In 2007, I foolishly sold my house & spent the proceeds & most of my life savings on an 800sq ft waterfront shack, expecting to tear down the cabin & build a modest retirement home on this very small (but very expensive) piece of lake-front property. The first step towards getting a building permit was to have the land surveyed, which was done by an experienced, licensed surveyor. The many other expensive steps necessary to get a waterfront building permit were finally done & reviewed by the city &, after approx. 20 months, I was granted my building permit. Six weeks later, my building permit was declared invalid because the survey was belatedly found to be inaccurate re the ordinary high water mark. (The "21 day rule" did not apply because the permit was granted on the basis of incorrect survey information.) My house design & everything else submitted to the City for my building permit was based on this survey.
In hope of resolving this matter so I could build a house similar to the original design, & get my permit re-issued, I hired an architect to intercede with the City on my behalf. After spending an additional $15,000 on architect consultation fees, my only building options were to get the existing permit modified, "allowing" me to build a tiny home, with a much-reduced lake view, which is is not worth the cost to build & doesn't meet even my modest needs; or to start from scratch & design new house plans that will have to go through the lengthy, expensive shorelines building permit review process. I chose the latter option & am now having to resubmit (& pay AGAIN for) everything required for a new waterfront building permit.
My QUESTION: What is my surveyor liable for, if anything? He redid the survey at no charge 2 months after my permit was rescinded. I had no written agreement with the surveyor, who was an acquaintance of mine - I just gave him the property address & paid him when he completed his (incorrect!) survey.
If the surveyor had done the survey accurately, my designer would not have prepared unusable plans & I would have been aware 2 yrs ago that high water setback requirements would greatly affect the size, design & siting of my house. I would not have spent thousands of dollars on useless design plans & an invalid, expensive building permit, nor would I have engaged an architect to investigate this situation & try to negotiate a more favorable outcome with the City. I would not have been living in a rental situation for (quite) as many years as have elapsed since I sold my long-time house to fund this catastrophe. Additionally, in 12/07, the City required me to deposit $41,000 to be held in case of any damage to City property during the building of my house. The City still has my $41,000 which I have obviously been unable to invest or use during these years of permit review & then the additional time taken to try to resolve permit problems created by the inaccurate survey.
Thanks for any messages (other than of the "wow, you're an idiot" variety!)
In hope of resolving this matter so I could build a house similar to the original design, & get my permit re-issued, I hired an architect to intercede with the City on my behalf. After spending an additional $15,000 on architect consultation fees, my only building options were to get the existing permit modified, "allowing" me to build a tiny home, with a much-reduced lake view, which is is not worth the cost to build & doesn't meet even my modest needs; or to start from scratch & design new house plans that will have to go through the lengthy, expensive shorelines building permit review process. I chose the latter option & am now having to resubmit (& pay AGAIN for) everything required for a new waterfront building permit.
My QUESTION: What is my surveyor liable for, if anything? He redid the survey at no charge 2 months after my permit was rescinded. I had no written agreement with the surveyor, who was an acquaintance of mine - I just gave him the property address & paid him when he completed his (incorrect!) survey.
If the surveyor had done the survey accurately, my designer would not have prepared unusable plans & I would have been aware 2 yrs ago that high water setback requirements would greatly affect the size, design & siting of my house. I would not have spent thousands of dollars on useless design plans & an invalid, expensive building permit, nor would I have engaged an architect to investigate this situation & try to negotiate a more favorable outcome with the City. I would not have been living in a rental situation for (quite) as many years as have elapsed since I sold my long-time house to fund this catastrophe. Additionally, in 12/07, the City required me to deposit $41,000 to be held in case of any damage to City property during the building of my house. The City still has my $41,000 which I have obviously been unable to invest or use during these years of permit review & then the additional time taken to try to resolve permit problems created by the inaccurate survey.
Thanks for any messages (other than of the "wow, you're an idiot" variety!)
