pages: PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf, 18
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 18 | could be made. He noted that the rules for lots were written for 50' x 100' rectangular lots, which accounted for two-thirds of the lots in the City. He noted that he could build the proposed building with a minor footprint change using the same square footage without requesting any variances. He noted that half the block was R-4 zoning, and half was zoned R-1; the lots in the R-1 zone could accommodate this size building with a minor footprint change without requesting any variances, and that they could meet all the setbacks. He noted that the lot was actually Z- shaped. He submitted four letters of support from neighbors who were unable to attend the meeting. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Autorino asked the applicant whether he could build the structure to a height of 15 feet, so he could place it wherever he wanted. Mr. Rollins replied that he could, and that he would have to call it a garage/storage building rather than a workshop. However, he would not be able to put the hoist in, but could get the trusses in for the solar panels. He noted that he needed the hoist to pick materials and projects up because of his disability. He noted that he wished to screen the solar panels and braces from the neighbors' view. He noted that a power pole went through the lot, and he had negotiated with his neighbors and AP&T to get it removed. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that many people used their basements and garages for woodworking. She was concerned that this activity was being treated as a commercial activity, which she did not believe was the case for this applicant. Mr. Thomas noted that the Accessory Structure Ordinance stated that the use should be a U- Occupancy. He assumed the amendment was made in the past to prevent illegal conversions to second units. In this case, the Building Code classified it as an F-Occupancy. The second issue was the height. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 3 of the staff report discussed the definition of an accessory structure, and inquired whether this could be considered two lots. Mr. Garrison replied that it was considered part of the next-door neighbor's lot. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the building could be considered incidental because it provided solar power for the main building, Mr. Garrison replied that it would not be a U-Occupancy building in either case. Mr. Garrison noted that the Building Code was clear in defining this use as a factory occupancy, and not subject to interpretation because of the proposed use of woodworking. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether this proposed use could be considered a hobby, Mr. Garrison replied that had been discussed with the Building Official, and that it was not relevant to the Building Code whether it was commercial or non-commercial; woodworking was a listed use. President Cook inquired whether a driveway could reach the garage. Page 18 of 23 | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |