Mrs. Rach,
I'm not sure why a board member is on a public forum calling into question whether or not a resident had a building permit for a structure that is on their private property and has been in place for months. The question that you have been dealing with is the portion of the wall that encroaches on the easement. Does the board go to resident's houses and check existing structures and investigate whether they obtained a building permit now? Why bring this up?
I will break your concerns down as well as I can into their component parts. All of the arguments presented here so far had been about integrity, corruption and conflict of interest. Now the argument changes since those issues have been clearly pointed out to have been invented. The only section of the wall that has been in question up to now also has been the lower end where it is from 2 feet, to 8 inches high. Now you are bringing into question the entire structure and whether or not there was a building permit for it. I can tell you also that it is reinforced beyond all building codes by being tied back into the bank with 6 feet wide of heavy geomesh along it's entire length. In addition it is backfilled with drain rock overlaying 6 inch drain pipe, covered with felt paper and groomed to match the road above. Why backtrack now into an issue that's been dealt with to try to call into question a wall that everyone who is affected by it is happy with?
Bringing these things up now that the previous "concerns" have been invalidated seems odd to me. Why choose to question other issues involving this wall now that your concerns about the part that is encroaching into the easement have been dealt with? There is a retaining wall a few houses down belonging to the former maintenance manager which is over 4 feet, wasn't permitted, does not obey the setback requirements (a serious issue,) is in the easement, completely unreinforced, and hampers anyone who might wish to park on the street. Maybe your time and concerns could be better spent there or in volunteering to help out in the office as others have done.
1) Statements that the county has no authority over Seven Bays
I can't speak to this because it's unclear to me exactly what statement's you're referring to. Seven Bays maintains their roads. The county does not. They are private roads over which the board is required to maintain and regulate. In addition, most of the roads within Seven Bays already violate county regulations. Are you now saying that we should ask the county to take over Seven Bays roads? What about the fire department? Should they enforce the regulation that all roads must have turnarounds for emergency vehicles? I assume you're simply making a mistake in what question you're asking. The issue is not with the wall itself but with the board's duty to decide matters of roads. This is simply YOUR duty, not the county's.
2) Life, Fire, Safety
This issue has been addressed by the fire department definitively.
3) Building permit not obtained
The building department has inspected the wall and has taken pictures. They have also been provided with pictures and maps and drawings. The wall is reinforced beyond what is required and retains the bank to a height of less than 4 feet it's entire length. If you want to get technical with a few inches the problem could perhaps be fixed with a rake in 10 minutes. You extrapolate this into a situation like they were building a house or other structure. It retains a road that Seven Bays had put in that was a runoff problem not only onto the Bennett's property, but onto the main road below. The wall should have been put in place by Seven Bays. Why not just be thankful that the Bennett's paid for it themselves instead? Why not call the property owner and thank them instead of trying to look for every avenue possible to give them grief over it? I encourage everyone to drive down and take a look at the wall and see just what all this fuss has been about.
As an aside, building departments do not always require permits from qualified contractors installing this wall system. It has an over engineered support structure and tieback system. You simply go to them and tell them what you're doing and show them the documentation and it's done.
4) Possible violation of 60 foot easement to the property above and behind
This is the real matter, and far more complicated. I'm not sure where you're deciding that they need a 60 foot easement. Is there a separate agreement with the county requiring a 20 foot wider easement between these lots. Since those lots are at the end of the road I believe their easements are utility easements. Have you measured it and found that it does not meet these requirements? You say you have been worried about this for quite some time. Have you investigated? Why is it coming up now?
If you've been worried about this since July 28 or earlier as you say, perhaps in your research on behalf of the residents of Seven Bays you might have noticed that the requirement is only a 40 foot easement, not 60. The only 60 foot easement requirements are at the airport where Mr. Jump has built, or in the case of a cul-de-sac which Seven Bays has disregarded. If you wanted to apply this as a cul-de-sac you would be taken large pieces of properties from each of the 4 lots there. Technically to my understanding therefore if you want to apply strict interpretations there is no way to make the situation completely legal unless you simply give the road to the homeowners. In addition, the County Planner agreed that he had no problems with any portion of the wall as long as the people whose access was involved signed a statement that they were in support of the wall. Which they have. This should be the end of the story. Let's see if it is.
Forwarded by Darrell Schindler,
Homeowner
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route! Find it!
No comments:
Post a Comment