|
| Author |
Message |
bthompson
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Sep 2012 11:56am
Reply
Hi there,
I'm new to this forum and wondering if anyone can provide me with some answers. I'm thinking of building a small cabin at Alison Lake BC Princeton. I see in some documentation here:
https://princeton.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=162
There is documentation about a "Complex" vs "Standard" buildings. I'm wondering if anyone knows why there is this distinction? When I review the document linked above I don't see any obvious differences in fact the "Standard" building seems to have more requirements  (Only thing I see is Standard is less than 600 square feet). I know that at Alison Lake this area is considered residential and not recreational.
Anyways thanks in advance. If anyone has any info or where I could get some more info that would be great.
Thanks,
Brad
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Sep 2012 12:43pm
Reply
"exceeding three stories in building height under the complex whereas standard is 3 stories or less was one thing I picked out as well as the sq footage. those seem to be key
|
|
trollbridge
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Sep 2012 12:59pm
Reply
Quoting: bthompson (Only thing I see is Standard is less than 600 square feet). I know that at Alison Lake this area is considered residential and not recreational
Admittedly, I did not read through the whole thing...bylaws and codes are such a snooze  but I am thinking that being zoned residential you may have to build over 600 sq. feet anyways and therefore you would have to follow the complex codes.
What are the sq. foot requirements for residential zoning? and are you sure your area of Alison Lake is zoned residential?
|
|
razmichael
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Sep 2012 02:06pm
Reply
The break down is fairly well spelt out in section 2 (if you read it two or three times). Firstly, the size boundary is Square Meters, not feet! Assuming it is not a care/detention, assembly occupancy or high hazard industrial then the next breakdown is over 600 Sq M or more than 3 stories. After that it depends a bit on use but I suspect the OP aim has nothing to make it a "complex" code build. I suspect the meters/feet mix up is the cause for the concern.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Sep 2012 02:26pm
Reply
Sq metrs... doh! Living in America too long.... I saw 600 and didn't read the meters...
|
|
bthompson
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Sep 2012 03:28pm
Reply
Thanks for the replies guys. It is zoned residential which is odd I think for us it will be recreational though. We were trying to see if building a "Standard" building is easier because of easier building codes or something maybe this is not a factor.
I must say the documentation for building permits/codes is written in an almost undecipherable way. It's almost as if they don't want you to read it and just hire a professional to handle it all 
Thanks again,
Brad Thompson
|
|
trollbridge
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Sep 2012 03:44pm
Reply
Quoting: razmichael The break down is fairly well spelt out in section 2 (if you read it two or three times). Firstly, the size boundary is Square Meters, not feet!
Ha...my brain didn't register that either! Duh!
So what are meters equivalent to in feet?
Many places here in the US zone residential to protect the "live in" homeowners who don't want to have some little "shack" thrown up next to them-even if it is around a lake or clearly more of a recreational area.
I agree with you on the writing of those codes...one can hide a lot in page after page of legal mumbo jumbo can't they!
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Sep 2012 06:54pm
Reply
600 sq meters = 6458.35 sq feet. Should be no problem getting a house under that maximum. So as long as none of the others items that trigger a project to the "complex" category it should be possible to build under a "standard" permit.
|
|
|
|
