2-1-12 Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
)A
1
2
3 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5 February 1, 2012
6 1. CALL TO ORDER. — 6:04pm
7 Chair Chris Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess,
8 Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton, and Brea Paul
9 and called the meeting to order at 6:04pm. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall,
10 Building Official Michael Griffin, Building Inspector Mike Jones, and City Attorney Alan Jensen.
11 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES — JANUARY 17, 2012.
12 Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular
13 meeting.
14 MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the January 17, 2011 regular
15 meeting, as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess, and carried by a vote of 7 -0.
16 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. None.
17 4. OLD BUSINESS.
18 A. ZVAR -11- 00100065 -A.1
19 APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad (owner)
20 ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue
21 REQUEST: Request for an amendment to a previously granted variance [ZVAR-
22 11- 00100065] from Section 24- 106(e)(2), further reducing the
23 required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20)
24 feet to four and one -half (4 '/2) feet [for an additional five and one -
25 half (5 ' /Z) feet], within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning
26 District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue.
27 Ms. Hall reviewed the facts of the case as relevant to a previous variance granted by the
28 Board on December 20, 2011, which allowed a reduction of the required rear yard setback for
29 the principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet. Particularly, she reminded the
30 Board that the previous request was found consistent with Section 24- 64(d)(4) of the Land
31 Development Regulations establishing grounds for approval of variance due to onerous effect
32 of regulations enacted after construction of improvements upon the property and an undue
33 hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to process deficiencies, and
34 on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals. She then explained that
35 approximately three weeks after the granting of the original variance, the Building
36 Department was informed of potential errors in the survey upon which the approved site plan
37 and construction drawings were based. Subsequently, a new certified survey was requested
38 and a Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Department. The new survey, revised on
Page 1 of 8
Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
39 January 11, 2012, delineated the rear (westernmost) property line such that the northwest and
40 southwest corners of the existing garage were actually located 12.2' and 4.7', respectively,
41 from the rear property line, whereas the approved site plan indicated them to be 14.2' and
42 10.0', respectively, from the rear property line. Additionally, the southwest corner of the new
43 garage being constructed to the south of the existing garage was shown on the new certified
44 survey as being 4.5' from the rear property line, whereas the approved site plan indicated that
45 corner was 10.2' from the rear property line.
46 Ms. Hall reported this effectively reduced the required rear yard by an additional five and
47 one -half (5 ' /z) feet, more or less, and in order to continue with construction, the property
48 owner had the option to apply for an amendment to the granted variance based upon the
49 revised survey, or bring all new construction into compliance with applicable standards and
50 valid variances. She also reminded the Board that according to the provisions outlining the
51 duties and responsibilities of the Community Development Board, it "may reverse, affirm or
52 modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or
53 determination, provided such action is based upon new evidence or where it is determined
54 that a previous decision was made based upon inaccurate information ". [Section 24- 47(c)]
55 Property owner Carl Harkleroad addressed the Board and confirmed that a Stop Work Order
56 had been issued due to a discrepancy discovered between a newly certified survey and a pre -
57 purchase survey that had been used as the basis for the approved site plan and construction
58 drawings. He said that he had provided both a raised -seal copy of the newly certified survey
59 as well as a copy of the pre - purchase survey to Ms. Hall, and was requesting an amendment
60 to the granted variance, further reducing the required rear yard setback to four and one -half (4
61 V2) feet, to account for the discrepancy between the two surveys.
62 For clarification, Mr. Lambertson asked if the pre - purchase survey submitted to staff had a
63 raised -seal, to which Ms. Hall replied that it did not. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr.
64 Harkleroad if he had the original or a raised -seal copy of the pre - purchase survey with him, to
65 which Mr. Harkleroad responded that he did not. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. Harkleroad
66 if, given time, he could retrieve the survey, to which Mr. Harkleroad responded that he did
67 not know where it was. City Attorney Alan Jensen then interjected that if Mr. Harkleroad
68 stated the pre - purchase survey was certified and had a raised -seal, the Board could stipulate
69 as to that fact and give a reasonable amount of time for Mr. Harkleroad to produce it.
70 Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Hall indicated that the Board
71 had been provided copies of two letters received via email, including one in objection to the
72 variance from Mr. Richard Reichler, and one in support of the variance from Dr. Stanley
73 Barnwell.
74 Rich Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) introduced himself as the adjacent property owner to the
75 north of the subject property. He stated that, based upon two grossly inaccurate
76 measurements between the existing structure and Beach Avenue, and many major
77 misrepresentations since before the Harkleroads' purchase of the property, he strongly
78 recommended the Board deny tonight's request for amendment to, and revoke the previously
79 granted variance. [NOTE: Per Mr. Reichler request, a copy of his complete statement is
80 attached to and made a part of these official minutes.]
81 John Meserve (2126 Beach Avenue) introduced himself as a neighbor just a few houses to the
82 north of the subject property. He noted that new construction is essential complete except for
83 trim and interior finishing, and recommended that the Board grant the requested variance
Page 2 of 8
Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
84 amendment, noting that Beach Avenue is a narrow one -way street, with many garages and
85 other accessories located near or directly abutting the right -of -way. He added that Mr.
86 Harkleroad's construction does not intrude any more into the right -of -way than neighbors to
87 both the north and south. He said that modification of the existing structure, as constructed to
88 this point, was not an option, but would require a complete tear -down and new start. Mr.
89 Meserve also responded to Mr. Reichler's concern about Mr. Harkleroad's potential to further
90 increase the scale and mass of the principal structure closer to the street, stating that Board
91 could stipulate as to limitations as to height and mass of the addition, which Mr. Harkleroad
92 could then record as deed restrictions. He concluded that the flawed survey existed since
93 before the purchase of the property, and therefore should not be considered as the fault of the
94 present owner.
95 Richard Bell (1952 Beachside Court) said that he opposes the variance and the amendment,
96 noting that there is already a scarcity of adequate parking on the site, which imposes a burden
97 on neighbors.
98 Kathleen Russell (2117 Beach Avenue) stated that she had lived in the area for nearly thirty
99 years and had several Stop Work Orders issued while constructing her home, and each time,
100 she did what was necessary to bring the work into compliance. Afterwards, she served on the
101 Community Development Board, then on the Code Enforcement Board, and these
102 appointments gave her a greater appreciation of the difficult decisions made by these boards
103 and the unique circumstances that property owners often find themselves in. However, in this
104 particular situation, she said the fault was clearly that of the surveyor, and she suggested the
105 property owner should look to the surveyor for recourse, rather than asking for additional
106 concessions not afforded to other law- abiding citizens.
107 Heath Aldridge (Durham, North Carolina) explained that she was the owner of the two vacant
108 lots directly across Beach Avenue from the Harkleroad and the Reichler residences, amongst
109 several other properties in Atlantic Beach, and she just happened to be in town and noticed
110 the sign advertising the meeting on the site. She expressed concern that Atlantic Beach no
111 longer sends out notifications to abutting property owners for variance hearings, and strongly
112 recommended that this practice be reinstated. She then noted that the previous variance was
113 granted on the finding of criterion number four, but she asserted that there was no such
114 onerous effect of regulations enacted after the development of the property or after the
115 construction of improvements upon the property, and that an inaccurate survey could not be
116 claimed as grounds, because it is the property owner(s)' responsibility to do due diligence and
117 hire reputable contractors and service providers. Referring to the 2002 Boatwright survey
118 found by staff in City archives, she noted that it did not make sense for a property owner to
119 change to a completely different surveyor, when one already had the file and merely needed
120 to be update and recertify it. She concluded by asking the Board to deny the variance
121 amendment and revoke the original variance.
122 With there being no one else from the audience wishing to speak, Mr. Lambertson closed the
123 public comment portion of the hearing and returned the item to the Board for discussion.
124 Mr. Hansen noted that the approved variance had no restrictions. Mr. Parkes added that the
125 original or primary question had been one of a ten (10) foot rear yard setback for an accessory
126 that was subsequently attached to the principal structure. The fact that principal structures
127 and accessory structures have differing height limits was not given adequate consideration at
128 that time. As a point of clarification for the audience, Mr. Lambertson explained that the
129 original garage was in compliance. New construction consisted of addition of a second level
Page 3 of 8
Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
130 to that existing garage, addition of a new two -story garage and finally connection of the
131 garages to one another and the principal structure. As a result, there were many nuances to
132 consider.
133 Mr. Parkes asked staff how the Boatwright survey was obtained. Ms Hall replied that it was
134 in the City's digital archives, which may consist of historic building plans, surveys, permits
135 and such documents for individual addresses. Mr. Elmore then asked where the Atlantic
136 Coast survey came from, and Mr. Harkleroad said it was supplied to him by the seller of the
137 property. Discussion as to survey requirements at the time of property transactions ensued,
138 and Mr. Burgess added that the closer may have had a relationship with Atlantic Coast and
139 that could have been why that company was selected to do the closing survey.
140 Mr. Elmore expressed disdain for the poor quality of even the most recent certified survey,
141 noting that basic surveying data, such as corner identification, was still missing. Mr. Parkes
142 added that with all the technology of the day, he did not know of anyone who provided hand -
143 drawn surveys as a final deliverable.
144 Mr. Elmore, noted that originally the applicant had come before the Board to request a
145 variance because a connection that essentially converted accessory structures into an
146 extension of the principal structure was not shown on the site plan reviewed and approved by
147 the Planning & Zoning Department, though it was eventually found to be shown on
148 construction plans reviewed and approved by the Building Department. Neither was wrong
149 in their independent reviews and subsequent approvals, but inconsistency between the two
150 documents uncovered a flaw in the review process, and consequently there was concession
151 that the City would shoulder blame, and this Board granted a ten (10) foot rear yard variance
152 for what is now the principal structure. Now, the applicant comes before us again, with an
153 incorrect survey.
154 Mr. Parkes interjected that the Board approved the previous variance based on what was
155 thought to be an honest mistake. Had the original submittal for building permits included a
156 correct survey, this would have never been approved.
157 Mr. Elmore noted that Mr. Reichler had mentioned pins had been moved and that Building
158 Inspector Mike Jones had been present while Atlantic Coast surveyors were on the site and
159 had had conversations with various people involved. He then asked if Mr. Jones could
160 elaborate on what he witnessed. Mr. Jones introduced himself as the Building Inspector and
161 Plans Examiner for the City of Atlantic Beach. He acknowledged that he had attempted to
162 verify the setback himself, taking off from a pin he found on the north side. He said at that
163 time, his estimation was consistent with the distances shown on the site plan. But soon after,
164 questions arose over the accuracy of the survey, and on a Friday afternoon soon afterwards,
165 he encountered a three -man survey crew from Atlantic Coast on -site, who were reporting the
166 southern pin had been moved, but reset. Then, the following Monday, Atlantic Coast called
167 and reported that the pins had been moved over the weekend and said they would not certify
168 the survey.
169 Mr. Lambertson inquired into the creation of the site plan, asking if the architect had used the
170 parameters of the survey. Mr. Jones said that he had called the project designer, Roger
171 Russell, to inquire as to how the site plan was created. He said that Mr. Russell told him that
172 he pulled off the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) to get a dimension line. Mr.
173 Russell, present in the audience interjected that he was not an architect, but a designer, and
174 was not regulated. Mr. Elmore responded the CCCL, while it has a legal description, is not a
Page 4 of 8
Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
175 line you can pin to — it is not an acceptable monument. Mr. Parkes commented that there are
176 rare circumstances when such unconventional methods are required, but in doing so, he
177 always includes a disclaimer.
178 Mr. Lambertson asked why the surveyor came out, moved the pins and then did not certify
179 the survey he had just created, to which no one had an answer. He then asked what the
180 position of Atlantic Coast Surveyors was at this time. Ray Henderson, building contractor for
181 the project, responded that Atlantic Coast eventually did present a new certified survey with
182 corrections, but since then, they have not been returning phone calls or responding to emails.
183 Ms. Hall read the note from the most recent certified survey from Atlantic Coast Surveyors,
184 "Revised 1 -11 -12 to show new garage addition and ties to property line" and commented that
185 staff is troubled by the fact that this note is not completely truthful and does not adequately
186 address the revisions made. For instance, as Mr. Elmore had pointed out earlier, there was
187 not sufficient documentation of monuments and control points, nor was there indication that
188 the location of the structures changed what could be considered a significant distance, thus
189 placing a heaving burden on this Board and staff, and having potentially catastrophic
190 implications for the property owner and construction professionals he has employed.
191 Mr. Stratton asked how a surveyor could make an error of five feet, and Mr. Lambertson
192 replied that is possible for anyone, but as a contractor, he tries to implement checks and
193 balances that protect him from such errors, such as getting a foundation survey to verify the
194 horizontal constraints of his projects before commencing with vertical construction.
195 Mr. Lambertson then directed the Board to the application, noting that the applicant had once
196 again indicated "onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of
197 the property or after construction or improvements upon the property". However he promptly
198 dismissed this as invalid grounds for approval of the amendment, and asked the Board
199 members to review the other criteria.
200 Mr. Parkes inquired as to the status of the project and asked if any work had been done since
201 the error was discovered. Mr. Griffin stated that speculation regarding the accuracy of the
202 survey occurred soon after the original variance was granted, and a Stop Work Order was
203 issued on January 9
204 Mr. Elmore noted a comment made by Mr. Meserve regarding the character of Beach Avenue
205 as germane to the consideration, and reiterated that he would like to see the area addressed
206 with an overlay. He then said he was torn as to how to decide this case — to be principled and
207 require everything out of compliance to be removed, or to be compassionate and approve the
208 amendment because he does not see the impact of the design as a negative to the neighbors on
209 either side. Mr. Parkes said he agreed with much of Mr. Elmore's comments, but looking at
210 the Code and the Boards positions in the past, he felt it was necessary to defend those
211 positions and uphold the Code. He continued, saying that he did not think the parking issue
212 was a valid concern, and that he was sympathetic to the owner and builder whom he felt had
213 no part in this, but was drawn into this by no fault of their own when provided with an
214 incorrect survey.
215 Mr. Lambertson agreed, again stating this could happen to anyone, but the Board must be
216 vigilant and consider what would happen when the next person shows up with a faulty
217 survey. Ms. Paul countered that a faulty survey is not something that can be prevented, and
218 that we rely upon professionals to provide accurate and reliable information.
Page 5 of 8
Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
219 Mr. Burgess said that in looking at the criteria, he could not find one that addressed an
220 erroneous survey, and therefore could not find grounds to approve the amendment before
221 them. Mr. Stratton concurred, stating that even if everyone on the Board wanted to grant the
222 variance amendment out of compassion, there is nothing in the guidelines allowing the Board
223 to grant it. Mr. Hansen said he complete agreed, and Mr. Parkes said that looking back, he
224 now questioned whether the Board had a valid reason to grant the original variance.
225 Mr. Stratton, who was absent from the December 20 meeting, noted the criteria had not
226 changed and asked how the previous request met the criteria. Mr. Elmore reiterated his
227 earlier comments and said that it was essentially viewed as error by both staff and applicant,
228 and that it really did not fit into one of those boxes. Mr. Lambertson said that the initial
229 variance was granted because the original site plan did not show the second -level connection
230 between what was a one -story accessory and the principal structure. He added that at this
231 point, he would not feel comfortable revoking the previously granted variance.
232 Mr. Parkes agreed that the basis of the previous variance was a series of oversights and errors
233 and that the variance was granted because the circumstances were viewed as no fault of the
234 owner. However, he said that he now viewed the project in an entirely new light, because if
235 the survey had been correct from the beginning, neither Building nor Zoning would have
236 approved the plans.
237 Mr. Lambertson asked Board members for their final comments and called for a motion. Mr.
238 Stratton said that while he felt very badly for the situation, he also felt that approval of this
239 amendment would be setting this Board and the City up for legal action, noting that the
240 residents of the Atlantic Beach have expectations that this Board will uphold the Code of the
241 City.
242 MOTION: Mr. Stratton moved that the Board deny the requested variance amendment
243 further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning
244 district from ten (10) feet — as approved by order of a previous variance — to four and one -half
245 (4 %2) feet, finding that the request does not meet any of the grounds for approval according to
246 Section 24- 64(d), and also reverse the previous decision and revoke the variance order
247 granted to reduce the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning
248 district from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, finding that the request did not meet any of the
249 grounds for approval according to Section 24 -64(d) either. Ms. Paul seconded the motion.
250 Mr. Lambertson said he wanted to ensure the Board was clear on the implications of this
251 motion. Saying essentially this would require the applicant to take the structure back to the
252 original state, he read from the staff report this would require "all new construction to be
253 completely removed. In this scenario, the original one -story two -car detached garage would
254 have to be restored to original horizontal and vertical dimensions, though it could still be re-
255 oriented from a southern access to a western access. Likewise, the original breezeway
256 separating the detached garage from the principal structure would have to be restored."
257 MOTION WITHDRAWN: Mr. Stratton withdrew his motion and Ms. Paul withdrew her
258 second.
259 Mr. Stratton then asked for discussion of the second scenario, which would be a denial of the
260 present amendment, but a reaffirmation of the previous variance. Mr. Hansen said that one of
261 the problems with this scenario is that the new construction consists of the addition of a
262 second story. Mr. Elmore added that any modification would change the roof lines, which
Page 6 of 8
Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
263 would require the whole thing to be re- engineered. Mr. Lambertson said again that he felt the
264 original variance was based on substantial evidence; even though the connection at the basis
265 of the request was not shown on the site plan, it was found in the structural plans.
266 Mr. Lambertson then inquired as to the appeal process, and Mr. Jensen responded that appeals
267 would be to the City Commission. Mr. Parkes added that the Commission was essentially the
268 authors of the guidelines. Mr. Stratton said that if the Commission drafted the guidelines by
269 which this Board was to consider variances, they would certainly have expectations that any
270 variances granted could meet the established criteria. Ms. Hall explained that an appeal is a
271 quasi-judicial review, in which the Commission would only be permitted to review the
272 official record to determine three things — whether there had been due process afforded to all
273 affected parties, whether the correct law had been applied, and whether there was substantial
274 competent evidence to support the decision.
275 Mr. Lambertson read the second option from the stair report, noting this scenario would deny
276 the current request to amend the variance, but allow the original variance to stand, meaning
277 any new construction encroaching beyond the ten (10) foot setback would have to be
278 removed.
279 Noting that this was the only rear yard variance approved during his tenure on the Board, Mr.
280 Parkes said he questioned whether he would have voted in the same manner on the original
281 variance if he had had the current information. Mr. Elmore agreed that looking forward, he
282 could not say he would have done the same either because there are long -term repercussions
283 to be considered.
284 MOTION: Mr. Stratton moved that the Board deny the requested variance amendment
285 further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning
286 district from ten (10) feet — as approved by order of a previous variance from Section 24-
287 106(e)(2) — to four and one -half (4 1/2) feet, finding that this request does not meet any of the
288 grounds for approval according to Section 24- 64(d), and that the Board also reverse the
289 previous decision and revoke the variance from Section 24- 106(e)(2) granted to reduce the
290 required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning district from twenty
291 (20) feet to ten (10) feet, finding that in accordance with Section 24- 47(c), the previous
292 decision was based upon inaccurate information, and that this action is based upon new
293 evidence which does not meet any of the grounds for approval according to Section 24 -64(d)
294 either. The motion, seconded by Mr. Hansen, was carried by a vote of 5 -2, with Ms. Paul and
295 Mr. Lambertson dissenting.
296 Under consensus of the Board, Mr. Lambertson expressed a desire to hold a joint workshop
297 with the Commission to discuss Beach Avenue character and possible solutions such as an
298 overlay; however, he recalled that when the Board previously requested such a workshop,
299 staff was told no. He asked if the Board could request workshop with the Commission, to
300 which Mr. Jensen replied yes and agreed that a delegate from this Board could address the
301 Commission with such a request.
302
Page 7 of 8
Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
303 5. NEW BUSINESS.
304 A. ORDINANCE NO 90 -12 -214
305 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Commission to amend Section 24 -151,
306 to establish a minimum required separation of six (6) feet between
307 accessory buildings and structures and other buildings and
308 structures; to correct four (4) incorrect references in the existing
309 provisions; and to reorder subsection 24- 151(b)(2), grouping those
310 provisions related to use and those related to dimensions.
311
312 Ms. Hall explained that the submittal before the Board arose out of the Board's desire to
313 reincorporate a defined separation between accessories structures and other structures into the
314 Code, and consisted of a draft ordinance and a strike - through / underline revision of the
315 affected Section 24 -151, implementing a minimum required six (6) foot separation as item
316 24- 151(b)(2)f. Additionally she noted four incorrect references within Section 24 -151 that
317 were corrected, and reordering of subsection (b) according to application, with some being
318 related to use and some being related to dimensions.
319 Mr. Parkes said that he would support reducing the separation to five (5) feet, and Mr. Elmore
320 concurred, as did other members of the Board, saying that it was a dimension consistent with
321 other setback requirements.
322 MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission adoption
323 of the ordinance before them, thereby amending Section 24 -151 of the Land Development
324 Regulations to establish a minimum required separation of five (5) feet between accessory
325 buildings and structures and other buildings and structures, and making other corrections as
326 noted, finding that this amendment is consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plan and the
327 purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations
328 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None.
329 7. ADJOURNMENT — 8:15 PM
330
331
332 Chris Lambertson, Chairman
333
334
335
336 Attest
Page 8 of 8
2/ /a.a!2_
do /6141A-J
My name is Richard Reichler and I live at 2025 Beach Ave. Mr. Harkleroad is my next door neighbor to
the south.
I am recommending that the board reverse the prior variance approval ZVAR -11- 00100065 of December
20, and deny the current variance request, based on the fact that both were submitted using grossly
misrepresented survey information.
The building permit application and December variance application are both based on an extremely
unusual boundary survey in that it contains no boundary measurements. No corners are identified -- no
distances or bearings between corners are measured. Only plat information is shown for the boundary,
and most of that is either not relevant or is misrepresented. Importantly though, two grossly inaccurate
measurements are presented as the distance between the western corners of the existing single -story
garage and the beach avenue right -of -way: A loft number that misrepresents, by over 5ft, that the to-
be- enlarged existing garage will exactly meet the required setback, and a 14.2ft number that, when used
with the 10ft number, misrepresents the angle of the right -of -way boundary as approximately 11
degrees to north instead of the actual 18 degrees, providing the illusion that there is just enough room
to attach an additional (albeit illegal) concrete block garage next to the existing two car garage.
Only after the 10ft variance was approved, on December 20th, did the just- mentioned
misrepresentations become obvious when the building inspector explained to me that because of a
missing (per the builder) physical survey marker, the inspector had to rely on the previously- mentioned
survey measurements in order to check that the addition was in compliance with setback requirements.
The misrepresentations became even more numerous when on the following day, the same survey tech
that had drafted the original survey, along with the builder, attempted to persuade the building
inspector and myself that the survey's interpretation of the location of the city's right of way was correct
by a.) illegally moving my capped survey monument 3ft towards the street, in order to make its location
consistent with the two grossly inaccurate measurements on the survey and b.) loudly arguing that the
location of the southwest corner of the property (where the marker was purportedly missing) could not
possibly be located anywhere near the location shown on the archive survey presented by the city at the
December 20 meeting and should be 7 -8ft closer to (and almost in) the road surface.
The survey for today's variance request includes additional inaccuracies, including all the bearings. The
4.5ft setback is not consistent with the 12.2ft and 4.7ft figures obtained from an earlier survey for the
prior owner of the property. Again, no measurements appear to have been made, nor were any
monuments set.
In summary, the information provided to the city by the homeowner for the building permit, the
December20 variance, and the current variance request is not just inaccurate, it includes many major
misrepresentations that have occurred since before the homeowner purchased his home. The only
legitimate solution to this issue, based on the new information, is for the board to reverse the 10ft
variance approval and deny the current request. The property needs to be brought back into
compliance with the existing land development regulations.