Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lehrer recommended the following fundamental changes to Section 174-45.4, beginning with <br /> allowing Accessory Apartments by right, with a Building Permit, in place of a Special Permit. <br /> A. Special Permit replaced by Building Permit <br /> B. Change"with"to "to" <br /> C. Allowing the addition of a newly constructed or previously constructed detached apartment <br /> E. Accessory apartments shall be consistent with the predominant design character and <br /> contribute to the lot coverage maximum <br /> H. Old H replaced with old J <br /> I. Old I replaced with requiring that rentals not be offered on a weekly or daily basis and must <br /> be rented for a minimum of one month <br /> J. New, accessory apartment was intended as a long term rental to a tenant and could not be <br /> listed for sale <br /> Mr. Lehrer suggested updating the Accessory Apartment Bylaw Chart Section 174-25 (A)(8)by <br /> striking"SP" as it would become a by right use. <br /> Amending Section 174-31 Land Space Requirements Table would propose that a detached accessory <br /> apartment be exempt from rear and side setbacks of 15 feet, and allow construction with a 5 foot <br /> setback from the property line. Should this not be approved,the 15 foot setback would remain. <br /> Amendments to Section 174-3 Terms would clarify definitions and the OSID should be consistent, <br /> allowing for two bedrooms in place of one bedroom. <br /> Mr. Balzarini expressed concern about the 5 foot setback,particularly as a homeowner could build a <br /> structure up to 35 feet high. Mr. Lehrer stated that smaller lots could not create non-conformity and if <br /> a home already met 25%,would not be allowed to build a detached structure. Mr. Lehrer confirmed <br /> that only one accessory apartment could be created for each lot. Mr. Balzarini inquired whether the <br /> Building Commissioner supported these changes and the added responsibilities but Mr. Lehrer <br /> responded that he was unsure. Mr. Balzarini liked the concept of accessory apartments but did not <br /> support a 5 foot setback,preferring to maintain the 15 foot setback. Mr. Lehrer stated that it was a best <br /> practice nationwide to offer reduced setbacks to allow for accessory apartments. Mr. Callahan <br /> inquired further about nationwide practices regarding setbacks and whether it was typically 5 feet. Mr. <br /> Lehrer responded that housing advocates supported reduced setbacks but that not all communities <br /> adopted the recommendations. <br /> Mr. Phelan stated that many Cape communities had passed similar accessory apartment bylaws. Mr. <br /> Lehrer stated that the Cape Cod Commission did not propose the reduced setback in the model. Mr. <br /> Phelan stated that there was building code regarding the 5 foot setback suggesting that it could be <br /> problematic since there could be no doors or windows on that side, and the setback may need to remain <br /> at 15 feet. <br /> Mr. Balzarini expressed concern about the size of lots and septic systems and Mr. Lehrer confirmed <br /> that the Board of Health would be required to sign off on the matter. Mr. Cummings also disagreed <br /> with a 5 foot setback. <br /> Mr. Callahan inquired about Section I and the one month rental requirement minimum. Mr. Callahan <br /> inquired whether a homeowner could rent their home and move into the apartment. Mr. Lehrer <br /> responded that the homeowner needed to demonstrate occupancy of the principal structure to be issued <br /> 2 <br />