[RE-wrenches] Solar rights precedent

[William Miller]

Matt:

Please do not assume that we have not been professional and diplomatic.  We 
have been very patient and spoken and written with measure tone, but the 
city has dug in their heels.  We have been told our only option is to apply 
for a minor use permit.  The fee is $500.00 and the outcome is not 
guaranteed -- we can be ruled against or any citizen can appeal.

We need to take the next step and I don't believe that standing up for our 
rights can be considered as "bullying."


Respectfully,

William Miller



At 10:41 AM 2/26/2010, you wrote:
>Don't be a Solar Bully! Have the homeowner file for the Zoning Waiver so 
>it gets on the City Council (or whatever body) agenda ASAP. Flapping your 
>arms and being disgusted with the Planning folks ain't gonna get your 
>project online.
>
>I don't think we should automatically assume that the building/planning 
>department is being evil and call in the AG to "set them straight". Maybe 
>if you never want to have a decent working relationship in that town 
>again... I would use honey, not donuts, to sniff out what their main 
>objection is. If it turns out that it's really just an "architectural 
>preference" issue, then you can deal with it thru the Solar Rights angle. 
>If it's a genuine Public Safety issue, then deal with it. It could very 
>well be that it is simply a procedural step... There is a building-height 
>ordinance after all. If you want to do something that is outside the 
>boundaries of the ordinance, then you need to apply for a waiver or seek 
>to modify the ordinance. Civics 101. This doesn't have to be a stressful thing!
>
>I have successfully applied for and received several zoning waivers and 
>exemptions on behalf of property owners over the years. Yes, it's an extra 
>step and, yes, it can be frustrating. Yes, it can cost the property owner 
>some extra bucks. Yes, it can take months to go thru the process. Yes, it 
>is VERY doable! Be sure to charge the homeowner for your time.
>
>One example that the AHJ might cite relative Public Safety is Fire 
>Department capabilities. Small communities generally do not have the 
>broadest selection of fire-fighting equipment on hand... Taller ladders, etc.
>
>In this case, I would pre-empt the hearing process by checking in with the 
>Fire Chief ASAP. Based on the description provided, I suspect that the 
>Fire Chief will determine that the extra height won't be an issue since 
>the height to access and walking levels are unchanged. (S)he might have an 
>opinion relative the arrangement of the roof mounted equipment (see 
>Cal-Fire document....), which you can work to accommodate. If you can 
>achieve the support of the Public Safety officials, your path to success 
>will be much smoother and more certain. Make damned sure you have this 
>endorsement when the first hearing comes around! This and a copy of the 
>Solar Rights Law should be sufficient to get it approved quickly. If you 
>don't have either of these when the hearing comes around, you just might 
>be denied or delayed further. Look smart. Be prepared.
>
>I would also have the owner double-check their homeowner's insurance 
>policy as a precaution. I've seen clauses like, "Common to the 
>surroundings" before. If your project on their property creates a 
>situation where their property is no longer "common to the surroundings", 
>and they have a casualty, and you didn't warn them.....
>
>Good Luck!
>Solar Janitor
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20100226/9855e729/attachment-0004.html>