<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Joel:<br><br>
Two points:<br><br>
1. There is no one behind the residence and the adjacent property is a
conservation easement, so there will never be anyone there in the future
to have a blocked view. Our non-penetrating installation will be
only about 14" tall, so view blocking is not an issue.<br><br>
2. State law allows only review based on whether a project affects the
public health or safety. I can not see how view protection has
anything to do with the health and safety of the public. This seems
so straight forward, but the city attorney insists that the city can
charge $500.00 for a use permit application and then debate the merits of
a height limitation.<br><br>
If there were some possibility that the arrays could blow off the roof
and strike some one, then there would be a safety nexus. The system
is certified safe for wind zone C and the issue of safety has never been
addressed.<br><br>
I think I will call the state AG.<br><br>
Code below:<br><br>
<br>
</font><pre>17959.1. (a) A city or county shall administratively
approve
applications to install solar energy systems though the issuance of a
building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. However, if the
building official of the city or county has a good faith belief that
the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon
the public health and safety, the city or county may require the
applicant to apply for a use permit.
</pre><font size=3>William Miller<br><br>
<br>
At 04:49 PM 2/25/2010, you
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>William,<br>
The rational concern is that something added to a roof will block
someone's view. If you can show that the solar equipment does not rise
above the existing roof line, then the rational conclusion is that the
view is not blocked and no waiver is needed. The solution is to show that
the equipment does not rise above the existing roof line. If this is not
the reason they are asking for a waiver, then it may be because the law
did not, or now does not, allow the building as it stands now because the
building height is above the allowable height. In this case, the building
owner may be able to "grandfather" in the building and get the
waiver.<br>
Joel Davidson<br><br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>