rvmitchell
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Minnesota
I am going to post a letter that I wrote to our district's city council member first (names omitted):
May 25, 2009
Dear Councilman,
We are <names> of <address>. We are in the process of constructing a carriage house - a garage with an accessory dwelling unit above. We have gone to the HPC for demolition permission of our old garage (Case No. 2009-1-HPC) and for a design review permit (Case No. 2009-2-HPC). We have also acquired the special use permit (2009-1-CPC) and the building permit (Permit No. 2009-00328). We normally would have called but felt this situation a bit easier to spell out in a letter.
First, allow us to give some background. Stillwater City Code Sec. 31-501 Subd. 3. for RB districts (which applies to our property) states that "both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services..." Our special use permit states that "the accessory dwelling unit shall connect to public sanitary sewer and water service." The City Planner, <name>, told us this meant we would have to connect separate main lines from under the street to the carriage house. When we applied for our building permit and started talking to the building inspectors, <name> and <name>, they interpreted the same wording in a different manner saying that we could connect to the mains already on our property (those to the primary residence). <name> stated this manner of connecting was acceptable per the state building code.
After hearing a different interpretation, we decided to pursue the issue because it could save us ~$10,000. We met with <city planner> on Tuesday, May 19. When we asked him what the intent of the ordinance was he stated the intent is to avoid problems that may arise if the property is split into two separate properties in the future. He stated there have been issues in the past when splitting lots and not having separate main lines to public water and sanitary sewer lines. Given the layout of our property it seems to be very highly unlikely that anyone would want to split our lot or that the variances required would be granted. If the lot were split, there wouldn't be room for a garage or a driveway for the primary residence and there would not be room for a primary residence on the garage-half of the lot (there will only be 7 feet between the house and garage). We can't imagine the HPC (heritage preservation committee) would approve of splitting the garage-half lot into it's own separate property. If indeed the lot is split in the future, we suggested to put the condition of approval on installing separate mains when the request to split the lots was received. We don't understand why, on some ordinances we are being held to what could happen in the future, but other ordinances are applied to our property in it's current state (setbacks were applied as it was a single property, design standards were applied as it was a single property). In the future, we have plans to connect the main house to the garage thereby making it impossible to split. However, this "future thinking" is applied only in one direction.
We spoke with <building inspector> again when she was inspecting our footing. When we asked her about the problems that have aroused in the past that <city planner> pointed out, she stated these cases were duplexes that were split into condos. Splitting multi-plexes into condos seems perfectly reasonable and ordinances should be in place for those situations. Splitting a single-family residence into two does not seem reasonable or likely, especially in our case. Our property is not setup for splitting - we have absolutely no plans to split the lot.
<city planner> also stated the the water department would require us to connect a separate main water line to the carriage house and that it wouldn't be "that much more" to also connect the sanitary sewer at the same time. We have not spoken with the water department, but it is our understanding that the water department is trying to avoid issues they've had in the past with people connecting their garages to the water line before the meter thereby getting free water service. It is also our understanding that the city inspectors can inspect for this condition and not sign off unless utilities are being metered.
We understand that the carriage house needs to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water. The means by which we connect is not stated in the city code or on the special use permit. We feel that connecting to the main lines of the house is meeting the requirements of both city code and the special use permit. The primary residence is connected to municipal sanitary sewer and water, therefore the carriage house would also be connected to municipal lines.
We debated installing separate main lines and remaining silent in our disagreement, but we are talking about $10,000. That money could be put to much better use on a property we are trying to improve. This experience has left a sour taste in our mouths and everyone we've talked to also seems turned-off by the city's actions. We are coming to you in hopes that you can tell us what our next step should be. Please feel free to call us at <phone number>.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
<names>
P.S. We have attached the grading plan so you can get an idea of how the property is to be laid out.
After speaking with city staff, the councilman called me and stated that whatever the water department decides we have to do is what we have to do. Is this legal - that they can tell us how to connect the accessory dwelling unit to public water and sewer?
I am going to post a letter that I wrote to our district's city council member first (names omitted):
May 25, 2009
Dear Councilman,
We are <names> of <address>. We are in the process of constructing a carriage house - a garage with an accessory dwelling unit above. We have gone to the HPC for demolition permission of our old garage (Case No. 2009-1-HPC) and for a design review permit (Case No. 2009-2-HPC). We have also acquired the special use permit (2009-1-CPC) and the building permit (Permit No. 2009-00328). We normally would have called but felt this situation a bit easier to spell out in a letter.
First, allow us to give some background. Stillwater City Code Sec. 31-501 Subd. 3. for RB districts (which applies to our property) states that "both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services..." Our special use permit states that "the accessory dwelling unit shall connect to public sanitary sewer and water service." The City Planner, <name>, told us this meant we would have to connect separate main lines from under the street to the carriage house. When we applied for our building permit and started talking to the building inspectors, <name> and <name>, they interpreted the same wording in a different manner saying that we could connect to the mains already on our property (those to the primary residence). <name> stated this manner of connecting was acceptable per the state building code.
After hearing a different interpretation, we decided to pursue the issue because it could save us ~$10,000. We met with <city planner> on Tuesday, May 19. When we asked him what the intent of the ordinance was he stated the intent is to avoid problems that may arise if the property is split into two separate properties in the future. He stated there have been issues in the past when splitting lots and not having separate main lines to public water and sanitary sewer lines. Given the layout of our property it seems to be very highly unlikely that anyone would want to split our lot or that the variances required would be granted. If the lot were split, there wouldn't be room for a garage or a driveway for the primary residence and there would not be room for a primary residence on the garage-half of the lot (there will only be 7 feet between the house and garage). We can't imagine the HPC (heritage preservation committee) would approve of splitting the garage-half lot into it's own separate property. If indeed the lot is split in the future, we suggested to put the condition of approval on installing separate mains when the request to split the lots was received. We don't understand why, on some ordinances we are being held to what could happen in the future, but other ordinances are applied to our property in it's current state (setbacks were applied as it was a single property, design standards were applied as it was a single property). In the future, we have plans to connect the main house to the garage thereby making it impossible to split. However, this "future thinking" is applied only in one direction.
We spoke with <building inspector> again when she was inspecting our footing. When we asked her about the problems that have aroused in the past that <city planner> pointed out, she stated these cases were duplexes that were split into condos. Splitting multi-plexes into condos seems perfectly reasonable and ordinances should be in place for those situations. Splitting a single-family residence into two does not seem reasonable or likely, especially in our case. Our property is not setup for splitting - we have absolutely no plans to split the lot.
<city planner> also stated the the water department would require us to connect a separate main water line to the carriage house and that it wouldn't be "that much more" to also connect the sanitary sewer at the same time. We have not spoken with the water department, but it is our understanding that the water department is trying to avoid issues they've had in the past with people connecting their garages to the water line before the meter thereby getting free water service. It is also our understanding that the city inspectors can inspect for this condition and not sign off unless utilities are being metered.
We understand that the carriage house needs to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water. The means by which we connect is not stated in the city code or on the special use permit. We feel that connecting to the main lines of the house is meeting the requirements of both city code and the special use permit. The primary residence is connected to municipal sanitary sewer and water, therefore the carriage house would also be connected to municipal lines.
We debated installing separate main lines and remaining silent in our disagreement, but we are talking about $10,000. That money could be put to much better use on a property we are trying to improve. This experience has left a sour taste in our mouths and everyone we've talked to also seems turned-off by the city's actions. We are coming to you in hopes that you can tell us what our next step should be. Please feel free to call us at <phone number>.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
<names>
P.S. We have attached the grading plan so you can get an idea of how the property is to be laid out.
After speaking with city staff, the councilman called me and stated that whatever the water department decides we have to do is what we have to do. Is this legal - that they can tell us how to connect the accessory dwelling unit to public water and sewer?