Great summary Tom. I just watched the meeting . I'll take a rare stance and compliment the Council regarding Public Hearing items 1&2 (variances). They were quite generous to the lady who inherited a 10 yr old code violation by refunding her $500 variance fee. (btw that's a recently increased fee level). I'd file the next one under "Santa Clause" where the couple built a pole barn and a shed w/o a permit (i thought thanks to former Councilman Baily, we didn't need permits for sheds?) that had the additional feature of violating a code requirement that detached buildings can't be bigger sq footage than your residence (a DUMB restriction IMO with increased code restrictions on # of cars you can have in your driveway and back yard, general lack of storage space when a extended family follows our new residents to Florida, and a general antipathy towards rental storage units). I was glad to see Councilmen Johnson and Langevin support the property owner. Johnson stated the obvious that this is not a HOA, its not hurting anyone. Mr Langevin did well by making the City official explain "why" and what the code is trying to do in the first place. (She didn't have crisp answers IMO). The property owners on that one were very lucky (I don't think the law was on their side). I have strong opinions about property rights and that the City should be supporting property owners, but I wouldn't of had the nerve to pitch that one to the Council.
I agree, council handled the first case perfectly. On the second, I'm with you. The current owner created the issue and was out of compliance on two major items.
That said, you make a fair point about the underlying rule. Detached-square-footage limits, and driveway vehicle caps. Worth a closer look at the code itself, separate from whether any given variance gets granted. Johnson and Langevin asking "why" is the kind of pressure that surfaces the real question.
Executive level housing behind Wal-Mart? Who do they think is going to buy a $Million home behind Wal-Mart and an apartment complex in the middle of a city? What are these people smoking?
Does the City Council need to require sobriety tests before people can speak at City Council and Zoning Meetings?
My Question is this due in part to either high rains or overdevelopment without infrastructure in place to handle the increase in population and loss of wetlands If even a small fraction is due to overdevelopment, then impact fees need to be increased dramatically, and development needs to reflect it. Before we totally turn into a 3rd world $hithole
Great summary Tom. I just watched the meeting . I'll take a rare stance and compliment the Council regarding Public Hearing items 1&2 (variances). They were quite generous to the lady who inherited a 10 yr old code violation by refunding her $500 variance fee. (btw that's a recently increased fee level). I'd file the next one under "Santa Clause" where the couple built a pole barn and a shed w/o a permit (i thought thanks to former Councilman Baily, we didn't need permits for sheds?) that had the additional feature of violating a code requirement that detached buildings can't be bigger sq footage than your residence (a DUMB restriction IMO with increased code restrictions on # of cars you can have in your driveway and back yard, general lack of storage space when a extended family follows our new residents to Florida, and a general antipathy towards rental storage units). I was glad to see Councilmen Johnson and Langevin support the property owner. Johnson stated the obvious that this is not a HOA, its not hurting anyone. Mr Langevin did well by making the City official explain "why" and what the code is trying to do in the first place. (She didn't have crisp answers IMO). The property owners on that one were very lucky (I don't think the law was on their side). I have strong opinions about property rights and that the City should be supporting property owners, but I wouldn't of had the nerve to pitch that one to the Council.
Thanks Tom.
I agree, council handled the first case perfectly. On the second, I'm with you. The current owner created the issue and was out of compliance on two major items.
That said, you make a fair point about the underlying rule. Detached-square-footage limits, and driveway vehicle caps. Worth a closer look at the code itself, separate from whether any given variance gets granted. Johnson and Langevin asking "why" is the kind of pressure that surfaces the real question.
Executive level housing behind Wal-Mart? Who do they think is going to buy a $Million home behind Wal-Mart and an apartment complex in the middle of a city? What are these people smoking?
Does the City Council need to require sobriety tests before people can speak at City Council and Zoning Meetings?
My Question is this due in part to either high rains or overdevelopment without infrastructure in place to handle the increase in population and loss of wetlands If even a small fraction is due to overdevelopment, then impact fees need to be increased dramatically, and development needs to reflect it. Before we totally turn into a 3rd world $hithole
Just the same old stuff, delay we pay.
A day late and a dollar short on new commercial building in PB
Freeze the building