Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends deviation for two metal buildings at Veil Rex Drive; requires permits and engineering stamps
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended approval of façade deviations for two recently constructed metal buildings—one 65-by-85 storage building and a 14-by-18 accessory structure used for coin mining—on Veil Rex Drive, but conditioned both approvals on bringing the buildings into compliance with building and permitting requirements.
The Newcastle Planning Commission recommended approval Monday of façade deviations for two metal buildings constructed without masonry at 3455 Veil Rex Drive, subject to the structures being brought into full compliance with city building and permitting standards.
City planning staff told commissioners they discovered two newly built, unpermitted structures on the property in May: a 65-by-85 metal storage building and a 14-by-18 accessory building that houses coin-mining equipment. Planning staff said earlier approvals in 2019 for other buildings on the site were reviewed under older standards and do not set precedent for new construction.
Julia Yan, planning staff, reviewed the city’s masonry requirements history: Newcastle adopted a one-third masonry rule in February 2004, raised the requirement to 50% in February 2005 and increased it to 80% in 2022. Because the property is zoned CC2 (Community Commercial), the current code requires 80% masonry on all facades.
The contractor, Chris Over of Vision and Construction, told the commission he has stamped engineering plans and licensed tradesmen working on the project but acknowledged permit filings were not complete in the city system. Planning staff asked for engineer-stamped plans and for the owner to submit building-permit applications for both structures.
Commissioners debated whether the smaller building was temporary and noted ventilation and foundation questions related to the accessory building’s coin-mining equipment. Several commissioners said any approval should be conditioned on submitting required engineering stamps, permit applications, and corrections to structural anchoring or foundation as needed.
The commission moved and seconded separate recommendations that the 65-by-85 metal structure and the 14-by-18 accessory building be allowed to remain as constructed, with approval conditioned on bringing each building into compliance with applicable building codes, submitting required engineering and electrical documentation, and receiving proper permits. Both motions were unanimously approved.
