O-2004-1501-III scup03-004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . Request to waive/amend/clarify the requirement that "accessory building be located a minimum of thirty feet (30') behind the rear of the primary structure". The current placement of structures on site would not meet this requirement as I understand it. The attached (and, apologetically crude) drawing shows a more realistic representation of the structure placement and driveway system than does the AutoCad version you currently possess. The location of these structures has been very carefully thought out to preserve as much of the rather impressive tree line as possible. The house location makes use of a "dead spot" of trees that currently exists. The secondary structure is angled to preserve a number of enormous pines and oaks that I do not want to cut down. As you can imagine, it was no easy task to find a 6000 square foot pad site that would take a minimum of the larger, healthier vegetation. Even the driveways work around particular trees in an effort to preserve them. I interpret (perhaps incorrectly) that this ordinance was drafted with a different type of property in mind than what I currently have. I can see the necessity of preventing the placement of 'barns' , for example, in front of a house on a deep but not wide property with no real natural vegetation to inhibit visibility from passing drivers. My property is practically square and heavily' wooded. None of the structures will be visible from the road, as I have designed the front of the property with privacy as an utmost concern. The driveway is staggered to prevent structures from being visible when looking up the main entrance. Underbrush is being preserved around the property perimeter for the same reason. If forced to abide by this particular section of the ordinance, I will have to move the secondary structure back over 30' , ironically placing it closer to the only neighbors I have and the only people that would have any vested interest in what I build on my property. A secondary collateral effect would be that the secondary struc~e, which is basically my garage, would now be further away from the main house. This creates a safety issue as well as a convenience issue. My concern is that (especially after dark) anyone arriving home or leaving would have to walk even further to and from the garage through the woods. The pathway will be lit, but it's still an unnecessary safety hazard if there is no logical or rational reason for moving the structure. I would ask the council to amend this particular section of the ordinance for my property. I would be amenable to a requirement of "at least 30 feet away from and not in front of" or to having the council approve placement of structures as they appear on my submitted site plan within reason (no significant changes). Thank you for your consideration on this issue. ~1J~ Scott D. Rodriguez l~ ~ @ ~ 0 \JJ F:~ ~ ~i . Iii,' II JAN 2 a 1004'J I~ u By ~