Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newton commission hears lengthy debate on accessory-building sidewall and height rules; discussion tabled amid pending court case
Summary
The Newton Planning Commission discussed zoning text amendments to accessory-building sidewall and height requirements, heard a public comment from a property owner who has paused construction, and voted to table the item while staff gathers more information and a related court appeal remains open.
The Newton Planning Commission on March 3 held an extended discussion about proposed zoning-text amendments that would change sidewall and height standards for accessory buildings in single-family (R-1) districts. Commissioners and staff discussed whether to base accessory-building limits on a percentage of the principal structure’s height, an absolute maximum, or a rule that accessories may not exceed the main building.
Casey Neitzel of 100 Mockingbird Lane spoke during the public hearing, asking the commission to consider raising sidewall heights so she can finish a building that has been paused for about three years. “This helps me in my case, so I would appreciate at least the entertainment of raising this height and getting me to the point to where I can finish completing my building because I've been on pause for 3 years waiting for this to to go through,” Neitzel said.
Commissioners reviewed a comparison table of surrounding cities’ rules. Several commissioners said Newton appears to be an outlier with lower limits. Commissioners discussed a 60% rule used by some jurisdictions — which limits the accessory-building height to 60% of the principal structure’s height, with an absolute cap (for some cities) of 21 feet — and questioned whether that approach produces impractical results for one-story houses. “If you guys have a 15 foot tall house, it’d be hard to build a garage with a height of only 9 feet,” one commissioner said during the discussion.
Staff noted the proposed edits are focused on single-family (R-1) districts and that other districts would need separate consideration. Commissioners raised the role of variances and noted existing variance requests have prompted this review. Staff also told the commission the city is involved in a pending court case related to this topic; commissioners agreed to proceed cautiously. “Another reason we're tabling this right now and pushing it is because we do have an ongoing court case,” one staff member said. Commissioners asked staff whether they must wait for the court process; staff replied the city has to observe the appeal timelines but can continue research.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to table the zoning-text amendment on sidewall-height requirements so staff can gather additional comparisons and craft recommended language. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
No ordinance or regulation was adopted at the meeting; the commission directed staff to return with additional information and possible draft language.
