<p>Wasdad, I feel your pain on the deck. Building permits are based on construction cost here and very easy to predict. Decks generally run a couple hundred. You couldn’t just do an extensive repair of that deck without permits? Generally no environmental impact statements if you are replacing something existing, or if there is one the architect just fills out a one page form saying “no impact” and no one argues. </p>
<p>I’ve been on both sides of the wetland issue.</p>
<p>Speaking of trees, how have ya’ll experienced danger from trees on nearby lots being handled. Our very sweet neighbors have two huge Great Firs which will smash my home to smithereens and likely kill any one inside should one topple. After last winter’s WA storms (you know what I mean, WADad) we are a bit nervous, especially about the one which looks less healthy. Who is responsible? Them? Us? Both? The trees are on their property on an easement area- I think the easement is for a potential road widening spot</p>
<p>I think they are responsible. My understanding is that you need to get a certified arborist to say that the trees are a danger to your house, but they will have to pay for the removal.</p>
<p>Arg, Washdad. And I thought we’d been through some doozies w/ building permits. Your situation is just plain crazy!</p>
<p>We are buying a house down the street from us as an investment—our formerly rural road is having a building boost from people who are tearing down old houses on 1 acre and putting up 3 massive houses in its place. So, we’re trying to preserve an area of beautiful trees, reposition some $$ away from the stock market, and taking our first step into slum-lord status. (Although with some new carpet and paint it will be a nice house and easy to rent out). </p>
<p>There’s currently a question about one of the measurements on the lot. The owner has the original (50 yrs ago) plan of the neighborhood, which shows a measurement of 176 feet. A few years (about 15) back, an adjoining neighbor presented him with a survey that showed 167 feet for the same measurement (and wanted him to move a storage shed and cut down 9’ of big oak trees) so they could run power lines across it. (He told them he wasn’t doing it, and they left him alone and later sold the property to someone else. After looking at it, we’re thinking that it was a transposition of numbers on the survey, done by a company that is no longer listed in the phone book. Since all the “original” players are going to be long gone, we’re having another survey done, and will have to go to the county to get it sorted out so that it doesn’t come up again. Luckily, I found a site online that has the lot measurements and it says 176…so we think that the survey was just wrong, plain and simple. Amazing how stupid stuff like this can become such a pain.</p>
<p>Surveys can be wrong. I once worked on a house that had the right measurements on the survey, but they drawn the lot 10 feet less wide than it really was. It took me forever to figure out that we had no problems with setbacks, it was only the drawing that was wrong.</p>