The Globe has a story this morning about a Newton family that’s been told it’s 13 feet high front yard tomato growing apparatus is illegal.
The article mentions that homeowner Eli Katzoff “launched a website to demonstrate how the garden works and is filming the process for a short documentary.” I’ve found his website but not a page about the garden.
The local TV stations are going to love this one!
UPDATE: Here’s Katzoff’s site for the garden.
I loved the wacky logic of the whole undertaking – my parents are away, how do I grown a million tomatoes at their house without messing up their garden. I know – the hanging garden of Newton. Next I’ve got to work on the aerial irrigation system.
Great story.
I have three thoughts about this:
1. The only thing more ridiculous than the idea that it might have qualified as a sukkah would have been if it had. Fortunately, that didn’t occur.
2. Meanwhile, we have a situation where it seems the homeowner has found a way to avoid looking at this thing when he wakes up each morning — not an option his neighbors are able to enjoy.
3. Finally, am I the only one suspicious of this whole “I’m doing it for charity” thing? I mean the guy makes documentaries! Nothing will provide better footage for his next project than the day a city DPW crew shows up to take the thing down after he defies a court order to remove it.
I can see it now: “Oh those poor defenseless charity-bound tomatoes!”
Meanwhile, the environmentally atrocious, foodweb depleting front lawn is legal by city ordinance.
#prioritiesoutofwhack
Aw come on Sean, no one is stopping him or anyone else from having a ground up garden in their front lawn. But this is — pun intended — over the top.
Why didn’t he just put it in the backyard? The concept reminds me of a slide Marc Welch shows in tree pruning class, the upside-down trees at Mass MOCA. Here’s one view I found Googling: http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Gardening/diggin-it/2009/1006/tree-logic-turns-trees-upside-down
I don’t see anything wrong with this. I’ve seen a lot worse in people’s back yards.
I think we may be in the minority but I’m with mgwa on this one. If whatever crazy stuff you have stays on your property, not on adjacent city streets, then good luck to you. I say this is I gaze out the window at my neighbor’s “patio chair” – a bench seat from an old pickup truck that’s been outside his house for a few years but gets used regularly.
I would love the idea of this goofy Rube Goldberg tomato contraption being on my neighbor’s lawn. I welcome the harmless oddball eccentricities that already exist in my neighborhood and would welcome this one. At this point though, people’s personal opinions are moot. He’s run headlong into some existing regulations and there doesn’t sound like there’s any wiggle room there.
Until this story, I had no idea that you were not allowed to construct a swing, a shed or any other structure in your front yard. That does seem like a bit of regulatory overreach to me, but its on the books apparently.
I don’t have a problem with the guy having a front yard garden, but I think he needs a better engineer. His structure looks really flimsy. He could accomplish the same thing with a few nice iron shepherd hooks and he could even throw in a basket or two of hanging flowers to attract the bees.
http://www.fultonsquare.com/Shepherd_hooks/8128.jpg
I have to say that I’m mixed on this one.
The thing is pretty cool, but it also could be considered unsightly, and I kind of wonder how it would hold up in a storm. What with fronting on Route 9, having stuff blow into traffic could be a serious safety issue.
I’m also mixed on the regulatory aspects. In general, I find some of the extreme measures of code enforcement and homeowners’ associations to be, well, extreme (particularly every time I read about somebody, somewhere, who’s forced to remove a clothesline). Still, there are points where some regulation is in order, but where to draw the line, and what happens when someone steps over it.
Now it sounds like he could apply for a special permit, and that someone in City Hall steered him wrong in saying that all was copacetic. Seems like there should be a way out of this.
@Miles: The article says it is near Route 9, not on it. I believe it is on Oakdale Road in the Highlands.
Ashley Studley has more on this story at Wicked Local and here’s the website that the Globe article mentioned but neglected to include.
It turns out this is much more of a business (or non-profit) than the first story portrays.
Studley breaks down the co-op options in her article…
@Miles – you reminded me of one of my favorite homeowner association stories. A good friend of mine lived in one that had very strict rules, down to the color of your front door. They did not, however, regulate livestock, and each December her llamas made a wonderful addition to her a front yard creche.
Instead of scheduling unproductive meetings at cafes, Economic Development Planners for the City of Newton should come to Eli Katzoff, ask his permission to do the paper work for him to legalize his small bisiness, and, if he has allowed, to get the special permit for his “tomato growing apparatus”.
Hopefully no one has paid him $25 dollars yet as I doubt those tomatoes will even grow. Does he really think they will grow well in those hanging buckets??
Tomatoes need to be planted in the ground not in a hanging bucket – they will be destroyed after the first good summer rain/thunder storm.
Screw this couple. It’s an eyesore and illegal. The discussion ends there. It matters not what his goal for it is. If this guy lived next to me it would be down already. Clown.
simple solution: all he has to do is put wheels under it and register it as a homemade trailer..
Out of curiosity, I drove by the house (which is near Route 9 on Oakdale Road) to see for myself. There were TV trucks out there, and the owner was clearly enjoying is 15 minutes of fame. Quite apart from being a zoning violation (which it is), I was really concerned about public safety. The structure does have a certain Rube Goldberg character to it, but I am skeptical about the engineering. Each of those five gallon buckets filled with soil must weigh 20 pounds each, but after a good soaking rain, they are going to weigh twice that much or more. And the structure itself, which is kept in place by cinder blocks and not secured to anything as far as I could tell, looks like it would blow over in a light breeze.
I talked to John Lojek, the Commissioner of ISD, about this last night. John told me the guy who built the structure gave John several different accounts as to why he built it in the front yard. One was that there was not enough sun, but later he admitted that he did not want to put it in the back yard because his father, who owns the house and is visiting Israel for an extended stay, already has a garden there. And he has gotten a lot of media attention which John seems to think was the real reason he built such a striking structure in the front yard. So I don’t doubt that there could be a documentary film about this coming to a theater near you in the not too distant future.
Contrary to what it says in the article, John Lojek has received complaints and a lot of praise from residents who called to complain about this and other types of construction projects in their neighbor’s front yards. They told John they were not aware that there was an ordinance against building structures in the front setback so they did not realize they could complain and had sort of been living with it even though they did not like it.
Schlock, the only thing worse than putting this thing on wheels would be to come into the Land Use committee to ask for for a special permit.
I forgot to mention John Lojek also told me that the person at city hall who talked to Mr. Katzoff was not an inspector, did not visit the site, and was not told that it involved a structure in the front setback. According to John, she was asked whether there was an ordinance against having a tomato garden in the front yard.
Ald Hess Mahan — Yes, it’s a danger and a bad idea altogether. But it’s a resident (or a son of one) so rather than repeat hearsay, I’d prefer to take his side of things. Gov’t can give mixed signals occassionally… Really, I’ve heard that.
@ Ted Hess-Mahan:
Eli Katzoff is trying to start a small business in Newton. The Government of Newton (including you) should help him to make his business safe and legal, but to destroy it – otherwise, the governmental talks about welcoming small businesses into Newton looks like hypocrisy undermining the City of Newton’s wellbeing.
Yes alderman Ted, the best way to handle this situation as a resident is to end-run the BOA 24 special permit process by coverage and protection afforded in the state jurisdiction of DOT. Homemade trailers do not require safety inspection or city sanctioning, are not required to be towed a minimum mileage per year, and are an add-on to one’s motor vehicle insurance policy (not requiring a new insurance policy). Having a hand in this regulation, we modified compliance based upon the overburdening constraints presented in real world use.
Hoss, as chairman of Land Use, nothing irks me more than people who come in asking for forgiveness rather than permission, because they built something that was not allowed under our ordinances. There is a reason we do not allow people to build structures in the setback without a special permit, and it has everything to do with quality of life in the community. While I freely admit government can give mixed messages sometimes, I have also seen more than my fair share of examples where property owners are brought in for sometimes serious building and zoning code violations and want the Board of Aldermen to give them our blessing. Whether they knowingly violate the law or not, the result should be the same.
Re, get a grip. This is not about discouraging free enterprise and small business. I have worked really hard at making it easier for small business owners to get permission from the city and the board to do what they want to do, so long as it is legal. This structure was a blatant building and zoning code violation. If the city wanted to be punitive about it, it could fine this guy $1300 a day for both violations. Instead, the city is looking to work with this person to find an alternate, legal location for his project.
THM — I agree. Living in a historic district I see it all the time. I also know what it’s like when a City Hall (not Newton) gets into CYA mode. Just reacting to the hearsay aspect. But maybe I’m reading your comment as an alderman (ie, advocate) talking when you intended it as a friendly neighbor/resident adding background.
Here’s a story as seen on Channel 4 yesterday..
And of course Fox 25 weighed in too..
Hoss, I am not really acting as advocate, but as a citizen and alderman who sees a lot of these types of issues, and receives a LOT of calls from constituents complaining about something their neighbor has done that has affected their quiet enjoyment of their property. I think people would be amazed to learn how often structures of all kinds get built in this city without a building permit. I grew up in the country, where you could erect an outbuilding on your farm or in your back yard of your 2 acre lot without anyone saying boo about it. But we live in an urban setting where the majority of people live next to a house that is within 10 feet of the property line on lots that are a quarter of an acre or less. I am all in favor of giving property owners the right to do what they want with their property, as long as it does not infringe on their neighbors’ right to enjoy their own properties too. The right to swing one’s fist freely must end where a neighbor’s nose begins.
Ted Hess-Mahan — My pet peave (and it’s a serious one) is when a city councilor/alderman acts as defender of city hall as opposed to a resident-advocate. That’s why I used that term.
Sorry for the interuption…, back to our regularly scheduled blog program…
@h
Hoss, got ya. I call ’em as I see ’em. I advocate for what I think is best.
Ted
Jerry Reilly — I felt the same way, but then I saw the opportunity for approvals/permits outside the basic restruction — thus the restriction is simply acting as a (strong) control as opposed to a blanket no, no. (Also, the term structure made me think — isn’t a tree or a koi pond a structure?)
@ Ted Hess-Mahan: “… the city is looking to work with this person to find an alternate, legal location for his project.” – that sounds encouraging.
In general, the legal thing being appropriate at enactment may became inappropriate later. It seems that is the case commented here. The law should follow the social situation – if the law does not conform to the social situation, then the law should be changed, but the situation.
Ted Hess-Mahan, please, look at the law, but at the man.
Jerry, every zoning code in the country has setbacks in the front, side and rear yards so that people do not build too close to the property line. That includes the city property line, which begins at the sidewalk. We also have a fence ordinance that limits the height of a fence on the edge of the sidewalk to 4 feet. You get an extra foot up to six feet for each foot you set it back from the sidewalk. It was intended to prevent narrow residential streets from looking like canyons with 8 foot walls or fences on either side. Structures are not allowed within the front setback without a special permit for very much the same reasons. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, if there were no front setback requirement, you could literally build an outhouse on the edge of the sidewalk.
Perhaps there is some aesthetic quality to the zoning, but in a suburban setting–which much of Newton is–it really is not appropriate to have a 36 foot tall house right on the edge of the sidewalk. It doesn’t “feel” like a residential neighborhood located in a suburb. That same 36 foot tall building would be absolutely appropriate in densely populated sections of Boston like Charlestown, where all of the residential buildings are two and three story townhouses with no front yard and only a set of front steps or a stoop separating them from the sidewalk.
The side setbacks are just as important. We allow for taller fences (6 feet tall at the property line) for privacy and the setbacks are anywhere up to 15 feet so that the houses are not so close that people can peer into each others’ bedroom windows at close range. Same with the rear setback, which is intended to offer privacy to homeowners and their neighbords who want to enjoy their own back yard, without having someone peer out their second floor window at them while they sunbathe or exercise. Again, in an urban setting, much closer proximity is tolerated, but it is precisely because it is in an urban setting where everyone is packed more closely to maximize the space available. There is no on site parking, no driveways, and sometimes not even an alley between many of the buildings in a densely populated urban setting. Not so in Newton, which has 85,000 people spread over 18 square miles (6,071 per square mile), compared with Boston which has 617,000 people spread over 48 square miles of land (12,854 per square mile).
There are some neighborhoods in Newton where residential structures are right on the sidewalk, usually in the older sections of the city where there used to be mills (think Upper Falls). Those neighborhoods sprang from a different era when mill housing was packed close together so that workers could easily walk to the mills to get to work.
While on the Board, I have worked on easing some of the restrictions on what residents can do with their property, other than in the setbacks. For instance, I pushed through the repeal of the so-called “three foot grade change” which required a special permit to regrade you property more than three feet in height at any point on the property, regardless of the size of the property. What homeowners and contractors did to get around this rule was far worse. Instead of seeking approval, they would erect a series of “retaining walls” that were 2’11” high, one right behind the other to achieve the same result. The inspectors referred to these as “wedding cakes” because they often looked like a fancy tiered cake. Now, no one has to come in for a special permit to regrade their property except in the setback, where they have to come in for a special permit to build a retaining wall higher than 4 feet. If you look around the city, you can see why. With so many hills and ledges in Newton, and with 95% of the developable land already developed, there are a number of properties where people are looking up at 12 foot retaining walls along one of their property lines. Some of these older concrete walls are starting to deteriorate and even collapse, implicating both quality of life and public safety.
Which brings me to the hanging tomato garden. Structurally, it doesn’t really look all that sound and if I were a neighbor who had just put my house on the market hoping to sell so I could retire on the proceeds from the sale, I would be pretty darned upset about it.
Hoss, trees are not structures, but a koi pond might be. The Newton Zoning Ordinance defines a “structure” as: “Any construction, erection, assemblage or other combination of materials at a fixed location upon the land, such as, but not limited to, a building, bridge, trestle, tower, framework, tank, tunnel, tent, stadium, platform, retaining wall or systems of walls whose above-grade height exceeds four (4.0) feet, tennis court or swimming pool.”
@Ted, According to the guy’s own website, each plant weight “60-80 pounds” depending upon the added water weight, and his structure is supposed to be supporting over “2,000 pounds”. He posted pictures of his “drawings” which are sketches on lined paper and it’s rather interesting that his “as built” structure doesn’t even match his drawings (he cut out a few vertical support beams). It’s also rather interesting to see several of the other computer generated pictures he posted which show the structure being built with posts (they look like 4″x4″ to my untrained eye), as well as a corner braces and a few more support beams – and footers that are distinctly not just cinder blocks holding the structure in place where the ground isn’t leveled.
I wouldn’t want to be standing near it when the thing keels over.
THM — Is a “front” yard where the front door is placed as opposed to where the street address indicates? Maybe it’s just an Upper Falls thing — some homes don’t even face a street!
Lisap, you’re scaring me here.
@Hoss, good question. The “front” of a lot is generally speaking the side that faces the street. If a house is on a corner lot, the front generally corresponds to the street address. But the answer can be more complex than that, particularly when you start talking about rear lots.
@Hoss, to answer your question specifically, it doesn’t matter where the door is. The side of the house can face the street but the front of the lot is still the side that faces the street even if the front door faces the side of the lot.
@Hoss
Are these cases where the lot is rectangular with the front/back are the narrow side so the McMansion wouldn’t fit in facing the street? Nice example of that on Clark St that was built a few years ago.
Ted – no, I wasn’t trying to make an argument against set backs in zoning. I was commenting on the fact that you could put a swing set in your back yard, in your side yard, but not in your front yard.
Putting a swing set in the front yard isn’t a safety issue, it doesn’t interfere with any neighboring property. The reason it’s not allowed is it’s purely an aesthetic choice of the community enshrined in law. My only comment is that I personally tend to be a minimalist when it comes to legislating those type of things, I suspect though that I’m in the minority. If you let me write the zoning laws you’d have a lot of unhappy citizens.
e.g.. my neighbor’s pickup truck bench seat in his front yard wouldn’t be my decorating choice but I can live with it.
@Ted – all I will say is I hope he didn’t use cheap Spruce lumber.
Aside from the obvious dangers, and questions about whether this will even grow tomatoes (without drowning them as suggested, or cooking them) — the structure is highly attractive to vandalism.
Thinking like a lawyer for a moment, Jerry, in the law of premises liability, there is this notion of an “attractive nuisance.” A young child walks by someone’s house and sees a swing set in the front yard. He jumps on the swing and is having fun until he falls off and breaks his arm. His parents sue the homeowner and most likely get a settlement out of the homeowners’ insurer who then raises the premium on the homeowners’ liability insurance. (Sort of reminds me of one of those DirecTV ads.) Allowing a swing in the side or back yard may not deter a child who is truly intent on using that swingset, but it probably makes it less likely while also allowing some freedom to the property owner.
For similar reasons, the city requires that swimming pools cannot be in the front setback and have to be surrounded by a fence that keeps small children out. The homeowner may be willing to assume the risk, but the city is exercising the police power to protect the public welfare by by protecting small children who cannot appreciate the consequences of trespassing onto someone else’s property and playing on a swing or swimming in their pool without adult supervision. The extreme example of the outhouse in the front yard ought to be self-explanatory, but if you insist, I would be happy to explain that one.
This is not purely speculative on my part. When I spoke with John Lojek last night, one of the things he mentioned to me was his concern that if this structure were to fall on someone who was using the sidewalk in front of the house, the city could be blamed for not having done more to protect the public. The city may not be liable, it is true, but that does not mean it could not be blamed or sued for not doing more to protect the general public.
But in any event, the ordinance does not discriminate between one type of structure or another. Homeowners are prohibited from having any sort of structure in the front, side or rear setback (with exceptions for accessory structures like a storage shed, which can be within 5 feet of the rear or side lot line). And homeowners are not prohibited from having a swingset in the front yard per se, rather, they cannot erect any sort of “structure” in the front setback. If the house were further back from the front setback someone could conceivably have a swingset in their front yard. At least, that is the way I read the ordinance. Of course, relief may be permitted in the form of a variance or special permit.
so how far does one have to move the alleged structure to not be considered ‘fixed’??
this would never have happened were Leo Levi/Ted Mann still with us. How appropriate on a day where Mayor Warren is celebrating the legacy of Ted Mann that a learning moment in civility in the Executive office poses the opportunity for our Mayor to do as Ted would have done – by personally meeting with the resident and thereby defusing the negative image presented to the outside world..
“. . .if this structure were to fall on someone who was using the sidewalk in front of the house, the city could be blamed for not having done more to protect the public.”
@Ted, Since many homeowners policies have a business activity exclusion, the city could very well then be the only “deep pocket” available for someone to look to if this thing should collapse.
I have to say that my kids’ swing set looks a whole lot more substantial than this. . . and it’s in my backyard.
@Schlock, I have a hard time understanding why it is the City that is getting a bad rap for this and not the guy who (ridiculously) thinks that he can get away with this by claiming that he has a charitable purpose to this business venture. I’m not convinced by his claims that he was told that he didn’t need to get a permit to build a 13 foot structure in his front yard. No. Way. Far more credibly, he called and sandbagged the person he got on the phone by giving them a minimum of information (can I grow tomato plants in my front yard) and they answered him based on the limited information he provided them. Clearly he didn’t get any professional design advice because any professional he talked to would have told him that you can’t put up a 13 foot structure without a permit.
Homeowners have been ordered to tear down far more extensive, expensive and detailed structures than this for failing to comply with building requirements, and there are plenty of alternatives that would permit him to grow his hanging tomato plants without creating a public nuisance. IMHO that is. 🙂
Lisap, do you see the common theme of city liability applied whether for this case or for the snow removal ordinance, leaf blower ordinance, sound ordianance, lighting ordinance, fresh air ordinance, sewerage gas ordinance, natural gas ordinance, utility pole ordinance, t-shirt ordinance, toilet paper ordinance, – need more?? bottom line, the Band of 24 has to justify its’ necessity to the unsuspecting potential voter.
@Schlock, Yes and no. With regard to the liability theme, I do see the commonality. In fairness, however, given the litigious nature of the society we live in I fully expect the city to try to minimize potential risk whenever that is prudent and feasible. As for the comparison to the proposed ordinances, no – I do not see the commonality because I would draw a significant distinction between local ordinances (i.e. leaf blowing and swimming at Crystal Lake) and enforcement of the State Building Code by the inspectional services dept. There are two issues with the structure: first the location and second the construction. The two are intertwined, however, because the location of the structure and what appears to be very poor planning, design and construction mean that it poses a risk to the public. If the structure was in the back of the property and posed no risk to anyone other than the who built it, that would be a different scenario altogether. In that case, one might dither whether the city is being mean to this fellow – assuming that this structure is sound. That’s an awfully big assumption though.
Please, see some excerpts from the City of Newton’s Zoning:
“Business stable: A building or part of a building in which one (1) or more horses are kept and used in connection with the business of the owner or tenant for other purposes than sale, rent or hire.”
“Public stable: A building or part of a building in which horses are kept for compensation.”
“Setback line: A line equidistant from the lot line which establishes the nearest point to the lot line at which the nearest point of a structure may be erected.”
“Structure: Any construction, erection, assemblage or other combination of materials at a fixed location upon the land, such as, but not limited to, a building, bridge, trestle, tower, framework, tank, tunnel, tent, stadium, platform, retaining wall or systems of walls whose above-grade height exceeds four (4.0) feet, tennis court or swimming pool.”
For the sake of curiosity – where do the City’s people keep their horses while attending the City Hall? – in Business stable or in Public stable?
Eli Katzoff’s Tomato Growing Apparatus is not fixed to the land permanently. Thus, it is not “Structure” as defined above. It is a temporary fixture to the land for the time of growing season. So, it is not forbidden by Zoning.
Re, please read more carefully. The ordinance says “at a fixed location,” that is, in a certain place, as opposed to schlock’s mobile app. The hanging garden structure would be a structure, since it is a construction of materials at a fixed location. A structure does not have to be “fixed to the ground.” Indeed, a utility shed that you buy at Home Depot and place on top of cinder blocks is not “fixed to the ground,” but it is still a structure.
As for stables, I believe that got in there many years ago. While Newton may no longer have any stables, there certainly are stables in some of the “horse towns” in the Metrowest area, and they need to be regulated by zoning. Having grown up near a stable and farm, I can tell you that the aroma from “country fudge” can be quite overwhelming, particularly on a sweltering hot, humid day.
Lisap, I am not arguing the integrity of the thingamajig; agreeing with you that it is indeed attractively nuisanced unsafe. I am suggesting a solution to the situation which will please all parties involved (understanding that I did not get off the banana wagon last year). – Brake the unit down to six foot max, frame the base with 4 x 4 and angle struts, throw an axle and pintle assy pull out front, register as homemade trailer, and voila we once again have Ken’s flower cafe open to do charity biz. simple. (anyone want to help bring peace to the rolling memory of Ted Mann??)
Um, not to burst your bubble, Schlock, but there may still be Section 30-8(a)(3)(d) of the Newton Revised Ordinances to contend with, which permits:
A “commercial vehicle” is defined as follows:
alderman Ted exactly, a non commercial homemade trailer, for use by the resident citizen (maybe a voter) for personal use – commercial use is the higher standard of scrutiny which for so many decades has been the threshold of Hall interference in the neighborhood issue. You say tomato; I say tomaytoe!
@THM,
Ted, take a ride by the City Yard on Crafts St. I believe the words “City Stables” is imbedded in the building structure. 😉
@Schlock – Gotcha. Except, I thought the guy said he is doing this as a charitable business venture (he’s selling/renting the plants). I’m actually inspired to hang a few upside down plants from my kids’ swing set since it isn’t getting much use anymore.
I’m thinking of replacing some fence – if the city’s okay with this then I think I’ll definitely try to go for something around 12 feet . (NOT) 😉
@Schlock, I understood that this is a non-profit business venture, so the word “commercial” may apply.
@TWT, I have been by the City Stables on Crafts Street many times. I don’t think DPW is using it for horses.
unclear as to whether at this point Katzoff is doing this in the good graces of his dad (property owner)? Just thinking that he may be his own worst enemy in his pursuit of doing the right thing for the community, and perhaps he was lead astray by not asking the correct questions to the right people at the Hall. Motive to me is in his wanting to help the community, and in that light, government needs to be compassionate for the individual; engaging in relief, presenting the model for doing the right thing. As in State regs, there are many times loopholes in place, intentionally left unaddressed for future evaluation by ethically charged government officials. Help him to build his oversize ‘towmaytow’ garden cart – it will be winter before long, and perhaps his community spiritedness might lead the neighborhood charge of sidewalk snow removal..
@ Ted Hess-Mahan: “fixed to the ground” and “As for stables, I believe that got in there many years ago.”
You are cheating with the word “ground”, which is not used in the definition of structure. For example, a fence is fixed to the ground but it is not a structure as defined above, and thus it is not forbidden, though it is erected closer to the border line of a lot than its setback line.
Tomato Growing Apparatus (though it has a lot of in common with a fence) stands on the ground even more loosely than a fence. So it is not forbidden by zoning.
You did not get the point with the stables – if such outdated information is present in zoning, then why the setback and structure definitions should be considered the current ones – they are not.
Newton’s zoning does not reflect the current life reality – it should be corrected for the current small businesses may exist in Newton.
Re: The definition of structure refers to a fixed location, does not distinguish between temporary and permanent, and includes by way of example a “tent.” Are you trying to tell me that a “tent” is a permanent structure? A fence is expressly permitted by the fence ordinance.
Re: There is also an ordinance against shooting arrows in the street or from a bridge within the city limits. Though they may have been passed many years ago, I think they are still good laws. The setback requirements and the definition of structures have been amended over the years, but the constant has been that a property owner cannot erect or construct a structure in the setback without a special permit (with the exception of certain accessory structures like storage sheds which can be located within 5 feet of the rear or side lot line). They are still good law.
@ Ted Hess-Mahan: “… does not distinguish between temporary and permanent…”
Exactly, but it should distinguish, for example, in ground swimming pool (permanent) from inflated swimming pool (temporary).
This “ordinance” is so vague that anyone understands it in his/her own way – therefore, as a matter of fact, it is not have the necessary quality of a law at all, but the quality of a puzzle, what gives to those, who enforce it, the unreasonably wide discretionary power, which is always the base for bribery.
Ted =
It sounds like you’re saying that its equally illegal to have a swing set (or tomato contraption) in your front, side, or back yard – that can’t be right. What am I missing?