Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses whether steel security gate on Main Street violates zoning; stops short of changing code
Summary
Staff presented a photograph of a steel security gate at a Main Street tenant and said exterior gates are prohibited under Section 2.13 of the Central Business Zone regulations; commissioners agreed the gate appears prohibited but debated whether to amend the code or rely on the current interpretation.
Staff reported a concern about a security gate installed at a Main Street tenant (identified in the packet as 'VapeFault'), showed a photograph and said the structure was not permitted and had not undergone zoning review. Staff read a portion of the municipal code, citing Section 2.13 of the Central Business Zone regulations and noting that the last sentence reads—according to the packet—that “exterior gates are prohibited.”
Staff asked the commission whether that steel security measure constitutes an exterior gate prohibited by the code. Commissioner Elizabeth Emery said clarifying the language for future readers would be helpful so “there’ll be no confusion and no question at all.” Commissioner Sebastian Giuliano warned against changing the ordinance text to address a single case, saying “I wouldn't do that, because I think it creates what's called a negative pregnant,” and cautioned that amending the code might create grandfathering arguments for existing tenants.
Commissioners agreed the gate does not fit the character of the B-1 zone and appears to be prohibited under the existing language; staff indicated they had enough direction to proceed with enforcement or further action but no amendment vote was taken at the meeting.
The commission reached consensus that the gate appears to be a prohibited exterior gate and directed staff to follow up; no formal code amendment or enforcement action was recorded in the transcript.
