AgdaPkt 2021.03.22 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

From: _ To: GRP -City Council Subject: Nonconforming zoning agenda 3/22/21 Date: Monday, March 22, 2021 12:32:38 AM Attachments: imaae.ona CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Regarding: Nonconforming zoning - minor edits/expansions and red flags Dear City Council, Mayor, I strongly disagree with what Council is downplaying as "minor" edits to repair of nonconforming structures and the "expansion" of nonconforming uses. Why on earth would you continue further down the wrong path of promoting more nonconforming construction? Why would you go even further to expand on these?!! The relevance of Articles 33.106 & 33.11A being used in conjunction is to bring building alterations up to current code and limit continued misalignment. Council is not looking at them together as evidenced by your strike-throughs which have completely gutted the purpose of these dual codes. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 33.11, any nonconforming structure may be repaired and/or altered, provided that:" .... The term "notwithstanding" is critical because it shows that 33.10 and 33.11 BOTH apply to a project- not either/or to bring compliance up to the current code. Otherwise, it is easy for the developer to circumvent bringing the project into compliance. Why this matters: You are creating a huge loop -hole that Developer's will easily exploit. Example: say a developer is trying to add a 2nd story onto an older, nonconforming house. The 2nd story is attached to the first floor, not separate. Existing load-bearing walls that are altered and repaired are not separate from the 33.10 enlargement. The enlargement doesn't exempt the developer with complying with 33.11. Depending on the type of project, the developer could try to evade 33.11 if these laws (33.10 and 33.11) are not used in conjunction. Say the project is more than simple enlargement, it also alters the floor area of the existing structure, making it subject to the provisions of Section 33.11. The project proposes to alter 900 SF of living space on the first floor and to add 550 SF living space on the second floor. Now imagine that the plan was not to add a second level at all, but simply to gut the interior within the existing walls. Would 33.11A apply in that case? Of course it would because the text says "repaired and/or altered" and says that at least two habitable rooms must remain unaltered unless the whole structure is brought into compliance. When else would this section ever apply is not in this case? Clearly it applies. Since 100% of the floor area is altered (excluding garage) and also since no two rooms are left unaltered, gutting the full interior of the structure is not permitted without correcting the setbacks. But that contractor does not want to bring the structure into compliance and would prefer to keep the non -conforming setbacks while still gutting 100% of the interior. He asks himself: "How can I evade this requirement? What if I just do a small addition and claim that 33.10