01/21/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

imposed were unwarranted. Mr. Hanna further noted inspections which had been made by both the Engineering Technician and the Building In- spector and which did not show any inconsistencies with the plans. In conclusion, Mr. Hanna stated that his client was willing to put the wall in but wanted to put it on his property line, not ten feet in and he would mitigate the impact by putting plantings on his side of the wall. The City Manager commented on the inspections made by staff members. He noted, in part, that when the staking is inspected there is a 10 ' offset from the grading so that there is room to work without affect- ing the stakes. Regarding the foundation, the building inspector checks to see that the foundation is correctly designed and poured. The inspections conducted on this property appeared to show con- formance with the plans. By the contractor' s own admission, the stakes had been relocated without advising the Town. The City Engineer and Town Planner commented on the height issue and rotation of the house. The internal height was increased 3 ' for pitch of roof. The approval of this required the use of backfill ; however, when the house was rotated in orientation the use of backfill was not possible resulting in a 2 1/2 ' height increase. The applicant never requested a modification of his special land use permit. Mr. Ray Sinsley, applicant' s builder, repeated his recollection of the inspections made by the Engineering Technician and his understanding of the use of backfill. Dronkert reiterated the actions taken by the Council on August 6, 1987 and asked if Mr. Hanna had indeed listened to the tape of that meet- ing. She noted that the Site Development process was very important in the Town and the applicant, by the admission of his own builder, had moved the location of the house without advising the Town. There were drastic actions that the Council could have taken at that time to cor- rect the violations. One action suggested was removal of the deck. However, the Council agreed at that time to impose the penalty fee and to refer the matter back to the Site Development Committee and to re- quest them to determine appropriate mitigating measures. In her opinion, the Committee had done their job and decided on the condi- tions. Plummer commented that although he had not been on the Council at the time of this discussion, he saw no reason to change the mitigating measures; the Town had been extremely tolerant and fair. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by Siegel and passed by the following roll call vote to deny the appeal of the Plan- ning Commission' s decision to uphold the Site Development Committee' s decisions regarding Lands of Babayan, 12940 Atherton Court. AYES: Mayor van Tamelen and Councilmembers Dronkert, Plummer and Siegel NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mayor Pro Tem Tryon -4-