bwhite1948 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I'm aware of the controversy regarding a few houses that went 'over the top' to 3+ stories but I don't know if there was ever a final say-so on what the law is for building height of residential homes. Friends of mine are looking at a house in Ajijic that has a partial lake view from the mirador that sits atop the 2nd story. If the house to the south of the one they are looking at (also a 2 story with unenclosed mirador) went up another story it would block the lake view. Is the Chapala government still ok'ing projects that exceed xx feet in height or x number of stories or tie an vertical expansion to the views of others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xena Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 If not having the lake view is a deal breaker and another house owner "could" obstruct it at some point, do not count on that not happening--no matter what the law says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakeside7 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Having a "agreement" with the current administration does not mean a new administration could OK a change..."zoning" if such a document exist is not worth the paper it is written on...sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmh Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 If the view the house has now is important, do not buy, find a place where the view cannnot be taken away or a place without a view , do not pay more for a mirador wich no one uses past the first 3 months anyways.. There is no garanties here and laws are broken all the time with a little mordida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cartero Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I don't buy into the mordida lines as one would have to have paid it else it's hearsay. I do believe the possibility of the front view being blocked not worth any unlikelyhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmh Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 No mordida is not hearsay it goes on wether you believe it or not. Just try to stop someone from putting a window overlooking your property or building where they are not supposed to or taking over a federal sone without a permit or adding floor after floor when they do not have a permit or stop noise and so on...see what happens and tell me mordida is not involved.. no reflection on any particular party or government here it happens over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pappysmarket Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 No reputable RE agent or lawyer will ever tell a client here that nobody can take your view away. It happens all the time so if that view is all-important, find a different house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I don't see anything here I would argue with. Get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryPat Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 The unfortunate reality is, It depends on who you pay off ...then you can do just about anything here...regardless of any legal restrictions or rules. This is exactly the truth, he who has the money gets whatever he wants. Sad, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhite1948 Posted March 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 I've lived in Mexico for over a dozen years (here and in San Miguel) so I'm certainly aware of mordida. I have been told that San Miguel has or soon will implement building height restrictions and view protection as part of its designation as a World Heritage site but I don't have any real proof of that, just hearsay. That's why I was asking whether there are any new laws in Chapala on this issue or any discussion about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcscats Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Yea and the barriers in La Floresta are coming right down??? (humor)(sarcasm)(it ain't gonna happen) (believe it when I see it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 if a new municipal regime comes in they just might review the previous administrations violations of the STATE formula for building height relative to lot size and order corrections, i.e. removal of violating structures. There is prior precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Now that my view of the mountains on the south side is completely blocked by a third story apartment that was permitted as a mirador, I can assure you that at least under the current oh so helpful regime, the sky is the limit here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adolphsj Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Mainecoons is 1000% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solajijic Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 There is a STATE formula for height. Why are we surprised to find that 3rd stories are possible? Just because traditionally there haven't been 3rd stories doesn't mean there cannot be 3rd stories. We have some tentative building plans and in the design process height was a big question to garner north and south views for each lot. The way it was explained to me by 4 architects is that historically most villagers as a whole did not have the economic basis for taller homes nor the tradition of building up. The foundations were not prepared for it. The newer builds that have not used the older footprint of a house have foundations to support full 3rd floors and that they advise their clients to go that extra foundation so that a mirador can eventually become a full floor. The architects also say that the early 2000 remodels focused primarily on retrofitting old homes to modern standards on the original footprint for sale to expats. With the maturation of this area these same architects say that this next wave of building/remodeling in the village will be different. They also point out that the client will be national rather than expat. Since we are building on empty lots the lot x building = height formula for Jalisco means the houses can be up to 39 feet tall. That allows for ceiling heights going up 3 full floors at 14 feet, 12 feet and 10 feet. Since there are no contiguous houses near the lots and they are close to the lake it is advised that for resale interest the houses be staggered and the 3rd floor areas kept to a minimum to provide views to all 4 lots. There are 2 houses being designed in Ajijic which are going to involve the tear down of the entire existing house and new building. When these then become empty lots they are all large enough, with the right house design, to allow 3rd floors. Change...ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmh Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 yes and I doubt anyone will demolish the 3rd storey in front of Maincoons. Just like they are not removing the encroachements on the lake . Several people complain when a neighbor was taking the Federal zone, the Feds said it was up to the municiapity to stop it. The municipality shut down the work going on on a Thursday and the work resumed on the week-end and continued...same deal as the extra floors in front of Maincoons or the extra floors on that building on the Libramiento. In San Cristobal de las Casas we have a height limit in the center and INAH watches out and will stop work and even with an extra layer of bureaucrats things get passed. : mostly happens with people who have money or very poor people, the ones in the middle have to obey....The people with money pay up and the poor starts riots but anyone in between is plain out of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pappysmarket Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 I love your last line! So, so true here in Estados Unidos de Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeb Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 There are benefits to rules being bent or ignored. In the US everything is so darned restricted....So many abuses here in the USSR. Some poor woman grew one tomato plant in her yard was sued by her HOA because it was considered farming .if I must choose, I choose no regulations. Let neighbors try to work things out amongst themselves. Just my opinion...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 yes and I doubt anyone will demolish the 3rd storey in front of Maincoons. Just like they are not removing the encroachements on the lake . Several people complain when a neighbor was taking the Federal zone, the Feds said it was up to the municiapity to stop it. The municipality shut down the work going on on a Thursday and the work resumed on the week-end and continued...same deal as the extra floors in front of Maincoons or the extra floors on that building on the Libramiento. In San Cristobal de las Casas we have a height limit in the center and INAH watches out and will stop work and even with an extra layer of bureaucrats things get passed. : mostly happens with people who have money or very poor people, the ones in the middle have to obey....The people with money pay up and the poor starts riots but anyone in between is plain out of luck. I'm not sure why you mentioned my name in this context since I haven't suggested that anyone is going to tear down anything. As for the lot coverage discussion, this particular property has built TWO stories on top of a house with foundations for one, in an area of serious subsidence. The pool of this property sank so much on one end that the other was a good 6 inches higher. The neighbor claims that the weight of this structure on inadequate foundations is also causing his property to subside and crack. I can't swear as to the cause but the cracks are definitely there. Crammed onto a tiny lot now is a casita, garage, and a huge house, literally every square inch is paved over. We are told the address used to "check" the coverage of that lot was not the address of this property. It's a minor nuisance to us. However (engineer hat on) anyone who buys this property in the future may find they have some very serious structural issues. There has to be a happy medium in rules. I agree with Zeb that the U.S. these days feels like a police state in many respects. However, simply allowing anyone to do anything after paying a "fee" regardless of some basic, common sense rules is the opposite extreme IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmh Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I mentioned you name as you have talked penty about the 3 storey structure blocking your view not in relation to the destruction of it as we all know it will never happen . May have been poorly worded or understood but I never thought it would be removed. Time will take care of that property but meanwhile it is the perfect example of the 2 storey height not being enforced. Heck they do not even remove the fences of people taking over the Federal Zones. The States and other places in Europe go over board with rules but at least in some countries in Europe they have learned from their past mistakes...entire towns and villages were ruined by the buildings from the after war rebuilding and now zoning and architectural norms are helping towns and villages to retain what is left of their historical and regional look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbviajero Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 There are benefits to rules being bent or ignored. In the US everything is so darned restricted....So many abuses here in the USSR. Some poor woman grew one tomato plant in her yard was sued by her HOA because it was considered farming .if I must choose, I choose no regulations. Let neighbors try to work things out amongst themselves. Just my opinion......Ridiculous HOA rules are one thing,zoning laws are another,in Guadalajara you can find junkyards,bodyshops,discos,fireworks factorys,etc.etc. in residential neighborhoods,those are examples of why zoning laws should be implemented and enforced,IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecoons Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I mentioned you name as you have talked penty about the 3 storey structure blocking your view not in relation to the destruction of it as we all know it will never happen . May have been poorly worded or understood but I never thought it would be removed. Time will take care of that property but meanwhile it is the perfect example of the 2 storey height not being enforced. Heck they do not even remove the fences of people taking over the Federal Zones. The States and other places in Europe go over board with rules but at least in some countries in Europe they have learned from their past mistakes...entire towns and villages were ruined by the buildings from the after war rebuilding and now zoning and architectural norms are helping towns and villages to retain what is left of their historical and regional look. In the future, discuss the topic and don't make assumptions about what other posters think and include their names including mine, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmh Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 I did not make any assumption you spoke ad nauseam about that property over the years starting when they were building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natbug Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Mordida exists everywhere, he/she who has the most money may do as he/she pleases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Liana Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Quite a few years ago, construction began on a 5-story building on Prolongación Galeana. Neighbors were outraged to learn that Ajijic's building code, which prohibits structures over 3 stories high, had apparently been ignored. I was asked to serve as interpreter for a group of those neighbors who were set to meet with the mayor of Chapala to see what could be done about this forbidden structure--which contained, among other things, an elevator. On the appointed day, we actually met with the vice-mayor and learned a few things ourselves. As other poster have mentioned, there are indeed municipal building restrictions: 3 story maximum height. On the other hand, there are appeals possible at both state and federal levels. If the appeal is made at the state level and the builder receives an amparo (basically, permission to do something that is not normally allowed by law). A state-granted amparo can be overturned in federal court. In the case of that particular building's construction, the original appeal for an amparo was made at the federal level, beyond which there is no means to stop construction without taking the case to the federal supreme court. None of the neighbors were interested in taking the case to the supreme court, so the building was built and is right there for all to see.Whether or not mordida entered into that amparo equation is anyone's guess. My guess is--most likely it did. I suspect the same is true for the condo project on the libramiento, just before the curve coming into Ajijic (something-or-other Dorado, you all know which it is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.