News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Dunlop_White

  • Karma: +0/-0
Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« on: July 25, 2005, 03:45:42 PM »
Does anyone have any examples of some building restrictions that properties are subject to when abutting golf courses? How far are typical set-back lines? Does anyone happen to have any official "wording" for me?

« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 04:18:52 PM by Dunlop_White »
Logged

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2005, 05:31:32 PM »
Dunlop,

Urban Land Institute came out with recommendations.  They suggest buildings should be no closer than 35 feet from the property line abutting a golf hole.  The property line should be 175' from the center of the fairway, I believe the line starts at 100' from the center of the regular? tee and then fans out to 175' in the landing area.  How they define landing area as to how far from the tee I do not exactly recall.  If I find the documents, which I have packed away right now, I'll let you know, or maybe you can get the publication from ULI.  It is a most interesting topic for which I have spent much time on in township meetings before planning boards and board of supervisors.
Logged

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2005, 06:45:50 PM »
Dunlop:  Believe it or not, there is no "official" wording for a safety setback from a golf hole, because no one wants the liability of establishing one.  

If the ASGCA said 200 feet was safe, and a homeowner 210 feet from the centerline kept seeing golf balls, they'd sue the ASGCA as well as the architect of record.

Logged

Scott Coan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2005, 06:55:42 PM »
a topical article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/22/appeals_court_errant_golf_balls_a_trespass_to_homeowners/

Appeals court: errant golf balls a 'trespass' to homeowners
By Denise Lavoie, AP Legal Affairs Writer  |  July 22, 2005

BOSTON --Joyce Amaral knew before buying property in Columbine Estates that her home was near the ninth hole of a golf course.

But Amaral, a regular golfer, wasn't prepared for the number of errant golf balls that came flying into her yard -- more than 1,800 in five years -- or the number of golfers who came along afterward to retrieve them.

So she and a neighbor filed a lawsuit against the owners of Rehoboth's Middlebrook Country Club.

On Friday, the state Appeals Court found the wayward balls constitute a "continuing trespass" and ordered the Superior Court to find a solution.

...

Superior Court Judge Robert J. Kane dismissed the lawsuit, ruling the homeowners had not shown that operation of the golf course constituted a nuisance, which is defined by state law as an interference in the use and enjoyment of their land.

But the Appeals Court said the homeowners had shown that the stray balls were a "trespass," and thus an invasion of their land.





« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 06:59:25 PM by Scott Coan »
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2005, 07:14:57 PM »
Dunlop,

It would depend upon whether it was an existing golf course or one being developed.

I've seen golf courses where buildings are almost on the property line.

It used to be that if the golf course was there first, the builder of a structure bore the subsequent risk.
That seems to have changed over the years.  How, I don't know, but it would seem prudent that a prospective builder  would clearly understand the inherent hazard pre acquisition and construction.  And, that the subsequent purchaser would be aware of the inherent problems as well.  I would also imagine that the seller would be required to disclose that information in the event the buyer wasn't aware of it.
Logged

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2005, 09:31:39 PM »
Pat:

I don't know if there is generally a "buyer beware" application to building a new home or other building next to an existing golf course.

I do know that in other countries, if the golf course is causing harm to anyone outside the boundaries of the course (whether they just built a home or are walking down the street), it's up to the golf course to fix the problem.

I also know that at one club where we have consulted, even the new owner of a long-existing home could force a change to the design, if the golf hole was clearly too close by modern standards and there was a golf-ball count to back up his claims.

Like you, I have seen plenty of courses (including famous ones) which had a boundary line very much in play.  How much longer they will get away with it is anyone's guess.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 09:32:46 PM by Tom_Doak »
Logged

Dunlop_White

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2005, 10:31:02 PM »
Guys, great information, but let me be more specific.

There's a 1926 Ross course in an established mountain resort where most of the real estate abutting the golf course has always been vacant, but wooded. The club recently started partitioning this property adjacent to the course for sale. Without any buiding restriction lines, a new owner can clear cut for a golf course view, which should be ok, and build a fence down the property line -- even a net one -- to keep the deer out.  Certainly, noone wants a fenced-in golf course.

1. Should the club establish building restrictions limiting the type of fencing at the bare minimum?

2. Should the club prohibit fencing of any kind on property lines along the golf course?

3. Should fencing be allowed, but set-back a certain footage from the property line?

Has anyone run across restrictions like this before?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2005, 10:33:21 PM by Dunlop_White »
Logged

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2005, 10:46:18 PM »
Dunlop,
Why not have the golf course establish an easement into the property it is selling and maintain as they desire?  I am doing one presently where the entire golf course is an easement thus increasing the lot yield.
Mike
Logged
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2005, 07:16:55 AM »
Dunlop:

Any planned development can establish standards for the construction of homes ... architectural guidelines which could include no fences, a particular style, clearing restrictions (usually a percentage of the total lot acreage), building envelopes, etc.

However it's much harder to establish these if you have already sold the lots without having it in place!
Logged

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:Building Restriction Lines/Set-back Lines
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2005, 07:21:56 AM »
Quote from: Dunlop_White on July 25, 2005, 10:31:02 PM
Guys, great information, but let me be more specific.



1. Should the club establish building restrictions limiting the type of fencing at the bare minimum?

If you must have fencing then there should only be one type of fence and the developer should install it.  Don't leave it to the discretion of the homeowners.

I imagine the deer will find a way onto the property whether from the golf course or some other adjacent avenue.  I would prevent any fencing unless the resort aspect may cause people to wander onto the properties looking for balls.

2. Should the club prohibit fencing of any kind on property lines along the golf course?

Yes!!!

3. Should fencing be allowed, but set-back a certain footage from the property line?

Any setback means the golf course will take over the maintenance of the setback.  As long as you have a reasonable setback from the center of fairway to the property line there should be no further easements.  I think easements complicate the sale.  People have a hard time buying land they can't use, and then forgetting later down the road that they can't use it.  Again, no fencing unless there are some very practical reasons for it.  

Morgan Hill was required to install fencing along all property lines.  Being a public course I think it has prevented more people from walking onto homeowners property to retrieve their balls.
Has anyone run across restrictions like this before?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back