Woodside council shifts preference on basement ordinance | Town Square | Almanac Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Woodside council shifts preference on basement ordinance

Original post made on Apr 21, 2016

A majority of Woodside council members now favors an ordinance that would allow the floor area of a new basement to extend no more than 50 percent beyond the footprint of the main residence above it.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, April 21, 2016, 9:42 AM

Comments (3)

Like this comment
Posted by Oh Please
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Glens
on Apr 21, 2016 at 12:43 pm

Notice that Lubin's dump truck argument is based on the premise that the excavated dirt is hauled off the property rather than re-used on site. Of course that might be because Woodside's idiotic regulations punish you for keeping excavated soil on the property.

But then the truck trips are way over-compensated by the owner's checkbook in confiscatory "road impact" fees, so the town wins from a big excavation project like this. Those fees are a major part of the town's revenue.

This is all self-inflicted by Woodside's byzantine and internally contradictory building and planning ordinances and policies. You'll find out if you ever try to build something here.


Like this comment
Posted by Steve Lubin
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm

Dear Oh Please,
My illustrations show the impacts of both keeping the excavation spoils on site and alternately trucking them away. Keeping them on site will likely result in disruption of a large percentage of the site, hauling them away will result in intensive trucking and yes, huge road impact fees.
Here is a link to the illustrations: Web Link
regards,
Steve Lubin


Like this comment
Posted by Oh Please
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Glens
on Apr 22, 2016 at 12:18 pm

Right, look at Lubin's cartoon with row after row of miniature dump trucks, as if he's explaining the issue to a group of school children. We understand numbers, Steve.

Lubin says keeping the excavated soil on-site "will likely result in disruption of a large percentage of the site"; How does he know that? He doesn't know the size of the site, nor the quality of the plans or architects involved. He simply wants to ban it in all cases, a priori. We have an ASRB and a Planning Commission and a Town Council to watch out for unreasonable projects and plenty of engineering regulations to prevent anything unsafe. We don't need micromanaging formulas.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

'All of us can do something.' Local black restaurant owners react to George Floyd protests
By Elena Kadvany | 13 comments | 6,166 views

Power Lines, Pipelines, and the Limits of Eminent Domain
By Sherry Listgarten | 23 comments | 4,615 views

Such delightful city employee perks
By Diana Diamond | 40 comments | 3,637 views

Premarital and Couples: Are you Kinder to Strangers than to Your Partner?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,616 views

Ready for Nothing
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 942 views

 

Congratulations, 
Class of 2020!

We are proud to share in the excitement of your graduation.

View the graduates