By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Somehow, when Sterling Codifiers standardized Mona’s ordinances, a few changes were made that were not caught. One of those changes was the subject of a public hearing held in Mona concerning an amendment to city code 10-6-5 and repeal of code 10-6-6. Lynn Ingram, city planning commission director, said that the ordinance needed to be amended where setbacks to buildings were defined. Planning had discussed the need for an amendment and had recommended that the council make the change. “We want to keep the setbacks on side yards for an accessory building at 5-feet,” said Ingram. Following the public hearing, in regular meeting, the council agreed to pass the amendment and to repeal code 10-6-6. At the public hearing, Ingram presented the amendment for yard requirements. The hearing had drawn few concerned residents. Those proposed amendments were: “The minimum side yard for a main building shall be 10-feet. The minimum side yard for an accessory building shall be 5-feet. “The minimum distance between any two buildings on a lot must be 10-feet. “The minimum front yard setback for any building shall be 30-feet from the property line. “The minimum rear yard for any main building hall be 30-feet and for an accessory building 5-feet. “On corner lots, the minimum setback for all sides that front a street is 30-feet. “All run off from the roof of any building must run off onto the owner’s property.” Repealed by the new amendment was 10-6-6- which dealt with accessory buildings and differed from the amended version in number of feet for certain setbacks. One of those that was repealed altogether was the requirement that there be a minimum of 3-feet between the main building and an accessory building. “With anything less than 5-feet as a side yard setback, the snow from a pitched roof can fall on a side yard fence and crush it,” said Ingram. Jonathan Jones, council member, asked if the 5-foot side yard would still allow the property owner to mow between the fence and the accessory building. “It would do that,” said Ingram. With the roof overhang on a 5-foot setback on a side yard, it would mean that the property would actually have only 2.5 feet between the edge of the roof and a property line fence. Sometimes, if there is lot of snow, the snow might still fall on the fence. Jones said he had some concern about quarter acre lots because a few had been grandfathered in when the city set the requirement for a building lot in the city at one-half acre. A grandfather clause (or grandfather policy) is a provision in which an old rule continues to apply to some existing situations while a new rule will apply to all future cases. Those exempt from the new rule are said to have grandfather rights or acquired rights, or to have been grandfathered in. He suggested that, perhaps, the city should look at the side yard setback in a different way for those few lots. Mike Stringer, council member, said he wondered about the 30-foot setback on both street sides of a corner lot. It would take up a lot of property that could not be used for a building. Jeff Hearty, council member, said that the requirements took into consideration the line of sight. Someone driving along a street needed to be able to see approaching traffic from both directions at a corner. “Most of us like a wide road,” said Jones. Bill Mills, mayor, said that he lived on a corner lot and had no problems with the setback requirements. Ingram said that aesthetics were also a concern. It looked much better to look down a street and see conformity in the setbacks on the street in both directions. It would look out-of-place for a home on a corner to stick out from the rest of the homes on the block. It would be especially true if the building jutted out next to the two homes to its sides. “The front property line is uniform so everybody has a yard that looks good,” said Ingram. “Any non-conforming lot would need to go before the planning commission and then come to the city council for approval before they could get a building license,” said Hearty. The city should also consider appointing a variance committee, said Ingram, however, that could be done later. Ingram said he was interested in getting the amendment to the code passed that night. The setbacks were the same ones that had been in place before the codifying was done, said Mills. When the codification took place, the codifier replaced that code with one of its own. Hearty asked who would enforce the ordinance. Jones said that the building inspector would red flag any building that did not meet the requirements of city code and would, therefore, be the main enforcer.
“We have the authority to enforce our ordinances and city codes,” said Mills. “If someone sees something that is not in compliance, they should bring it to the attention of the council. We can make them take down a building that is not in compliance.” | 