pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 3 | Staff Member McCartney said she did not know and that the owner could answer. Staff Member Tai said the owner did own the adjacent lot. Board Member Hom then asked about comments about the avocado tree. He wanted to know who owned the tree since there was a condition to remove it and to plant replacement trees. Staff Member Tai explained how there had been an agreement between the neighbors to replace the tree at the Zoning Administrator Hearing. This was a civil matter and not something the city had jurisdiction over. Board Member Hom clarified that the adjacent owner had verbally agreed to the removal of the avocado tree and to have replacement trees. Staff Member Tai said that was correct. Board Member Hom asked about the one-foot setback and that there were no leaves within two feet but a gutter near the property line. He wanted to know if that was allowed by building code. Staff Member McCartney said she believed it was because of an exception. The owner explained the agreement that had been reached with the tenant next door, the property owner did not care or wanted to be involved. He explained the person using the garage for storage was a family member. Board Member Hom thought it would be best to work these things out with the property owner. He understood it was a civil matter. Board Member Ruiz wanted dimensional clarification on sheet A2.1, would the building be in the same location and would it be smaller. The project designer, Mr. Pukdeedamrongrit, explained the setbacks and that the width would be smaller. He then explained the setbacks in other places. Board Member Ruiz then asked about sheet 3.3, detail number 2. She wanted to know what those windows look into. Mr. Pukdeedamrongrit explained that the windows would bring light into the hallway and that you would look over the shed of the property at 1216 9th street. Board Member Rothenberg wondered if the staff or applicant could give better references for waiving current standards that did not apply to existing non-conforming buildings. Staff Member Tai explained current setbacks and what would still apply to this home. He also explained different districts and what those requirements were and why. For variances, they look at physical constraints and that the property owner was not getting any special privileges. The neighborhood has similarly narrow lots, but those homes were built before the current zoning standards were adopted. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |