|
| Author |
Message |
Chinook92
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 01:15pm
Reply
So i got land up in the mountains and i want to quit the rat race and go work up at the ski area next winter and be a ski bum.
Im gonna sell my sailboat, quit renting, and live on my.land... Solid plan right? Well.....what do i build?
Im not a rich man by any means, just a humble mechanic so budget is going to play a key factor, however I figure a budget of 10k is what I am comfortable with after I liquidate an asset or two ie my boat- trading one lifestyle for another.
Anyway
My top ideas thus far are:
16 or 20 foot pacific yurt (probably the more expensive option)
A 14x14 A frame from simple solar homesteading
A 12x16 A frame with a steeper pitch roof, more headroom in loft
A 10x20 with a single shed pitch roof and 10x10 loft
Or ? Those are my top ideas....
My county has the 200 square foot rule about buildings however for some reason yurts are considered tents and are subject to a 400 square foot/no permit rule hence the 20 footer however thats almost 15k just for the yurt not including platform.....
Any input is greatly appreciated
|
|
gcrank1
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 02:04pm
Reply
No idea how this would fit into the regs in your intended area but around here there are a BUNCH of rv's at bargain prices; everything from pop-ups to larger travel trailers....this last week even a motorhome with a bad engine for under $10K.
Tow one in, set up and start living in it. If you can.
Waayyy quicker and easier, even cheaper than a build at the going (and likely future) lumber prices.
Bad look? Or not what you envision? Put up a simple pole building post frame and metal roof over and side it with rough cut sawmill boards. Step onto your 'porch', open the sliding door and walk into your repurposed 'trailer'.
|
|
Chinook92
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 02:12pm - Edited by: Chinook92
Reply
Im a boat mechanic.....the absolute last thing in the world I wish to deal with is something that reminds me of a boat when its -8 and blowin 30 outside at 11pm in the middle of January and the crapper stops working not to mention they are just ugly.... I have a repurposed box from.a box truck thats insulated with a wood stove in it that serves as the current cabin but its too small for anything more than one guy a week or two at a time. I want something I can stretch out in, big head room, wood stove, something maintenance free (relatively speaking) and something I can lock up and keep secure and that will add value to my property.......relative to the 200 square foot/no permit rule
|
|
gcrank1
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 02:20pm - Edited by: gcrank1
Reply
Then that is upping the tariff considerably, in expense and work. And to add value to the property it will likely have to be to code.
As to 'turnkey/maintenance free', lol. a place is Never Done.
|
|
Brettny
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 02:55pm
Reply
Personaly out of any of the things mentioned I would only build a single pitch. A yurt isnt long term, A frames are a waste of space as almost all the walls are slanted.
|
|
jhp
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 03:12pm
Reply
What's the aversion to a permit and are you 100% sure that's not even an option?
|
|
Chinook92
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 03:29pm
Reply
Yeah well, adding value is relative. Dont want anything too nice  I got a well but water isnt great its just cheaper and easier to have rain barrels, a small pump and a small instahot for a shower, dont really care about on-grid amenities. A few LED lights and a solar panel, oil lamps and a wood stove work just fine for me so long as the stereo works. The only on-grid thing i care about is the stereo....tunes are mandatory. Rain barrels and pumps work for me and if there isnt rain, I can fill the barrels with a hose. As far as a toilet goes, will probably spend the cash in a propane incinerator toilet.
Going back to basics here.
I understand the downside to A frames however my reasonings for considering them is that they are quick to build and dont have to do anything special as far as making sure they can handle winter storm conditions, and i have a soft spot for them as i grew up in one albeit a 3 bedroom one.
|
|
Chinook92
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 03:30pm - Edited by: Chinook92
Reply
Dunno.... Im a rebel type on a budget. Its up in the mountains bit same county as Seattle proper so anything is going to be expensive.
Off grid and under the radar is how i fly
|
|
|
jhp
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 04:05pm - Edited by: jhp
Reply
So...your plan is to "fly under the radar" of King County Washington which has an annual budget of about $12 Billion dollars, of which about $60 million is devoted to the assessor's office?
Also...your county only has a 200 sq ft rule for accessory structures...by which you don't meet the definition of as you don't have a primary structure either.
If you want to keep what you build, I'd probably be buying or building it on a trailer and arguing you don't stay there more than 60 days a year...or going the legit permitted route.
I wish you luck friend but in this case I'm not sure how you will make out. If you manage to avoid the sat photos I'm not sure how you'd avoid the neighbors or the rangers.
|
|
gcrank1
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 04:33pm - Edited by: gcrank1
Reply
Rectangle with a shed roof
|
|
Chinook92
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 04:55pm
Reply
I dont want to get into the politics of tiny houses/off grid cabins. Not why im here lol
Everything is in place minus an actual cabin which is why I am here looking for advice on which design is going to be the most bang for the buck and the most cost effective. I want to live off grid in the mountains and I have everything but the actual cabin itself.
Im used to small.... Lived on fishing boats all over Alaska in the back country off shore and in town. Been a boat guy all my life and am going a different direction
|
|
jhp
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 06:39pm
Reply
I'm not trying to get into the politics either, I'm saying in this particular case I think you'll be running against the clock of getting caught sooner or later.
You should make your constraints what can you undo easily. Think about how much easier it would be to hook up a trailer and drive it away, or call a buddy with a big trailer and load up a 10x20 built on skids vs what you would have to do with a 14x14 building with a real foundation.
Something else to think about, if you're not compliant with the accessory structure rule anyway then what does the 200 sq foot matter? Build the biggest thing you can move easily, a 12x24 will feel a lot bigger than a 10x20 but you can still move it if needed.
|
|
BobW
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 07:13pm
Reply
A yurt is a tent-albeit top of the line-but still a tent. Advantage is it can be down and gone in short time if you are told to tear it down. The platform could be fairly easy to build and could be left in place as it is not a structure.
A 16 foot Pacific is $7450 without any addons and without shipping the twenty is #$9000 plus so it would be out of your budget.
A storage shed on skids would be harder to move but would likely be cheaper even with the necessary addons.
If I can find things on Google maps, I'm certain the county accessor can and will. I have no idea what the consequences of getting caught are, but could include fines which if unpaid would result in liens on your property with the possibility of it being sold such as for back taxes.
|
|
Fanman
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 07:32pm
Reply
If you want something that you can "lock up and keep secure", a yurt doesn't sound like it. Perhaps a shipping container?
|
|
Brettny
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 07:56pm
Reply
A container checks alot of boxes by the sound of it.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 22 Feb 2021 09:22pm - Edited by: ICC
Reply
I see jhp already mentioned the 200 sq ft thing. You are not thr first person to misinterpret the sq ft limit for oermits. That is commonplace. Every locale where I have seen the permit rules specify exceptions notes the exception applies only to accessory buildins. You can't have an accessory building without an existing building built with adherence to the permitting process. There are locations around the country where zoning and permit rules have lax enforcement. Somehow I seriously doubt that King County, WA has lax enforcement. I would check carefully into that or simply be prepared to deal with the enforcement when they get around to it.
|
|
Brettny
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Feb 2021 05:48am
Reply
I know nothing about any other town but having a shed on the property before any building permit or residence was one of the specific questions I asked my local town prior to buying the land. They said sure you can do that. Then I asked about a small generator shed and they also gave me the go ahead.
|
|
Irrigation Guy
Member
|
# Posted: 23 Feb 2021 06:38am
Reply
Quoting: Brettny I know nothing about any other town but having a shed on the property before any building permit or residence was one of the specific questions I asked my local town prior to buying the land. They said sure you can do that. Then I asked about a small generator shed and they also gave me the go ahead
What town are you in?
|
|
Birdman
Member
|
# Posted: 18 May 2021 11:12pm
Reply
Quoting: ICC Every locale where I have seen the permit rules specify exceptions notes the exception applies only to accessory buildins. You can't have an accessory building without an existing building built with adherence to the permitting process.
That's incorrect. I have studied King County's zoning codes in extreme depth at this point, and even went as far as reading through maaany Code Enforcement compliance appeals.
Here is the straight and undisputable fact: as long as you are under King County's requirements for permit exempt structures, you'll be fine. Where you may get in trouble is if someone can prove that you are living in the structure full time, but in every instance I was able to read in the code enforcement cases the appeals were granted AS LONG AS YOU USE THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY and do not call your structure a cabin / tiny house / habitable structure. If there is no primary house on the property, you want to be very careful to refer to the structure as an "agricultural/forestry accessory structure". That is to say if anyone asks what you are using it for, it is for storing of tools and other items related to the agricultural/forestry use.
If you all want I can do a deep dive into the code appeals so that you can see the exact way the county responds to these steuctures, or you can take my word for it. I actually met a guy locally who has exactly what you're describing (12x16 lofted cabin with composting toilet and wood stove) but his actually has grid power so he had to have an inspection done and they gave him the all clear. I can provide a link to that property as well so you can see that the county assessor is even fine with it.
Anyways, is it a grey area? Certainly. But it appears from reading all these cases that King County is open to these structures so long as you use their words and follow *most* of their rules.
|
|
Birdman
Member
|
# Posted: 18 May 2021 11:20pm
Reply
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/independent/hearing-examiner/documents/case-digest /appeals/code-enforcement/2011/E0900753_Jackson.ashx?la=en
E0900753_Jackson
Code complaint:
Construction of 2 accessory structures (120 & 200 square feet) with no legal primary use on the property and within an environmentally critical area (FEMA floodway) without required permits, inspections and approvals. Also stated that the structures have been occupied on recreational residence basis at times.
Appellant Jackson states that he intends to utilze the propert as a primary agricultural use and that the structures would therefore be utilzed as secondary components of such use, as agricultural accessory buildings. DDES has examined the issue in depth and indicates that the propert may be used primarily to grow and harvest crops under the existing zoning and that the structures would be allowed to store materials to be used on the propert related to such use.
DDES also notes that the propert could be used as a forest use other than a forest research facilty and that the accessory structures could be utilzed to store materials used on the site related to such uses. In conclusion, DDES interprets the code to allow the structures to remain on the propert as accessories to a resource use such as harvesting and growing of crops, or forestry, and that they may be used only for storage of materials used onsite for such purposes. No residential occupancy of the structures is allowed.
Appellants responded to DDES'sinterpretation by stating that they intend that the propert and structures wil be used primarily for storage of materials used onsite for purposes of harvesting and growing of crops or forestry.
The use of the onsite structures for residential occupancy, whether merely recreational in nature on a temporary basis or permanently, is not allowed under the zoning code.
In order to be permitted to remain onsite, the accessory structures must be utilized as solely accessory to a permitted use;. as residential use is not feasible on the property due to sanitation limitations, they are not able to be utilized as residential accessory structures since no primary residence is feasible on the property. As a result, as noted the Appellants have acknowledged that they may only use the structures in conjunction with a primary agricultural or forestry production use for storage of materials used onsite, and state that they intend to use the property in such manner. Such intended use would resolve the code violations on the property so long as the structural size is exempt from building permit requirements.
Well, that case was heard in 2010. I just visited this property last month, and both cabins are still there. So it seems to be a situation of "call it an agricultural/forestry accessory building and shut the hell up" sort of situation.
|
|
Just
Member
|
# Posted: 18 May 2021 11:39pm - Edited by: Just
Reply
Sounds like a 14x14 with a shed roof is what you need. 196 sq ft. Build in a storage loft in the attic you will need that
A 14x14 is quite roomy for one person and efficent to build. Build on 2skids , 2x10x14 floor joists,2x10x16 roof rafters ,Good Luck !!
|
|
gcrank1
Member
|
# Posted: 19 May 2021 10:08am
Reply
I cant help but wonder....just because the current (and past) authority has been lax the fact is the rules and requirements are already established. Somewhere in the future a more 'vigorous' authority may well decide to enforce. It is what people like that do.
So, whatever you do, keep in mind that it can all be lost; same as with a tornado or fire. As long as we dont cling too tightly to temporal things we do ourselves no favor.
On a practical approach I might build the 200sf'er as the starter structure and if somewhere in the future wanted/could build a 'proper' cabin the outbuilding (toolshed, power house, etc) would be be in place.
|
|
Birdman
Member
|
# Posted: 19 May 2021 02:10pm
Reply
Fair point gcrank. But what I will say is that the law has to be applied equally. Within just this small area of King County, I have identified 20+ properties that are what we're talking about here: accessory structures under 200 sqft with no established primary residence.
If I were to somehow end up in a code enforcement case, I would reference the code appeal cases and their outcomes I mentioned before as well as showing a number of the other properties that are doing the same thing.
Now one area that you'd have to think about is where you register your permanent address. You couldn't register one of these properties as your primary address, so you'd have to have another property with a true house you could claim as your primary residence. Post office boxes won't satisfy this requirement. For me, I would be registering my primary residence as my parents house so that I can maintain my Washington state residency. But you could also register on a good friend's property.
Sorry to hijak your thread Chinook, it sounded like your mind was already made up as to what you're going to do but hopefully this information gives you more confidence in your decision. What you are describing has been done many many times.
|
|
|
