Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Noise Compliance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies accessory-structure variance after neighbor complaints about noise and unpermitted construction

March 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board denied a variance for an accessory structure at 614 Arnold Mill Road after neighbors described the building as a cabinet shop with evening and weekend machinery noise and questioned whether the slab and structure were installed without permits; the board found the commercial activity inconsistent with the requested residential accessory allowance and voted 5–0 to deny.

Staff presented a request by Jeronimo Vasquez (applicant) for an accessory structure at 614 Arnold Mill Road to exceed size and height limits and to use metal materials instead of those compatible with the primary residence. Staff said the house is about 2,128 sq ft and described the proposal’s siting and partial shielding from the road.

Applicant representatives said the accessory structure’s peak is 20 ft and that it is used to store tools, plywood and construction equipment; they said it includes tall bay doors to move materials in and out. Neighbor Janet Wilton, who lives adjacent to the site, said the structure was constructed quickly in April, sits directly on the property line near her house, and that she hears constant machinery and sawing into the night and on weekends. Wilton said she filmed saw activity at 8:58 p.m. and that dust and a burn pile on the property also created nuisance impacts. A board member asked whether the concrete slab was poured before the building was set on it; a representative confirmed the slab was installed first.

Board members characterized the use as commercial (a cabinet shop) and expressed concern about the building’s proximity to a neighbor and its apparent use without permit; one member moved to deny the variances and another seconded. The board voted 5–0 to deny the request.