER THAN ONE DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING NOT TO EXCEED TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT AND A GARAGE FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO (2) CARS."
The town zoning allows a detached structure, but I'm not sure how to interpret the plot map wording.

To me, it seems I am allowed to have a single family residence and a garage, the existing garage being a part of the residence. Also, the development has may sheds, which appear to not meet this covenant. Can I assume that the covenants are no longer being enforced?

Thanks

 

[justalayman]

No need to start another thread for the same situation

 

[rstemen]

No need to start another thread for the same situation

Yea, I should probably contact a lawyer. I know there is not a lot of incentive to decipher the wording in my plot notes when you guys are providing a service for free. Thanks anyway.

 

[Zigner]

Yea, I should probably contact a lawyer. I know there is not a lot of incentive to decipher the wording in my plot notes when you guys are providing a service for free. Thanks anyway.

Huh?

It's not that you didn't get an answer, you just don't agree with what was said...

 

[rstemen]

Huh?

It's not that you didn't get an answer, you just don't agree with what was said...

Just wanting another opinion. Thanks

 

[justalayman]

Just wanting another opinion. Thanks

Ok fine.


I understand your interpretation and if I wanted the house and wanted to build a garage I would attempt to convince everybody my interpretation is the correct interpretation BUT you aren't going to figure this out before you purchase the house. You can gamble and hope noboxy objects but as with all gambling, it's a gamble

 

[rstemen]

Ok fine.


I understand your interpretation and if I wanted the house and wanted to build a garage I would attempt to convince everybody my interpretation is the correct interpretation BUT you aren't going to figure this out before you purchase the house. You can gamble and hope noboxy objects but as with all gambling, it's a gamble

So, you agree with me and disagree with Zigler, the wording is not clear. Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

So, you agree with me and disagree with Zigler, the wording is not clear. Thanks.

The wording is crystal clear. If you buy, it's a gamble because you would be violating the wording, but might not get caught.

 

[rstemen]

The wording is crystal clear. If you buy, it's a gamble because you would be violating the wording, but might not get caught.

Actually, the wording is not clear. That is why I asked in the first place.

 

[Zigner]

Actually, the wording is not clear. That is why I asked in the first place.

The wording is clear to a disinterested party. The covenants allow a home and a garge. The property you want to purchase has a home and a garage.

It's not clear to you because you want it to say something else.

 

[rstemen]

The wording is clear to a disinterested party. The covenants allow a home and a garge. The property you want to purchase has a home and a garage.

It's not clear to you because you want it to say something else.

I think I understand what you are saying. When it says "one detached single family dwelling" that doesn't include the garage, even if it is an attached garage, that is not part of that dwelling. Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

I think I understand what you are saying. When it says "one detached single family dwelling" that doesn't include the garage, even if it is an attached garage, that is not part of that dwelling. Thanks.

Right - that's exactly how I interpret it.

Again, you may wish to consult with a local real-estate attorney who is familiar with the local climate and past cases. As was pointed out, trying to build a garage would be a gamble, but the odds may be enough in your favor that you're willing to risk it.

 

[rstemen]

Right - that's exactly how I interpret it.

Again, you may wish to consult with a local real-estate attorney who is familiar with the local climate and past cases. As was pointed out, trying to build a garage would be a gamble, but the odds may be enough in your favor that you're willing to risk it.

Thanks again, also, is a swimming pool considered a structure? So, I could also not construct a swimming pool without taking a risk?

 

[justalayman]

Hey, what happened? I leave for 5 minutes and op and zigner have come to a consensus. Wow



As zigner said, consult an attorney who can review all the facts first hand and provide you with an opinion as to whether you would have a decent argument for your interpretation or more likely, whether you have a reasonable argument the rule is not enforceable due to a prior lack of enforcement. While we can speculate and suggest all day long, only somebody with access to all the actual facts is in a position to give you anything better than a guess.

 

[154NH773]

I interprete it as the others have. You already have a two car garage, and that is all that is permitted, attached or not.

I would err on the side of caution, since my experience is that a court decision is a crap-shoot. A judge may find either way, regardless of prior precedent or reason.