Planning Commission hesitant to recommend setback extensions By MATT KAPKO Half Moon Bay Review November 3, 2004 Even as the city attempted to tackle its problem with substandard lots over the past five months, planning staff and residents continued to find additional problems along the way. One of those unexpected discoveries, trouble with side, front and rear setbacks, hampered some of the progress made in planning since June. The issue came up again at last Thursday's Planning Commission's meeting. Some commissioners were hesitant to find the balance between fair zoning and reasonable development restrictions - mostly unsure of inadvertent problems that could arise. The setbacks remain a problem for homeowners because required buffers between homes contradict what is actually built on the ground. Building permits from the Casa Del Mar neighborhood, where much of the zoning brouhaha first gained steam in June, show front and back setbacks at 20 feet and side setbacks at five feet. Most of the homes were built in 1968. Zoning maps from that same year, however, show front and back setbacks at 25 feet and side setbacks at six feet. It all leaves Planning Director Jack Liebster scratching his head. While he isn't in the business of researching the past necessarily, he is hard pressed to understand why such a glaring contradiction remained in place for decades. Liebster can't rewrite history, but he can, as his job requires, plan for the future. And he's consistently said that he hopes to bring clarity to the future, giving homeowners an accurate representation of what can and can't be allowed under their homes' zoning designation. Part of the problem, Liebster says, is that some solutions would work for Casa Del Mar, but could produce more ambiguity in other neighborhoods. Staff proposed four options to address the nonconforming setbacks for home additions on exceptional lots: * Option A would allow an extension up to five feet into the 25-foot front setback even if a nonconforming situation doesn't exist. Any addition would be limited to 50 percent of the width of the existing structure. * Option B would allow the same extension into the front setback only if there are Coastal Resource Areas and/or buffer zones in the rear yard that prevent expansion in the rear and a nonconforming situation exists in the front. * Option C would allow the same extension into the front setback, but only if a nonconforming situation exists. * Option D would allow the extension of the width of a nonconforming front setback, but not allow the extension of the front setback beyond its current situation. A property owner would be allowed to build out to the current setback situation and widen it beyond 50 percent. Some commissioners said it would be better to deal with these nonconforming situations on a case-by-case basis through the variance procedure, but planning staff and residents disagree. Liebster explained that variances are limited to unique situations and that this problem goes beyond a few unique homes. The commission decided to sit on the staff proposals until its next meeting Nov. 18. Resident Pat Jonsson was disappointed with the commission's hesitation and said it contradicts what many of the commissioners have told him in private discussions. Members of the City Council and Planning Commission have told him that they want the zoning to reflect what the homes were originally built to, he said, adding that their opinions shift between meetings. "When we pack the house, they sing a different tune," Jonsson said. Tom Roman, a homeowner in the Casa Del Mar neighborhood, left the meeting with similar unease. "It kind of looked like it's starting to go south again, and there's some concerns on the Planning Commission that, interesting enough, aren't really all that shared by the public," he said. Home