• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Preservation of Solar Access

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
Anyone out there ever deny a plan on the basis that it does not preserve solar access? It's been a provision of every code I've ever administered, and yet it's never come up as a basis for denial - or much less discussion. Just wondering.
 

nerudite

Cyburbian
Messages
6,544
Points
30
Yeah... in both Davis, CA, and Vancouver, WA, we used solar access for discussion and/or denial of a plan. In Davis, which is *very* strict about solar access, I used it for denial once... more often I would point out the problems to the developer and they would revise the plans to make it work. In Vancouver, this was basically the same thing... although the variance provisions for solar orientation and access were lenient in Vancouver so we would usually provide variances where possible.

Are your solar access ordinances geared more towards the structures that go on the lots that need to preserve solar access for adjacent lots or are you talking about lot orientation for passive solar access as part of subdivision review? In both cities I reference above, we had both lot orientation and structural restrictions. I have only been involved with the lot orientation/subdivision review, and not the structure review that would usually occur upon submittal of a building permit.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
nerudite said:
Are your solar access ordinances geared more towards the structures that go on the lots that need to preserve solar access for adjacent lots or are you talking about lot orientation for passive solar access as part of subdivision review?
We have both
 
Top