.

Commission Alters City Policy on Trampolines

In reversing Planning Director Mike Moore’s determination, panel deems trampolines to be accessory structures like sheds, pools and detached garages; owner says city is “now in the business of regulating fun.”

A dispute between two neighbors over a trampoline led the Mill Valley Planning Commission to alter the city’s categorization of the devices Monday night, a move that could change the way the city handles similar clashes over backyard bouncing in the future.

The ruling, in which the commission overturned a determination by Planning Director Mike Moore, came after a lengthy discussion and ended with a 3-2 vote that turned on commissioner Heidi Richardson changing her vote and reversing the outcome.

The decision categorizes trampolines as “accessory structures,” making them subject to the city’s zoning regulations in terms of where they can be placed in a yard. The category of “accessory structures” includes things like storage sheds, swimming pools, stables, gazebos, detached garages or carports, detached second units and patio deck that are 18 inches or more off the ground.

“I don’t see the distinction between this and an 18-inch deck,” said commissioner David Rand.

“It’s more intense of a use than a swimming pool, which is not allowed in the setback,” Richardson added.

The trio was unable to convince commissioners Chuck Utzman and Barbara Chambers, who said a trampoline, which can be moved from place to place, simply did not qualify as an accessory structure.

“If that’s the case, a picnic table shouldn’t be allowed there,” Chambers said. “This was permitted. In my mind, as an architect, a trampoline is not an accessory structure – it’s just not. Especially a movable one.”

Scott Landress, whose trampoline outside his family’s home at 580 Throckmorton Ave. is the subject of the dispute, said he was baffled by the decision, but had not yet decided to appeal the ruling to the City Council. He has 10 days to do so.

“Mill Valley has decided that toys are structures and it is now in the business of regulating fun,” he said.

The trampoline is 15-feet in diameter and cost Landress $200 four years ago. Its placement in the Landress’ yard has been the source of an ongoing clash with neighbors Kevin and Susan Stone of 1 Throckmorton Lane, who were successful in getting City Hall to force the Landress family to move it in June 2008.

In July 2010, the Landress family moved the trampoline back to the disputed area on their property, and Moore declined the Stones’ request to enforce that June 2008 ruling by Denise Stoneham, who was then the city’s code enforcement officer.

Moore, who was not the planning director at the time of the 2008 ruling, determined that the trampoline was not subject to the city’s setback requirement because it was not an accessory structure. Moore cited the need for the city’s zoning regulations to focus on the public’s health, safety or welfare.

“There is a limit beyond which protecting the public’s health, safety or welfare may be considered or even legally determined to be an infringement on an individual’s enjoyment of their private property,” Moore wrote.

“In the absence of a stated or reasonably applicable compelling public interest to regulate the use or placement of the trampoline, it falls to the individually affected parties, not the city, to resolve any problems between them,” he continued.

The Stones then hired Mill Valley attorney Robert Knox to appeal the decision last December to the commission, which spent nearly 30 minutes at the beginning of the hearing Monday debating whether its ruling would impact only the Landress’ trampoline or the categorization of trampolines in general throughout the city.

“All you can do is decide the specific case before you,” Knox told the commission. “It is simply not in your jurisdiction to decide on whether or not a trampoline is an accessory structure. We are not talking about some ideal mythical trampoline. We’re talking about this trampoline.”

But Moore emphasized that the commission was ruling simply on his determination that a trampoline is not an accessory structure, and reversing that decision made trampolines throughout the city accessory structures.

“Even though there were specific circumstances associated with this particular issues, the fact that the commission determined a trampoline to be an accessory structure would apply to other similar circumstances,” Moore said afterwards.

Rand said he had a problem with the city changing its mind on the issue between 2008 and today.

Utzman wasn’t convinced.

“Let’s say they have to move it over 5 feet,” he said, referring to placing the trampoline outside of the setback. “What has been accomplished, other than forcing them to spend a bunch of money? If they move the trampoline over five feet does that help the neighbors at all? I don’t think so.”

Citizen January 30, 2011 at 02:10 AM
Scott, simplest way to be done with this entire (and totally ridiculous) episode is to move the trampoline to some other place on your property, unplug the ole ego, and be done with it.
L. Haugen January 31, 2011 at 05:40 AM
Citizen said, "What kind of precedent do you think your actions set ...are we all to simply ignore the rulings of city government if we don't like them? "--and Yes, absolutely I think we need to CHECK this current city government. Look at the absurdity of the Brew Pub and it's neighbors as the city suggested they stay open longer than was originally submitted to the neighbors!. That situation is about people drinking past 10pm, 7 days a week in a neighborhood. This is about kids on a trampoline, in their yard, I "assume" in the day time. I think it's totally ridiculous!! Although bothersome noise IS bothersome NOISE! There should maybe be a truce to the hours as a halfway point. In this cute, quaint, artistic, family town, everyone is getting more & more ridiculous and I would hope the city would protect that from happening but, personally I don't see it happening. I have an issue with a neighbor and the city has ignored her violation and I doubt they are fining her monthly as they said she would be for not complying. I just don't understand why this current city council has become so questionable, albeit a more flexible one than 15 years ago!
Another Citizen February 02, 2011 at 12:56 PM
When was the last time you jumped on a trampoline? If it's been a long time, give it a try. At ANY age, it will make you laugh! We need more laughter in Mill Valley, not less. Clearly the Stone family needs a little "Tramp Time" and a few laughs. We need MORE trampolines, not less. Mill Valley is not Kansas. Most every home is squeezed onto a tight, highly conoured lot. Who in this town has a lot big enough to relocate a trampoline? It must be that annoying sound of laughter which is such a nuisance. Perhaps a robust sound system playing "A Whole Lot of Love" by Lead Zepplin or " Why Can't We Be Friends" should be set up by the trampoline. Unless of course that would be considered an accessory structure too. Get Over it!
Citizen February 04, 2011 at 04:28 PM
The issue is about property rights. It just happens to involve a trampoline this time. Citizen Cain
Rick Hopelain March 07, 2011 at 03:57 AM
Free the trampolines!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »