Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Building Separation

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Fellow engineers,

	Paul is right about the legal issues.  In our work with heritage
buildings in Calgary (and I expect other jurisdictions aren't a lot
different) we find it fairly common to have adjacent buildings actually
encroaching on the property.  These encroachments are usually found by
the surveyors and reported as part of the real property report at the
start of the project.  It's usually necessary to resolve these issues
even before financing can be put in place for the development.

	That aside, it would seem to be professionally inappropriate to have
insufficient space BETWEEN BUILDINGS to accommodate expected building
deflection regardless of what the authorities are willing to accept.  At
the very least I would want the owner or the prime consultant to
acknowledge (preferably in writing or as part of the project meeting
minutes) that they have been made aware of the potential for a problem
and that they will accept responsibility for the consequences of any
decision to have less space than that.

				Respectfully submitted,

				H. Daryl Richardson

Paul Feather wrote:
> 
> We have encountered this on several projects.  The municipalities involved
> have always permitted the separation from the property line per DM of only
> the new structure.  This is one of those areas I think of as "phased
> compliance".  Eventually as all buildings are replaced, the required set
> backs will occur.  To require that your building accommodate the adjacent
> building's separation requirement would in effect be granting a form of
> property line easement to the older building, which could become very
> involved legally.
> 
> Paul Feather
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Carolan" <dcarolan(--nospam--at)rad.net.id>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:29 PM
> Subject: Building Separation
> 
> > UBC 87 clause 1633.2.11 says
> > 1. Separations shall allow for the displacement DM
> > and also
> > 2. When a structure adjoins a property line not common to a public way,
> > that structure shall also be set back from the property line by at least
> > the displacement DM of that structure
> >
> > I'm designing my new CBD building and my neighbour's building is hard on
> > the common boundary. I can comply with paragraph 2, but this will not
> > achieve sufficient separation between our buildings which I assume is the
> > basic intent of this clause. My neighbour may even be a heritage building
> > that will be there "forever".
> >
> > Is it your normal practice to just set your own building back DM from the
> > boundary and ignore the neighbouring building or if your neighbour is hard
> > on the boundary do your local authorities require you to set your own
> > building back further? The approach of Example 50.3 from Vol 1 of the
> > SEAOC Seismic Design Manual is to ignore the neighbouring building (their
> > Structure 2).
> >
> > Thanks for your comments,
> >
> > David Carolan
> >
> > Taylor Thomson Whitting
> > dcarolan(--nospam--at)rad.net.id
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________
> > This email was sent using radmail
> > http://radmail.rad.net.id
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********