3A Public Hearing 2012 0221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpt of the Board of ZoningAdjustrnents Regular Meeting Minutes for• Ianuary 3, 2012 Page 3 o1'4 staff is seeking to reduce the setback requirement for garages. Chair Daly said that the property line encroachment issue does not apply to most of the garages in the North Area, because they were built by the developer on clearly defined lot lines. Chair Daly also pointed out because accessory structures smaller than 120 square feet require no building permits, the City has no input regarding those structures and no building inspector reviews them. He suggested that perhaps a permit should be required for any accessory structures built on the property line. Planner Barros explained that it is the San Leandro Building Code, rather than the Zoning Code, which allows accessory structures less than 120 square feet to be built without permits. She pointed out that homeowners who do come in to inquire about permits are asked to file a site plan that records the placement of the accessory structure; at that juncture staff would be able to review drainage and materials issues. Member Makin said that most people don't build these accessory structures — they buy them from Home Depot or Lowe's or companies that manufacture sheds and drop them onto the property. He said that he'd hesitate getting the City to be more onerous for those, or to get involved in those minutiae. Member Makin also asked about how grandfathering is determined. In response, Senior Planner Barros said that the City relies on a book based on the Sanborn Insurance Maps for structures from the 1930s through the mid- 1950s. Later structures should have permits and recordings in either Alameda County or the City of San Leandro. If the City has no record at all, property owners are told to go to the County for the property "worksheet," which should have a compilation of all permits. In addition, Senior Planner Barros said that building inspectors' knowledge about the age of materials, various construction types and so forth can help verify what would be grandfathered. Vice Chair Houston asked for confirmation that the modification that Senior Planner Barros proposed would not alter the existing policy. Member Palma said that while she understands Chair Daly's point, particularly about fences that are not built on property lines, she concurs with Member Makin's point about not getting the City involved in property owners' decisions to put room -size drop -ins in their yards. She said that she wouldn't want to have to get a permit for such an accessory structure if she decides to buy one. Bigger structures, she added, are definitely a concern — and those would trigger setback requirements. Member Mendieta asked what is currently required of an owner in terms of maintenance of accessory structures. Senior Planner Barros said that the City has the ability to consider something an eyesore only if it is visible from a public street, or perhaps in the case of planned developments, if it's covered by covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC &Rs). If poor maintenance led to safety concerns, she said the City could call in building inspectors to determine whether a structure is unsafe. In response to a further question from Member Mendieta, Senior Planner Barros said that most of the accessory structures are placed on concrete slabs. Chair Daly asked whether smaller structures that require no building permits must meet any code requirements. Senior Planner Barros said that no building code requirements