Posted on 01/18/2007 4:58:26 AM PST by Puppage
Not true, many rural property owners want zoning to discourage development (mostly subdivisions) from moving into their neck of the woods. Many landowners don't mind when it effects the new stranger building next door, but they don't realize is that they are also required to live by the same rules as the new guy.
Looks like Antwerp had quite a flood one day.
IOW, the child's playhouse should not be a target whatsoever, unless it has been proven that the family in question is renting it out to illegals or something.
I'm betting that you work for a zoning board, or that you p!ss off your neighbors on a regular basis. Go ahead and keep on apologizing for the bureaucrats. We don't need no stinkin' property rights!
I'm surprised she didn't point to the part of the law that states only permanent structures fall into the zoning regulations.
If this structure is set on cinderblock, it would not be considered permanent and wouldn't be subject to taxation or zoning law.
Good advice for everyone. Because knowing you can't build something may anger you, but having to tear down something just built is a real test for the emotions.
Having been a builder in CT in a previous life, I can tell you that zoning regs differ from town to town.
I love all the hysteria about "government" intrusions when it isn't government which does this by its nature but rather because these are things PEOPLE think they want government to do.
An easy solution would be to have the house remeasured for square footage because for some reason it always seems to be less than the builders claim. Of course, she would then have to allow authorities inside her home, which for tax purposes, is not a good idea.
Oh, please don't get me started on Connectiput - I've had the "pleasure" of living there. People get offended.
They're already doing that through the EPA.
Why do you think the term "wetlands" was created to replace "swamp"?
Resistance is futile, your playhouse will be assimilated.
What would determine the density. With out zoning they could go with 1/2 or 1/4 acre lots. Then it's no longer the quite wooded area with little traffic because you now have 200 families on a 100 acre plot of land.
Momma should go down to the local Toys R Us and buy a teddy bear. Then she should take it home, let the dog rip it up for a while, and then take it outside to grind it into the mud for a bit. Rip one of the eyes halfway off and puff the stuffing out artistically.
Then she should take it down to the zoning office, and tell them that the day after she demolishes the playhouse, the local TV reporter is going to "find" this teddy bear in the back-yard.
In cities total area of a building is limited and for good reasons since that has a big impact upon drainage, flooding of neighbor's property, flow into sewers etc. It isn't something most people would even consider significant and is not just bureaucrats on a rampage creating problems for the innocent citizen.
We create governments precisely to deal with such considerations and mostly they do. Such issues as this are unusual and news worthy but 99.999% of the government actions wrt property are standard and without controversy.
Small towns have much fewer potential problems since there is more wiggle room before one's actions impact another. There is no absolute freedom to do whatever one wishes with a piece of property or land even in the middle of nowhere. Never has been.
Nice playhouse. This gal needs to send copies of the "Ballad of Carl Drega" to those on the zoning board. These Nazi's need to be reigned in.
There is no property ownership in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.