Sounds like the description of how high the flower arrangements, in relation to the height of the cross, can be for a wedding in my church. Sitting or standing when viewing? Made it a treat to get something I liked that they would approve.

What is average grade and at what point is that determined?

There was a tear down behind our property, which actually affected the back yards of 7 properties. Due to slope of the land it looked like a 3 story house from our patio. It also looked into those 7 backyards.

We asked that they lower the ceiling heights 1 foot on both floors. The zoning board gave them a choice of lowering the ceiling heights or lowering the grade. Guess which they picked? I was like, hey wait a minute, who is going to actually measure this grade and hold them accountable? No one of course. Us neighbors got screwed and the tear down got every variance they asked for.

Not long after we took a nice ride to a large landscaping business. Paid up for 15 ft specimens that are now over 35 - 40 ft tall ... whatever mountain views the tear down had over our house, are nicely blocked now!

The whole thing also caused one of the neighbors to sell as the second story of the new house had a direct view of his pool. Hey, but the town got more property tax dollars.

Yeah, I'm a bit cynical when it comes to local zoning laws!

Chispa - in my jurisdiction they marked the grade with a steel rod to make sure we didn't change it. We never needed to ask for a variance but we spent months meeting the cities ever changing height markings and grade markings on the permit.

But I am sure our neighbors aren't happy about the height of our house. They should be happy about the increased value since we tore down a pretty scary looking house that was undeniably the worst on the block.

The height is to the peak of the roof not including a papapet wall encroachment from the average grade pre-development (or post if more restrictive).

Height is fairly straightforward. Side wall rules were not. Maximum side wall height is 22 feet with exceptions for dormers and side gabled roofs. The dormers are maxed at 15 feet as measured along the intersection with the setback plane. Side gabled roof is limited to 30 feet measured from the front wall plane.

22 feet is challenging with 10 ft ceiling down and 9 foot up which is pretty common in our area. I think we made it with slab construction and getting 1 foot of credit for each foot off the setback. The slope of the land made our slab 3 feet high in one area and we were about 3 feet off the setback. I think we have 18 inch joists for ductwork between floors. So by my quick math we had 18 inches to spare. Better check that grade didn't change 18 inches.... (We have a CO so this is all history).

Still not sure we met this requirement: Articulation is required for any wall 22 feet in height within 15 feet of side setback. No wall may exceed 50 feet in length without a 4 foot projection or recession that extends 10 feet in length. We have 3 foot dips. The gray area was that the 22 foot height was not 50 feet long - it is 40 feet or so, but the total wall length is 70.

But I am reminded that the 35 foot area has a side gable - limited to 30 feet. Not sure how that made it...

In our area the height is half the vertical distance from the eaves to the peak for a normal roof. Same as what you quote. our code was 31 ft I think

Just approved for six variances after two appearances at the Committee, numerous changes and C$6,260 in fees, so I've become unfortunately familiar with some aspects.

As per our Zoning By-law:

But despite the by-law, the plan examiners measured the building height from the centre line of the road grade the property fronts on. The permissible maximum height for a residential flat roof in my area is eight metres; 9.8 metres for other roofs.

If height limits are fun, try City of Boulder's Solar Access guide that requires plotting the shadow of your building on the adjacent property's grade at 10:00 am and 2 pm on the winter solstice. Even though we can computer model it with pinpoint accuracy, Boulder requires it be hand calculated. A small portion of the 3 page explanation.

Formulas for Solar Shadow Length

If you are not using the city’s interactive Solar Analysis Worksheet, calculate relative height and shadow length for each element using the formulas below:

Step 3: (y-x) = h

Elevation of roof element (y) – Elevation of property line where the shadow would cross (x) =
Relative height of element (h)

Step 4: (h - F) * (1/tan(20.670i>)) = L

(Relative height of element (h) – Height of solar fence (F)) * 2.65 =
Adjusted length of shadow (L)

You know the drill

1) Call the building department

2) Get "avg grade in the yard" (get it from GIS) - a little vague

3) Rest I do not think that the way it phrased is all that confusing:

- A Frame: top point of A frame to "avg grade in the yard"

- Mansard roofs: deck line height

- Flat roofs highest point

- cupola, widows watch or tower that extends above the roof line shall be considered the highest point of the roof surface - are the highest point

- hip and gambrel roofs

Not one 100% sure about " and to the average height between eaves and ridge for gable " is that when property has half hip roof or below...

I have a Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing this evening. The Zoning Administrator is calculating the building height using a portion of the roof and the tower; I am calculating the building height using the entire roof and the tower. Unfortuately my client is spending literally thousands of dollars on attorney fees because the Zoning Administrator does not know the definition of "roof line".

From our building ordinances:

E. Building Height

1. The vertical distance measured from finished grade at the middle of the front of the building to the highest point of the roof, excluding elevator or mechanical equipment rooms, provided that where buildings are set back from the street line, the height of the building may be measured from the average elevation of the finished lot grade at the front of the building, as shown below.

2. The following structures or parts thereof are exempt from maximum height limitations, unless otherwise limited by any height restriction imposed by any airport authority, or other similar federal, state, or local authority.

a. Public utility poles, towers, and wires. This does not include wireless telecommunication towers and wind turbines that are regulated separately by this Ordinance.

b. Water tanks and standpipes.

c. Building appurtenances such as chimneys, parapet walls, skylights, steeples, flag poles, smokestacks, cooling towers, elevator bulkheads, fire towers, monuments, water towers, stacks, stage towers, or scenery lofts, tanks, ornamental towers and spires, rooftop accessory structures, recreational facilities, necessary mechanical appurtenances, or penthouses to house mechanical appurtenances.

Here's the image that goes with this:

Ours reads similar to what Mark has cited though it's a little more specific at defining the grade benchmark:

Building Height-The vertical distance measured from the finished grade level, sidewalk level or its equivalent established grade from the middle of the front of the building to the highest point of the roof in the case of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof.

Dwelling places are limited to 35 feet in height and 2.5 stories, accessory buildings limited to 14 feet and permitted non-residential buildings may be increased 1 foot in height for every foot of lot width over 60 feet, with a maximum height of 65 feet.

Minimum lot width is 60 feet and area is 7500 square feet, but since the standard lot module in our community is 50'x110' and an area of 5100 sf, there is an exception that allows lots of 50' and 5000 sf to be developed as single family dwellings.

Yep, zoning ordinaces and zoning administrators vary tremendously across the U.S.

Mark's experience is not atypical in my experience.

Ah, country living. I checked our township ordinance for the height requirement. There was nothing to indicate HOW height was to be measured. Since I was stopping in to ask about taxes anyway, I asked.

Response:

*blink blink* "From the ground to the top, usually." This was in a tone suggesting that only an imbecile would need to ask.

Our appeal was denied. It is very disheartening when you're trying to explain something to someone and they have a glazed-over look in their eyes. Our attorney told me it didn't matter what we presented tonight, we lost before we walked in the door.

Holly - that was awesome.

I remember our rural build (beach) where the height requirement was only for the fire trucks. It was "ground to top" when it probably should have been from road height to peak of roof. The beach rule really pushed the bedrooms downstairs and then cathedral ceiling public areas up because it was the easiest way to have higher ceilings in public areas and meet height requirements. We did it with public down and we have a very low hip roof. It think it was 34 feet when 10 feet is eaten up with parking/flood control.

So if you go to the beach and see the layout of 8 foot ceilings bedrooms down and cathedral up - like nearly every house less than 30 years old at our beach, part of it is the height requirement.

. In the city, it better not be because of fire truck height considering there are 400 foot buildings....

Worked with three municipalities this last year.

A hill side with a view specified "20' maximum height from the highest grade at the edge of the structure" so most homes were guaranteed views from their upper level.

Another hillside community uses 35' from grade (original grade) following any slope.

In practice, the neighborhoods look about the same.

Most municipalities in our Sacramento Valley floor have about 35' to work with, leaving plenty of room for variety, but Davis had a 30' max for awhile when building was busier there from 1995-2005 and the newer communities produced a "plain of roof peaks" at around 30', most with lower pitched roofs to achieve it.

The only project that required inspections for max height was the first, as the roof was definitely impacting a neighbor's view, but was not a problem as we left 6" of margin (easily used up by unexpected materials thicknesses, etc.) and set our elevations with a surveyor so I could sleep at night.

Sorry to hear about the denial. Will the plan be modified and try again?

Our appeal was denied. It is very disheartening when you're trying to
explain something to someone and they have a glazed-over look in their
eyes.

Glazed might be an improvement!

At one appearance, the Chairman of the Committee of Adjustment greeted me with, "Mr. worthy, you must be shaking in your boots after hearing what we said about the previous variance requests." Downhill from there.

Our new home will be imperiling the investments and endangering the character of the existing community...

Neighbouring property threatened with devaluation.
First meeting for the current application, the neighbours presented a petition. (Including the guy who keeps a Class A motorhome, i.e., a bus, in his driveway.) They were afraid we would be driving down the value of their homes and very likely opening a B&B. (Speaking against a previous variance on our street, they said they feared it was really intended to be a mosque.) For our second appearance, the home's "institutional" look and the possibility that one tree of 20 might be damaged (no) nearly killed our chances. The Committee approved--but the neighbours still have 20 days to appeal. I really want to just sell the lot and move on....

Sorry to hear that Worthy. It is good to know, in a sick way, that some people are worse off than I am. It may not help to inform your neighboring property owner that they nay have hit rock bottom already.

My client has informed me to "bring everything you are working on to a close" and send him a bill. He and his wife need some time to rethink the project. His father was a good friend of Dr. Seuss and my client wanted something whimsical about it while paying homage to the region's lighthouses. The cottage will be located on an inland lake not far from Lake Michigan.

The cottage will not be visible from the road, too many trees and distance. This is the facade that would face the road:

Once you need a variance, you're at the mercy of whim, jealousy and resentment. Interesting to note that the By-Law here specifically exempts the ornamental features that sunk yours. Here, one can appeal local decisions to a higher authority, the Ontario Municipal Board, revived this year after being killed by the previous far-left Liberal government. No such recourse there?

Yep, in many jurisdictions asking for a variance is a sure sign of a painful death.

The best stratgy is always to design in such a way as to be within the permitted zoning.

Complicating that, however, is jurisdictions which also have design review boards, in addition to zoning ordinances. Design review is often a much more vague and subjective process, in spite of any existing standards that may be in effect, especially if the majority of the design review board membership are folks with no design education, training or experience.

I chaired the Architectural Review Board of Palo Alto, CA, and the Planning Commission of Mountain View, CA, so I have some experience in the matter.