Obama tore down Robin's Nest with video

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

It is a shame the house couldn't be saved, but at least it seems the "guesthouse"/boathouse is going to stay. It would be nice if they kept the exterior of that as original.

The good news is that they likely will keep it pretty original. They are limited in the amount of exterior renovation because it is a non-conforming structure. That basically means they can’t remove it or significantly alter it because current zoning wouldn’t allow it to be built there at all. It’s proximity to the sand makes it quite valuable and if torn down to the foundation, for example, or too significantly otherwise modified, it can’t be rebuilt and must be entirely removed.

I have a feeling that the gatehouse’s proximity to the highway is playing a similar role in it remaining. It already has a garage stall and may have others added in an area that would otherwise be unbuildable with current codes. All these rules have to do with setbacks from the property lines and the water.

But the gatehouse is far away from the water. Is it too close to the road or something? Why would it be unbuildable in that spot today?

[Pahonu]

It is a shame the house couldn't be saved, but at least it seems the "guesthouse"/boathouse is going to stay. It would be nice if they kept the exterior of that as original.

The good news is that they likely will keep it pretty original. They are limited in the amount of exterior renovation because it is a non-conforming structure. That basically means they can’t remove it or significantly alter it because current zoning wouldn’t allow it to be built there at all. It’s proximity to the sand makes it quite valuable and if torn down to the foundation, for example, or too significantly otherwise modified, it can’t be rebuilt and must be entirely removed.

I have a feeling that the gatehouse’s proximity to the highway is playing a similar role in it remaining. It already has a garage stall and may have others added in an area that would otherwise be unbuildable with current codes. All these rules have to do with setbacks from the property lines and the water.

But the gatehouse is far away from the water. Is it too close to the road or something? Why would it be unbuildable in that spot today?

I don’t know this for certain, but yes, the gatehouse is likely closer to the road than is allowed by current code. Assuming the perimeter wall is at the limit of the property line by the highway allowing for easements, the gatehouse is just about three feet from the wall. Neighboring properties have structures with much further setbacks. Moving it back 15 or 20 feet to meet current code would make no economic sense.

Most residential properties have significant front setbacks, 20 feet being a typical minimum. This is the “front” yard. Occasionally in older neighborhoods one might find houses that are closer to the road as they were constructed before formal zoning rules were codified. There is such a property near us in the Belmont Shore neighborhood of Long Beach.

On a very desirable street right on Alamitos Bay called Bayshore, all the houses are set back from the sand, by a narrow road, then a 5-foot sidewalk, plus 15 feet of front yard. All of them except one Spanish home that projects forward and has a big window just about five feet from the sidewalk. Their views are significantly better because of this. If this house was torn down, and it isn’t very big, the new setback would be required. So there it remains.

In the case of Pahonu, keeping both structures allows for more space to build other amenities such as a pool or parking areas on what is very valuable property. It’s smart planning based on current code. I’ll se if I can find some Google Earth images showing examples of existing structures in currently unbuildable areas. Sometimes they really stand out for their closeness to the road, as we are not used to that today.

I am certain after reading the 150+ page EIR regarding the sea wall renovations, that the boathouse is too close to the water based on current code. In fact, it is in an entirely unbuildable area, AND part of the sea wall in front of it is actually on public land.

Edit:

Here are a couple of photos of the house I mentioned. It’s the yellow single story with a terracotta tile roof. Compare its location to the setbacks on the houses surrounding.

https://ibb.co/gtHfPv5
https://ibb.co/C7xbQmt

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

It is a shame the house couldn't be saved, but at least it seems the "guesthouse"/boathouse is going to stay. It would be nice if they kept the exterior of that as original.

The good news is that they likely will keep it pretty original. They are limited in the amount of exterior renovation because it is a non-conforming structure. That basically means they can’t remove it or significantly alter it because current zoning wouldn’t allow it to be built there at all. It’s proximity to the sand makes it quite valuable and if torn down to the foundation, for example, or too significantly otherwise modified, it can’t be rebuilt and must be entirely removed.

I have a feeling that the gatehouse’s proximity to the highway is playing a similar role in it remaining. It already has a garage stall and may have others added in an area that would otherwise be unbuildable with current codes. All these rules have to do with setbacks from the property lines and the water.

But the gatehouse is far away from the water. Is it too close to the road or something? Why would it be unbuildable in that spot today?

I don’t know this for certain, but yes, the gatehouse is likely closer to the road than is allowed by current code. Assuming the perimeter wall is at the limit of the property line by the highway allowing for easements, the gatehouse is just about three feet from the wall. Neighboring properties have structures with much further setbacks. Moving it back 15 or 20 feet to meet current code would make no economic sense.

Most residential properties have significant front setbacks, 20 feet being a typical minimum. This is the “front” yard. Occasionally in older neighborhoods one might find houses that are closer to the road as they were constructed before formal zoning rules were codified. There is such a property near us in the Belmont Shore neighborhood of Long Beach.

On a very desirable street right on Alamitos Bay called Bayshore, all the houses are set back from the sand, by a narrow road, then a 5-foot sidewalk, plus 15 feet of front yard. All of them except one Spanish home that projects forward and has a big window just about five feet from the sidewalk. Their views are significantly better because of this. If this house was torn down, and it isn’t very big, the new setback would be required. So there it remains.

In the case of Pahonu, keeping both structures allows for more space to build other amenities such as a pool or parking areas on what is very valuable property. It’s smart planning based on current code. I’ll se if I can find some Google Earth images showing examples of existing structures in currently unbuildable areas. Sometimes they really stand out for their closeness to the road, as we are not used to that today.

I am certain after reading the 150+ page EIR regarding the sea wall renovations, that the boathouse is too close to the water based on current code. In fact, it is in an entirely unbuildable area, AND part of the sea wall in front of it is actually on public land.

Edit:

Here are a couple of photos of the house I mentioned. It’s the yellow single story with a terracotta tile roof. Compare its location to the setbacks on the houses surrounding.

https://ibb.co/gtHfPv5
https://ibb.co/C7xbQmt

I see. Thanks for those pics. In the case of Pahonu I never thought of the gatehouse as being too close to the road. In my mind as long as it's behind the rock wall it's all good. It's not in anybody's way. It's on private property. Guess it ain't as simple as that. Maybe at one time it was. Things sure used to be simpler.

[Pahonu]

It is a shame the house couldn't be saved, but at least it seems the "guesthouse"/boathouse is going to stay. It would be nice if they kept the exterior of that as original.

The good news is that they likely will keep it pretty original. They are limited in the amount of exterior renovation because it is a non-conforming structure. That basically means they can’t remove it or significantly alter it because current zoning wouldn’t allow it to be built there at all. It’s proximity to the sand makes it quite valuable and if torn down to the foundation, for example, or too significantly otherwise modified, it can’t be rebuilt and must be entirely removed.

I have a feeling that the gatehouse’s proximity to the highway is playing a similar role in it remaining. It already has a garage stall and may have others added in an area that would otherwise be unbuildable with current codes. All these rules have to do with setbacks from the property lines and the water.

But the gatehouse is far away from the water. Is it too close to the road or something? Why would it be unbuildable in that spot today?

I don’t know this for certain, but yes, the gatehouse is likely closer to the road than is allowed by current code. Assuming the perimeter wall is at the limit of the property line by the highway allowing for easements, the gatehouse is just about three feet from the wall. Neighboring properties have structures with much further setbacks. Moving it back 15 or 20 feet to meet current code would make no economic sense.

Most residential properties have significant front setbacks, 20 feet being a typical minimum. This is the “front” yard. Occasionally in older neighborhoods one might find houses that are closer to the road as they were constructed before formal zoning rules were codified. There is such a property near us in the Belmont Shore neighborhood of Long Beach.

On a very desirable street right on Alamitos Bay called Bayshore, all the houses are set back from the sand, by a narrow road, then a 5-foot sidewalk, plus 15 feet of front yard. All of them except one Spanish home that projects forward and has a big window just about five feet from the sidewalk. Their views are significantly better because of this. If this house was torn down, and it isn’t very big, the new setback would be required. So there it remains.

In the case of Pahonu, keeping both structures allows for more space to build other amenities such as a pool or parking areas on what is very valuable property. It’s smart planning based on current code. I’ll se if I can find some Google Earth images showing examples of existing structures in currently unbuildable areas. Sometimes they really stand out for their closeness to the road, as we are not used to that today.

I am certain after reading the 150+ page EIR regarding the sea wall renovations, that the boathouse is too close to the water based on current code. In fact, it is in an entirely unbuildable area, AND part of the sea wall in front of it is actually on public land.

Edit:

Here are a couple of photos of the house I mentioned. It’s the yellow single story with a terracotta tile roof. Compare its location to the setbacks on the houses surrounding.

https://ibb.co/gtHfPv5
https://ibb.co/C7xbQmt

I see. Thanks for those pics. In the case of Pahonu I never thought of the gatehouse as being too close to the road. In my mind as long as it's behind the rock wall it's all good. It's not in anybody's way. It's on private property. Guess it ain't as simple as that. Maybe at one time it was. Things sure used to be simpler.

No worries. Lots of people don’t know about the numerous regulations that affect our built environment, and mostly for the better. Sure, you hear about individuals being frustrated sometimes by building limitations, but they generally benefit everyone in the area.

I’ve been teaching in an architecture and engineering career-focused academy at my high school for over 20 years. In addition to my interest in historical architecture, I have become well acquainted with the Uniform Building Code, and other zoning and construction regulation requirements that exist in nearly every community. Most of these rules emerged out of safety and aesthetic considerations, and vary widely by location.

For example, in highly urban settings, building right to the side lot lines is standard, think brownstones in NY. The front of the building usually only allows for the sidewalk easement and some steps. In suburban settings, significant front setbacks are common and at least some side setbacks for light and ventilation.

I don’t know your living circumstances, but perhaps it’s a suburban setting. Imagine how light and ventilation would be affected if the building next to you was allowed to be built right up to yours and many stories high… and was a factory! A lot of people don’t realize all these regulations exist, but would probably not be happy with the results if they didn’t.

When new towns were created and the first structures built, the need for such zoning and regulations wasn’t much needed. Urbanization led to many problems that had to be solved and this is one of several methods.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

The good news is that they likely will keep it pretty original. They are limited in the amount of exterior renovation because it is a non-conforming structure. That basically means they can’t remove it or significantly alter it because current zoning wouldn’t allow it to be built there at all. It’s proximity to the sand makes it quite valuable and if torn down to the foundation, for example, or too significantly otherwise modified, it can’t be rebuilt and must be entirely removed.

I have a feeling that the gatehouse’s proximity to the highway is playing a similar role in it remaining. It already has a garage stall and may have others added in an area that would otherwise be unbuildable with current codes. All these rules have to do with setbacks from the property lines and the water.

But the gatehouse is far away from the water. Is it too close to the road or something? Why would it be unbuildable in that spot today?

I don’t know this for certain, but yes, the gatehouse is likely closer to the road than is allowed by current code. Assuming the perimeter wall is at the limit of the property line by the highway allowing for easements, the gatehouse is just about three feet from the wall. Neighboring properties have structures with much further setbacks. Moving it back 15 or 20 feet to meet current code would make no economic sense.

Most residential properties have significant front setbacks, 20 feet being a typical minimum. This is the “front” yard. Occasionally in older neighborhoods one might find houses that are closer to the road as they were constructed before formal zoning rules were codified. There is such a property near us in the Belmont Shore neighborhood of Long Beach.

On a very desirable street right on Alamitos Bay called Bayshore, all the houses are set back from the sand, by a narrow road, then a 5-foot sidewalk, plus 15 feet of front yard. All of them except one Spanish home that projects forward and has a big window just about five feet from the sidewalk. Their views are significantly better because of this. If this house was torn down, and it isn’t very big, the new setback would be required. So there it remains.

In the case of Pahonu, keeping both structures allows for more space to build other amenities such as a pool or parking areas on what is very valuable property. It’s smart planning based on current code. I’ll se if I can find some Google Earth images showing examples of existing structures in currently unbuildable areas. Sometimes they really stand out for their closeness to the road, as we are not used to that today.

I am certain after reading the 150+ page EIR regarding the sea wall renovations, that the boathouse is too close to the water based on current code. In fact, it is in an entirely unbuildable area, AND part of the sea wall in front of it is actually on public land.

Edit:

Here are a couple of photos of the house I mentioned. It’s the yellow single story with a terracotta tile roof. Compare its location to the setbacks on the houses surrounding.

https://ibb.co/gtHfPv5
https://ibb.co/C7xbQmt

I see. Thanks for those pics. In the case of Pahonu I never thought of the gatehouse as being too close to the road. In my mind as long as it's behind the rock wall it's all good. It's not in anybody's way. It's on private property. Guess it ain't as simple as that. Maybe at one time it was. Things sure used to be simpler.

No worries. Lots of people don’t know about the numerous regulations that affect our built environment, and mostly for the better. Sure, you hear about individuals being frustrated sometimes by building limitations, but they generally benefit everyone in the area.

I’ve been teaching in an architecture and engineering career-focused academy at my high school for over 20 years. In addition to my interest in historical architecture, I have become well acquainted with the Uniform Building Code, and other zoning and construction regulation requirements that exist in nearly every community. Most of these rules emerged out of safety and aesthetic considerations, and vary widely by location.

For example, in highly urban settings, building right to the side lot lines is standard, think brownstones in NY. The front of the building usually only allows for the sidewalk easement and some steps. In suburban settings, significant front setbacks are common and at least some side setbacks for light and ventilation.

I don’t know your living circumstances, but perhaps it’s a suburban setting. Imagine how light and ventilation would be affected if the building next to you was allowed to be built right up to yours and many stories high… and was a factory! A lot of people don’t realize all these regulations exist, but would probably not be happy with the results if they didn’t.

When new towns were created and the first structures built, the need for such zoning and regulations wasn’t much needed. Urbanization led to many problems that had to be solved and this is one of several methods.

True, but in the case of Pahonu urbanization is not an issue. The gatehouse is against the rock wall, which is close to Kalanianaole Hwy but that doesn't interfere with anything. It's not too close to the neighboring property so as to prevent ventilation or sunlight. So that isn't an issue either. There's enough room between properties. Also there aren't any sidewalks along Kalanianaole Hwy so one can't even make the argument that the rock wall/gatehouse somehow encroach on that. And it's well clear of the main road. So it all looks fine to me. But I'm sure it's something we don't know about.

[Pahonu]

But the gatehouse is far away from the water. Is it too close to the road or something? Why would it be unbuildable in that spot today?

I don’t know this for certain, but yes, the gatehouse is likely closer to the road than is allowed by current code. Assuming the perimeter wall is at the limit of the property line by the highway allowing for easements, the gatehouse is just about three feet from the wall. Neighboring properties have structures with much further setbacks. Moving it back 15 or 20 feet to meet current code would make no economic sense.

Most residential properties have significant front setbacks, 20 feet being a typical minimum. This is the “front” yard. Occasionally in older neighborhoods one might find houses that are closer to the road as they were constructed before formal zoning rules were codified. There is such a property near us in the Belmont Shore neighborhood of Long Beach.

On a very desirable street right on Alamitos Bay called Bayshore, all the houses are set back from the sand, by a narrow road, then a 5-foot sidewalk, plus 15 feet of front yard. All of them except one Spanish home that projects forward and has a big window just about five feet from the sidewalk. Their views are significantly better because of this. If this house was torn down, and it isn’t very big, the new setback would be required. So there it remains.

In the case of Pahonu, keeping both structures allows for more space to build other amenities such as a pool or parking areas on what is very valuable property. It’s smart planning based on current code. I’ll se if I can find some Google Earth images showing examples of existing structures in currently unbuildable areas. Sometimes they really stand out for their closeness to the road, as we are not used to that today.

I am certain after reading the 150+ page EIR regarding the sea wall renovations, that the boathouse is too close to the water based on current code. In fact, it is in an entirely unbuildable area, AND part of the sea wall in front of it is actually on public land.

Edit:

Here are a couple of photos of the house I mentioned. It’s the yellow single story with a terracotta tile roof. Compare its location to the setbacks on the houses surrounding.

https://ibb.co/gtHfPv5
https://ibb.co/C7xbQmt

I see. Thanks for those pics. In the case of Pahonu I never thought of the gatehouse as being too close to the road. In my mind as long as it's behind the rock wall it's all good. It's not in anybody's way. It's on private property. Guess it ain't as simple as that. Maybe at one time it was. Things sure used to be simpler.

No worries. Lots of people don’t know about the numerous regulations that affect our built environment, and mostly for the better. Sure, you hear about individuals being frustrated sometimes by building limitations, but they generally benefit everyone in the area.

I’ve been teaching in an architecture and engineering career-focused academy at my high school for over 20 years. In addition to my interest in historical architecture, I have become well acquainted with the Uniform Building Code, and other zoning and construction regulation requirements that exist in nearly every community. Most of these rules emerged out of safety and aesthetic considerations, and vary widely by location.

For example, in highly urban settings, building right to the side lot lines is standard, think brownstones in NY. The front of the building usually only allows for the sidewalk easement and some steps. In suburban settings, significant front setbacks are common and at least some side setbacks for light and ventilation.

I don’t know your living circumstances, but perhaps it’s a suburban setting. Imagine how light and ventilation would be affected if the building next to you was allowed to be built right up to yours and many stories high… and was a factory! A lot of people don’t realize all these regulations exist, but would probably not be happy with the results if they didn’t.

When new towns were created and the first structures built, the need for such zoning and regulations wasn’t much needed. Urbanization led to many problems that had to be solved and this is one of several methods.

True, but in the case of Pahonu urbanization is not an issue. The gatehouse is against the rock wall, which is close to Kalanianaole Hwy but that doesn't interfere with anything. It's not too close to the neighboring property so as to prevent ventilation or sunlight. So that isn't an issue either. There's enough room between properties. Also there aren't any sidewalks along Kalanianaole Hwy so one can't even make the argument that the rock wall/gatehouse somehow encroach on that. And it's well clear of the main road. So it all looks fine to me. But I'm sure it's something we don't know about.

I may be wrong, but I’m making an assumption that you haven’t ever done a major renovation or construction project on your home requiring permits. You would not forget some of these things if you had experienced it! Working in the academy I mentioned, I actually now teach some of this. When I was in college my family did a major addition and I was introduced to the process as I drew the construction documents for my father… and redrew them… and again for some details.

The gatehouse issue is likely the proximity to the property line. Here’s why. These building regulations apply to the zone of development the structure is in and are not created for each individual property. For example, a neighborhood may be zoned R-1 meaning a single residence per property, no commercial, industrial, etc... The minimum property size is also prescribed along with the percent of the lot that can be covered by habitable structure, parking requirements, and many other things. Building heights and setbacks are also established relative to the property boundaries and any easements established, typically for sidewalks or utilities. If the property borders a natural geographic feature such as the ocean, river, lake, wetlands, etc… there are many more restrictions to protect those.

The key to understand is that all buildings in that zone must comply with the rules or else file for a variance of non-conformance. That petition for a variance requires neighbors to approve and in some cases, open meetings at the local zoning authority. It can be far easier to simply let a non-conforming structure remain and only renovate it to the limit of the current regulations. That’s what’s happening with both structures at Pahonu but for different reasons based on the code.

The same is true for the sea walls, but in that case significant alterations meant a very complex process of approval. The changes required massive investment of resources for an EIR and all the engineering drawings, plus the time it took and the fees that Mrs. Anderson had to pay to assure the alterations would be approved. Her property value would have plummeted if the sea wall improvements weren’t approved.

Even though there is no sidewalk in front of Pahonu, the wall is not allowed to be built to the highway. An easement exists for the possibility of future sidewalk construction. You may not be aware but there is an easement for a storm water pipe running right through the Pahonu property from a drain at the highway to the exit pipe by the gate at the sea wall that we are all familiar with. Nothing can be built above that drain pipe even though it’s right in the middle of the property. It partly explains why the main house is so close to the east side of the property rather than more central. I’ll attach a picture highlighting that easement.

https://ibb.co/37k087r

By the way, there was a time when none of these restrictions existed and the results for the surrounding natural environment were horrible, i.e. polluted water, fish die-offs, and other problems. Pahonu’s sea walls and others ultimately led to significant beach erosion. This has happened many places along the US coastline.

Let me know if I’m boring you! I’m a teacher and get into teacher mode.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I don’t know this for certain, but yes, the gatehouse is likely closer to the road than is allowed by current code. Assuming the perimeter wall is at the limit of the property line by the highway allowing for easements, the gatehouse is just about three feet from the wall. Neighboring properties have structures with much further setbacks. Moving it back 15 or 20 feet to meet current code would make no economic sense.

Most residential properties have significant front setbacks, 20 feet being a typical minimum. This is the “front” yard. Occasionally in older neighborhoods one might find houses that are closer to the road as they were constructed before formal zoning rules were codified. There is such a property near us in the Belmont Shore neighborhood of Long Beach.

On a very desirable street right on Alamitos Bay called Bayshore, all the houses are set back from the sand, by a narrow road, then a 5-foot sidewalk, plus 15 feet of front yard. All of them except one Spanish home that projects forward and has a big window just about five feet from the sidewalk. Their views are significantly better because of this. If this house was torn down, and it isn’t very big, the new setback would be required. So there it remains.

In the case of Pahonu, keeping both structures allows for more space to build other amenities such as a pool or parking areas on what is very valuable property. It’s smart planning based on current code. I’ll se if I can find some Google Earth images showing examples of existing structures in currently unbuildable areas. Sometimes they really stand out for their closeness to the road, as we are not used to that today.

I am certain after reading the 150+ page EIR regarding the sea wall renovations, that the boathouse is too close to the water based on current code. In fact, it is in an entirely unbuildable area, AND part of the sea wall in front of it is actually on public land.

Edit:

Here are a couple of photos of the house I mentioned. It’s the yellow single story with a terracotta tile roof. Compare its location to the setbacks on the houses surrounding.

https://ibb.co/gtHfPv5
https://ibb.co/C7xbQmt

I see. Thanks for those pics. In the case of Pahonu I never thought of the gatehouse as being too close to the road. In my mind as long as it's behind the rock wall it's all good. It's not in anybody's way. It's on private property. Guess it ain't as simple as that. Maybe at one time it was. Things sure used to be simpler.

No worries. Lots of people don’t know about the numerous regulations that affect our built environment, and mostly for the better. Sure, you hear about individuals being frustrated sometimes by building limitations, but they generally benefit everyone in the area.

I’ve been teaching in an architecture and engineering career-focused academy at my high school for over 20 years. In addition to my interest in historical architecture, I have become well acquainted with the Uniform Building Code, and other zoning and construction regulation requirements that exist in nearly every community. Most of these rules emerged out of safety and aesthetic considerations, and vary widely by location.

For example, in highly urban settings, building right to the side lot lines is standard, think brownstones in NY. The front of the building usually only allows for the sidewalk easement and some steps. In suburban settings, significant front setbacks are common and at least some side setbacks for light and ventilation.

I don’t know your living circumstances, but perhaps it’s a suburban setting. Imagine how light and ventilation would be affected if the building next to you was allowed to be built right up to yours and many stories high… and was a factory! A lot of people don’t realize all these regulations exist, but would probably not be happy with the results if they didn’t.

When new towns were created and the first structures built, the need for such zoning and regulations wasn’t much needed. Urbanization led to many problems that had to be solved and this is one of several methods.

True, but in the case of Pahonu urbanization is not an issue. The gatehouse is against the rock wall, which is close to Kalanianaole Hwy but that doesn't interfere with anything. It's not too close to the neighboring property so as to prevent ventilation or sunlight. So that isn't an issue either. There's enough room between properties. Also there aren't any sidewalks along Kalanianaole Hwy so one can't even make the argument that the rock wall/gatehouse somehow encroach on that. And it's well clear of the main road. So it all looks fine to me. But I'm sure it's something we don't know about.

I may be wrong, but I’m making an assumption that you haven’t ever done a major renovation or construction project on your home requiring permits. You would not forget some of these things if you had experienced it! Working in the academy I mentioned, I actually now teach some of this. When I was in college my family did a major addition and I was introduced to the process as I drew the construction documents for my father… and redrew them… and again for some details.

The gatehouse issue is likely the proximity to the property line. Here’s why. These building regulations apply to the zone of development the structure is in and are not created for each individual property. For example, a neighborhood may be zoned R-1 meaning a single residence per property, no commercial, industrial, etc... The minimum property size is also prescribed along with the percent of the lot that can be covered by habitable structure, parking requirements, and many other things. Building heights and setbacks are also established relative to the property boundaries and any easements established, typically for sidewalks or utilities. If the property borders a natural geographic feature such as the ocean, river, lake, wetlands, etc… there are many more restrictions to protect those.

The key to understand is that all buildings in that zone must comply with the rules or else file for a variance of non-conformance. That petition for a variance requires neighbors to approve and in some cases, open meetings at the local zoning authority. It can be far easier to simply let a non-conforming structure remain and only renovate it to the limit of the current regulations. That’s what’s happening with both structures at Pahonu but for different reasons based on the code.

The same is true for the sea walls, but in that case significant alterations meant a very complex process of approval. The changes required massive investment of resources for an EIR and all the engineering drawings, plus the time it took and the fees that Mrs. Anderson had to pay to assure the alterations would be approved. Her property value would have plummeted if the sea wall improvements weren’t approved.

Even though there is no sidewalk in front of Pahonu, the wall is not allowed to be built to the highway. An easement exists for the possibility of future sidewalk construction. You may not be aware but there is an easement for a storm water pipe running right through the Pahonu property from a drain at the highway to the exit pipe by the gate at the sea wall that we are all familiar with. Nothing can be built above that drain pipe even though it’s right in the middle of the property. It partly explains why the main house is so close to the east side of the property rather than more central. I’ll attach a picture highlighting that easement.

https://ibb.co/37k087r

By the way, there was a time when none of these restrictions existed and the results for the surrounding natural environment were horrible, i.e. polluted water, fish die-offs, and other problems. Pahonu’s sea walls and others ultimately led to significant beach erosion. This has happened many places along the US coastline.

Let me know if I’m boring you! I’m a teacher and get into teacher mode.

Quit boring me, will ya? I kid, I kid. It's all pretty fascinating and I'm familiar with permits. I had to get one in order to get permission to have a roof installed over my rear patio. Which makes no sense because the property once had this roof in place, before it deteriorated and caved in (under previous ownership). So I was only putting back what was originally there and what all my neighboring houses of the same structure also have. Again, sometimes these things don't make any sense. Other than to get into my pockets to take some money for themselves (the township).

[Pahonu]

I see. Thanks for those pics. In the case of Pahonu I never thought of the gatehouse as being too close to the road. In my mind as long as it's behind the rock wall it's all good. It's not in anybody's way. It's on private property. Guess it ain't as simple as that. Maybe at one time it was. Things sure used to be simpler.

No worries. Lots of people don’t know about the numerous regulations that affect our built environment, and mostly for the better. Sure, you hear about individuals being frustrated sometimes by building limitations, but they generally benefit everyone in the area.

I’ve been teaching in an architecture and engineering career-focused academy at my high school for over 20 years. In addition to my interest in historical architecture, I have become well acquainted with the Uniform Building Code, and other zoning and construction regulation requirements that exist in nearly every community. Most of these rules emerged out of safety and aesthetic considerations, and vary widely by location.

For example, in highly urban settings, building right to the side lot lines is standard, think brownstones in NY. The front of the building usually only allows for the sidewalk easement and some steps. In suburban settings, significant front setbacks are common and at least some side setbacks for light and ventilation.

I don’t know your living circumstances, but perhaps it’s a suburban setting. Imagine how light and ventilation would be affected if the building next to you was allowed to be built right up to yours and many stories high… and was a factory! A lot of people don’t realize all these regulations exist, but would probably not be happy with the results if they didn’t.

When new towns were created and the first structures built, the need for such zoning and regulations wasn’t much needed. Urbanization led to many problems that had to be solved and this is one of several methods.

True, but in the case of Pahonu urbanization is not an issue. The gatehouse is against the rock wall, which is close to Kalanianaole Hwy but that doesn't interfere with anything. It's not too close to the neighboring property so as to prevent ventilation or sunlight. So that isn't an issue either. There's enough room between properties. Also there aren't any sidewalks along Kalanianaole Hwy so one can't even make the argument that the rock wall/gatehouse somehow encroach on that. And it's well clear of the main road. So it all looks fine to me. But I'm sure it's something we don't know about.

I may be wrong, but I’m making an assumption that you haven’t ever done a major renovation or construction project on your home requiring permits. You would not forget some of these things if you had experienced it! Working in the academy I mentioned, I actually now teach some of this. When I was in college my family did a major addition and I was introduced to the process as I drew the construction documents for my father… and redrew them… and again for some details.

The gatehouse issue is likely the proximity to the property line. Here’s why. These building regulations apply to the zone of development the structure is in and are not created for each individual property. For example, a neighborhood may be zoned R-1 meaning a single residence per property, no commercial, industrial, etc... The minimum property size is also prescribed along with the percent of the lot that can be covered by habitable structure, parking requirements, and many other things. Building heights and setbacks are also established relative to the property boundaries and any easements established, typically for sidewalks or utilities. If the property borders a natural geographic feature such as the ocean, river, lake, wetlands, etc… there are many more restrictions to protect those.

The key to understand is that all buildings in that zone must comply with the rules or else file for a variance of non-conformance. That petition for a variance requires neighbors to approve and in some cases, open meetings at the local zoning authority. It can be far easier to simply let a non-conforming structure remain and only renovate it to the limit of the current regulations. That’s what’s happening with both structures at Pahonu but for different reasons based on the code.

The same is true for the sea walls, but in that case significant alterations meant a very complex process of approval. The changes required massive investment of resources for an EIR and all the engineering drawings, plus the time it took and the fees that Mrs. Anderson had to pay to assure the alterations would be approved. Her property value would have plummeted if the sea wall improvements weren’t approved.

Even though there is no sidewalk in front of Pahonu, the wall is not allowed to be built to the highway. An easement exists for the possibility of future sidewalk construction. You may not be aware but there is an easement for a storm water pipe running right through the Pahonu property from a drain at the highway to the exit pipe by the gate at the sea wall that we are all familiar with. Nothing can be built above that drain pipe even though it’s right in the middle of the property. It partly explains why the main house is so close to the east side of the property rather than more central. I’ll attach a picture highlighting that easement.

https://ibb.co/37k087r

By the way, there was a time when none of these restrictions existed and the results for the surrounding natural environment were horrible, i.e. polluted water, fish die-offs, and other problems. Pahonu’s sea walls and others ultimately led to significant beach erosion. This has happened many places along the US coastline.

Let me know if I’m boring you! I’m a teacher and get into teacher mode.

Quit boring me, will ya? I kid, I kid. It's all pretty fascinating and I'm familiar with permits. I had to get one in order to get permission to have a roof installed over my rear patio. Which makes no sense because the property once had this roof in place, before it deteriorated and caved in (under previous ownership). So I was only putting back what was originally there and what all my neighboring houses of the same structure also have. Again, sometimes these things don't make any sense. Other than to get into my pockets to take some money for themselves (the township).

Caved in! Of course, no one likes paying for permits and inspections, but I’m going to guess the structure that failed was perhaps not permitted. It happens all the time and then when something bad occurs, like a collapse, people are shocked. How could that have happened? Even if it was permitted, it happened because the structure was neglected, possibly structurally underbuilt from the start, and no longer properly waterproofed because of neglect. Either way, I’m glad you got it permitted for you and your family’s safety.

Did you happen to follow the news about the condo collapse in Surfside Florida this time last year? It killed almost 100 people. There were so many warning signs of problems yet many people’s response was shock about how that could possibly happen. Not to bore you, but engineers had recommended shutting down and draining the pool over a year earlier. It was badly leaking and causing significant deterioration of the parking structure below which was the foundation of the building. The HOA president had recently resigned after giving up on trying to get repairs and maintenance done multiple times. The owners voted down an assessment for repairs and to even drain the pool.

There were no city requirements for maintenance beyond a 40 inspection! A neighbor recorded sheets of water leaking from the pool into the parking structure entrance just days earlier. Then the tragedy happened. I read much later that some of the families are suing the developers next door claiming their construction caused the collapse. It’s pretty sad, but given a choice people who don’t understand the potential consequences will choose not to spend money on maintenance dramatically increasing their risk… then look somewhere else for blame.

You may not agree, but I’m glad California called for stricter inspections of similar types of structures after that tragedy. Many other states did nothing and Florida did next to nothing. I live in a similar development and they are testing the concrete foundation pilings and platform all over the complex this summer as I write this. Something similar happened a few years ago after a balcony in a San Francisco complex collapsed killing several college students. Around the time of the lockdown in 2020 they started checking all our balconies for water damage and other structural problems. Ours was resurfaced and the railing rebuilt. The fees we all pay the HOA didn’t just go to waste as many of my own neighbors have complained! I imagine they too would be shocked beyond belief if these things had been neglected here and then a tragedy occurred.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

No worries. Lots of people don’t know about the numerous regulations that affect our built environment, and mostly for the better. Sure, you hear about individuals being frustrated sometimes by building limitations, but they generally benefit everyone in the area.

I’ve been teaching in an architecture and engineering career-focused academy at my high school for over 20 years. In addition to my interest in historical architecture, I have become well acquainted with the Uniform Building Code, and other zoning and construction regulation requirements that exist in nearly every community. Most of these rules emerged out of safety and aesthetic considerations, and vary widely by location.

For example, in highly urban settings, building right to the side lot lines is standard, think brownstones in NY. The front of the building usually only allows for the sidewalk easement and some steps. In suburban settings, significant front setbacks are common and at least some side setbacks for light and ventilation.

I don’t know your living circumstances, but perhaps it’s a suburban setting. Imagine how light and ventilation would be affected if the building next to you was allowed to be built right up to yours and many stories high… and was a factory! A lot of people don’t realize all these regulations exist, but would probably not be happy with the results if they didn’t.

When new towns were created and the first structures built, the need for such zoning and regulations wasn’t much needed. Urbanization led to many problems that had to be solved and this is one of several methods.

True, but in the case of Pahonu urbanization is not an issue. The gatehouse is against the rock wall, which is close to Kalanianaole Hwy but that doesn't interfere with anything. It's not too close to the neighboring property so as to prevent ventilation or sunlight. So that isn't an issue either. There's enough room between properties. Also there aren't any sidewalks along Kalanianaole Hwy so one can't even make the argument that the rock wall/gatehouse somehow encroach on that. And it's well clear of the main road. So it all looks fine to me. But I'm sure it's something we don't know about.

I may be wrong, but I’m making an assumption that you haven’t ever done a major renovation or construction project on your home requiring permits. You would not forget some of these things if you had experienced it! Working in the academy I mentioned, I actually now teach some of this. When I was in college my family did a major addition and I was introduced to the process as I drew the construction documents for my father… and redrew them… and again for some details.

The gatehouse issue is likely the proximity to the property line. Here’s why. These building regulations apply to the zone of development the structure is in and are not created for each individual property. For example, a neighborhood may be zoned R-1 meaning a single residence per property, no commercial, industrial, etc... The minimum property size is also prescribed along with the percent of the lot that can be covered by habitable structure, parking requirements, and many other things. Building heights and setbacks are also established relative to the property boundaries and any easements established, typically for sidewalks or utilities. If the property borders a natural geographic feature such as the ocean, river, lake, wetlands, etc… there are many more restrictions to protect those.

The key to understand is that all buildings in that zone must comply with the rules or else file for a variance of non-conformance. That petition for a variance requires neighbors to approve and in some cases, open meetings at the local zoning authority. It can be far easier to simply let a non-conforming structure remain and only renovate it to the limit of the current regulations. That’s what’s happening with both structures at Pahonu but for different reasons based on the code.

The same is true for the sea walls, but in that case significant alterations meant a very complex process of approval. The changes required massive investment of resources for an EIR and all the engineering drawings, plus the time it took and the fees that Mrs. Anderson had to pay to assure the alterations would be approved. Her property value would have plummeted if the sea wall improvements weren’t approved.

Even though there is no sidewalk in front of Pahonu, the wall is not allowed to be built to the highway. An easement exists for the possibility of future sidewalk construction. You may not be aware but there is an easement for a storm water pipe running right through the Pahonu property from a drain at the highway to the exit pipe by the gate at the sea wall that we are all familiar with. Nothing can be built above that drain pipe even though it’s right in the middle of the property. It partly explains why the main house is so close to the east side of the property rather than more central. I’ll attach a picture highlighting that easement.

https://ibb.co/37k087r

By the way, there was a time when none of these restrictions existed and the results for the surrounding natural environment were horrible, i.e. polluted water, fish die-offs, and other problems. Pahonu’s sea walls and others ultimately led to significant beach erosion. This has happened many places along the US coastline.

Let me know if I’m boring you! I’m a teacher and get into teacher mode.

Quit boring me, will ya? I kid, I kid. It's all pretty fascinating and I'm familiar with permits. I had to get one in order to get permission to have a roof installed over my rear patio. Which makes no sense because the property once had this roof in place, before it deteriorated and caved in (under previous ownership). So I was only putting back what was originally there and what all my neighboring houses of the same structure also have. Again, sometimes these things don't make any sense. Other than to get into my pockets to take some money for themselves (the township).

Caved in! Of course, no one likes paying for permits and inspections, but I’m going to guess the structure that failed was perhaps not permitted. It happens all the time and then when something bad occurs, like a collapse, people are shocked. How could that have happened? Even if it was permitted, it happened because the structure was neglected, possibly structurally underbuilt from the start, and no longer properly waterproofed because of neglect. Either way, I’m glad you got it permitted for you and your family’s safety.

Nah, I don't think it's because someone snuck in a roof without obtaining a permit and it was incorrectly installed and as a result caved in. These houses were built back in the 50s. These are split-level single homes by the way. I have no idea if the roof was original or not but I'm sure it was there for a long time. Years of neglect and previous owners who basically destroyed the property was the culprit. Until a contractor purchased it and renovated it, minus the rear patio roof. So I had to get that installed on my own after purchasing the property from the contractor.

The incident in Florida certainly was tragic and there were warning signs for sure. Sad that had to happen. Of course my case is completely different. Just wanted to get a brand new roof installed that was previously there. I wasn't trying to reinforce some existing old roof that might or might not collapse.

[Pahonu]

True, but in the case of Pahonu urbanization is not an issue. The gatehouse is against the rock wall, which is close to Kalanianaole Hwy but that doesn't interfere with anything. It's not too close to the neighboring property so as to prevent ventilation or sunlight. So that isn't an issue either. There's enough room between properties. Also there aren't any sidewalks along Kalanianaole Hwy so one can't even make the argument that the rock wall/gatehouse somehow encroach on that. And it's well clear of the main road. So it all looks fine to me. But I'm sure it's something we don't know about.

I may be wrong, but I’m making an assumption that you haven’t ever done a major renovation or construction project on your home requiring permits. You would not forget some of these things if you had experienced it! Working in the academy I mentioned, I actually now teach some of this. When I was in college my family did a major addition and I was introduced to the process as I drew the construction documents for my father… and redrew them… and again for some details.

The gatehouse issue is likely the proximity to the property line. Here’s why. These building regulations apply to the zone of development the structure is in and are not created for each individual property. For example, a neighborhood may be zoned R-1 meaning a single residence per property, no commercial, industrial, etc... The minimum property size is also prescribed along with the percent of the lot that can be covered by habitable structure, parking requirements, and many other things. Building heights and setbacks are also established relative to the property boundaries and any easements established, typically for sidewalks or utilities. If the property borders a natural geographic feature such as the ocean, river, lake, wetlands, etc… there are many more restrictions to protect those.

The key to understand is that all buildings in that zone must comply with the rules or else file for a variance of non-conformance. That petition for a variance requires neighbors to approve and in some cases, open meetings at the local zoning authority. It can be far easier to simply let a non-conforming structure remain and only renovate it to the limit of the current regulations. That’s what’s happening with both structures at Pahonu but for different reasons based on the code.

The same is true for the sea walls, but in that case significant alterations meant a very complex process of approval. The changes required massive investment of resources for an EIR and all the engineering drawings, plus the time it took and the fees that Mrs. Anderson had to pay to assure the alterations would be approved. Her property value would have plummeted if the sea wall improvements weren’t approved.

Even though there is no sidewalk in front of Pahonu, the wall is not allowed to be built to the highway. An easement exists for the possibility of future sidewalk construction. You may not be aware but there is an easement for a storm water pipe running right through the Pahonu property from a drain at the highway to the exit pipe by the gate at the sea wall that we are all familiar with. Nothing can be built above that drain pipe even though it’s right in the middle of the property. It partly explains why the main house is so close to the east side of the property rather than more central. I’ll attach a picture highlighting that easement.

https://ibb.co/37k087r

By the way, there was a time when none of these restrictions existed and the results for the surrounding natural environment were horrible, i.e. polluted water, fish die-offs, and other problems. Pahonu’s sea walls and others ultimately led to significant beach erosion. This has happened many places along the US coastline.

Let me know if I’m boring you! I’m a teacher and get into teacher mode.

Quit boring me, will ya? I kid, I kid. It's all pretty fascinating and I'm familiar with permits. I had to get one in order to get permission to have a roof installed over my rear patio. Which makes no sense because the property once had this roof in place, before it deteriorated and caved in (under previous ownership). So I was only putting back what was originally there and what all my neighboring houses of the same structure also have. Again, sometimes these things don't make any sense. Other than to get into my pockets to take some money for themselves (the township).

Caved in! Of course, no one likes paying for permits and inspections, but I’m going to guess the structure that failed was perhaps not permitted. It happens all the time and then when something bad occurs, like a collapse, people are shocked. How could that have happened? Even if it was permitted, it happened because the structure was neglected, possibly structurally underbuilt from the start, and no longer properly waterproofed because of neglect. Either way, I’m glad you got it permitted for you and your family’s safety.

Nah, I don't think it's because someone snuck in a roof without obtaining a permit and it was incorrectly installed and as a result caved in. These houses were built back in the 50s. These are split-level single homes by the way. I have no idea if the roof was original or not but I'm sure it was there for a long time. Years of neglect and previous owners who basically destroyed the property was the culprit. Until a contractor purchased it and renovated it, minus the rear patio roof. So I had to get that installed on my own after purchasing the property from the contractor.

The incident in Florida certainly was tragic and there were warning signs for sure. Sad that had to happen. Of course my case is completely different. Just wanted to get a brand new roof installed that was previously there. I wasn't trying to reinforce some existing old roof that might or might not collapse.

I’m still glad you got it permitted. People don’t connect a new roof with possible structural problems but it’s not at all uncommon. I’ve seen examples where four or more layers of roof shingles exist. The code typically allows two, then it needs to be stripped, the sheathing examined for rot, new felt paper installed, then flashing, and finally new shingles. The multiple layers save money on all those things by just putting on a new layer, maybe half the cost. However, the structure may be damaged without knowing AND it’s almost impossible for that third and fourth layer to remain waterproof for long. Then there’s a structural problem like a roof collapse and people are shocked.

My father was an electrician and other friends and family members were also tradesman. It’s stunning some of the things they encountered in people’s homes. I remember growing up hearing some of the horror stories. My father literally walked out of a job once when he opened an electrical panel at a house and saw unbelievably dangerous “home repairs”. The owner said that’s why they called him, but wouldn’t agree to shut down all power for the next day or two to safely fix the giant mess. There was no way he was going to touch it circuit by circuit. I realize just how dangerous some of those circumstances were now. Sadly, many people still don’t.

There are websites by inspectors and contractors showing these kinds of nightmare home repairs.

https://www.familyhandyman.com/list/100 ... re-photos/