Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Buildings Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission continues discussion to clarify boathouse and covered boat‑well rules
Summary
Commissioners reviewed proposed ordinance language distinguishing boathouses (with sides) from covered boat wells (roof only), discussed exempting covered wells from accessory building counts, and heard a Building Official express concern about potential requests for multiple covered wells.
At the April 16 meeting the Harrison Township Planning Commission continued its review of accessory building regulations, focusing on proposed language to clarify the difference between boathouses and covered boat wells.
Township Planner Adam Young presented draft language that would treat a boathouse (a structure with partial or full sides) as a detached accessory building while a covered boat well (a roof with no sides) would not count toward the permitted number of detached accessory structures. Young said the clarification aims to resolve inconsistent interpretations and provide clearer standards for staff and property owners.
The Building Official reviewed the draft via email and told commissioners this is the first request of its kind during his 10‑year tenure, arguing there may be limited need to change the ordinance at this time. Commissioner Amanda Oparka said the Building Official had emailed her and Commissioner Tomenello expressing concern that multiple covered boat wells could be requested; commissioners discussed options to limit the number of covered wells. Commissioner Tomenello also raised a separate concern that canvas or metal carports could become a compliance issue under the accessory‑structure rules.
No formal amendment or motion was adopted; the discussion was recorded as a carryover item from the previous meeting and will return for further consideration. The draft language and Building Official input will remain in the packet for follow‑up.
