Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge town to enforce setbacks after 15-foot backyard structure and seek variance
Summary
Two Stony Creek residents told the Sunnyvale Town Council that a neighboring homeowner built an extended backyard structure they say infringes on the rear setback and is now seeking a variance; council staff said they would follow up.
Two residents of the Stony Creek subdivision asked the Sunnyvale Town Council on July 28 to review a backyard structure they say violates subdivision setback rules and to explain why construction proceeded.
Jovan Michael, a Stony Creek resident, said the structure behind his property ‘‘is an extended backyard building that reaches up to the fence line and stands approximately 15 feet tall.’’ Michael said he filed complaints with the town and the homeowners association and received a notice that the homeowner is requesting a variance.
The concern, Michael said, is twofold: that the building ‘‘does not appear to meet the required rear setback guidelines, which in our subdivision should range from 10 to 20 feet depending on the lot size,’’ and that the town responded the work was permitted. ‘‘If the structure was clearly in violation of existing ordinances, why was the construction allowed to proceed?’’ he asked.
Stephen Ray, another Stony Creek resident, told the council he visited the property and said the structure ‘‘really just towers over their house’’ and diminishes privacy and perceived property values. Ray said he and neighbors want the town to ‘‘check this out’’ and ensure rules were followed.
Mayor and staff told the speakers the council could not discuss the matter during public comment and that staff would follow up. The mayor said staff members Sal, Bill or Elmer would contact the resident with next steps.
No formal action or vote occurred during the meeting on this item. Michael told the council he has photographs, emails and other documentation and offered to provide them to staff.
The comments occurred during the public-comment portion of the July 28 meeting.
