HomeMy WebLinkAbout06012023 BSC Agenda Item 3 memo
To: Building and Standards Commission (the "BSC")
From: Scott Bounds, City Attorney
CC: Applicant: Spyros A. Maragos, 5932 Auden
Staff: Josie Hayes, Danny Cameron, Joseph Newton
Date: May 22, 2023
Re: Appeal from Decision made by the Building Official
Summary of Maragos's Application
On May 5th, 2023, Spyros A. Maragos filed an "appeal" from three actions of the building
official regarding the construction of a home at 5928 Auden, a property immediately adjacent to
Maragos's home at 5932 Auden. See Exhibit A (the "Application"). The appeal generally objects
to three alleged building official actions:
1) the building official permitted the adjacent property owner to place fill dirt on the adjacent
property "without providing for a structural element that would keep the dirt off" Maragos's
property;
2) the building official permitted the adjacent property owner to construct a wooden fence gate
that may encroach on Maragos's property; and
3) the building official may have permitted the adjacent property owner to place a mechanical
unit too close (i.e., less than 3 feet)1 from Maragos's property.
Applicant's Right of Appeal
1 See City Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A, Section 7-101, Regulations, tables, etc., Table 7-6, Projections
Schedule, Note 6 (SIDE YARD: Indicated equipment may project into an interior or street side yard(but not
closer than three feet to a property line) only if it is fully encased in a sound-absorbing cabinet, or is
otherwise designed and operated to comply with the City's noise regulations;see Chapter 54 of the Code of
Ordinances.However,equipment replacing older equipment in a side yard may project as close as 18 inches
to a property line, if the fire marshal determines that such projection will not significantly interfere with
emergency access,either on the same site or on another site.)
• City Council has provided for an appeal to the Building and Standards Commission (the
"BSC") of certain decisions of the City's building official. Section 18-7 of the City's Code of
Ordinances provides:
Sec. 18-7. -Review of decisions.
(a)Application. When the issuing officer takes action on an application for a permit, or on a
permit, an applicant or permittee who is directly and adversely affected may request a review.
The application must:
(1)Be in writing;
(2)Identify the parts of this Code or other applicable regulations which are involved;
(3)State the action desired and the reasons why the action should be taken;
(4)Respond to the decision of the issuing official,covering each reason cited by the issuing official;
(5)Include any applicable fee for the cost of the review; and
(6)Be filed with the issuing official.
If the application is filed more than 30 days following the action sought to be reviewed, the
applicant or permittee must demonstrate good cause for the delay; otherwise the review may
be dismissed by the hearing board.
(b)Referral to hearing board. The issuing official shall refer all review applications to the
appropriate hearing board. The appropriate hearing board for actions of the building official is
the BSC. Exception:for actions based on the zoning ordinance,the hearing board is the ZBA.An
application may have to be referred to more than one hearing board. The issuing official is
authorized to make all necessary arrangements for the review proceedings.
(c)Interim orders. A review application does not automatically change or supersede a decision of
the issuing official, but the issuing official or the hearing board may issue an interim order to apply
while review is pending. Interim orders may be issued conditionally.They may postpone the time
for compliance with any requirement the applicant may be challenging, but only if all of the
following circumstances are present:
(1)Postponement is necessary to prevent substantial economic loss or other hardship;
(2)Postponement neither causes a significant threat to life,property or health nor disrupts orderly
enforcement of applicable regulations;
(3)The applicant or permittee takes all reasonable and feasible steps to comply with the
challenged requirement, or with substitute requirements specified by the order;
(4)The applicant or permittee provides all required insurance; and
(5)The applicant or permittee provides adequate security and documents to assure compliance
with the challenged requirement if it is upheld.
(d)Proceedings of the hearing board. The hearing board shall hear applications for review. The
hearing board shall prescribe rules consistent with the nature of the proceedings. The rules shall,
to the extent practicable, ensure that each party may present evidence, cross-examine witnesses
and be represented by legal counsel.
2
{e)Decisions. The hearing board may reverse, affirm or remand the decision of the issuing
official, except as otherwise prescribed by state law.The decision of the hearing board shall be
in writing and shall become the city's final decision when 30 days elapse after it is signed, if no
re-hearing is pending, unless otherwise prescribed by state law.
(emphasis added).
Recommendation to Dismiss Application for Appeal
The Building Official and City Attorney recommend that the BSC dismiss the appeal of
Maragos for the following reasons:
1. Maraqos is not a permit applicant or permittee. Section 18-7(a) provides that when
the building official takes action on an application for a permit or on a permit,then the applicant
or permittee has a right of appeal the action if it adversely affects the applicant/permittee. Under
the last antecedent rule of construction,the use of the term "applicant" refers to and means the
"application for a permit." Because Maragos is neither an applicant for a permit or a permittee,
the City's Code of Ordinance does not provide Maragos the right to appeal a decision of the
building official regarding his neighbor's property. Otherwise, anyone in the City may appeal a
building official's decision regarding other properties in the City.'
Discretionary statutes and the enforcement of building and zoning ordinances do not give
rise to constitutionally protected property interests. Horton v. City of Smithville, 117 Fed. Appx.
345 (347-48) (5th Cir. 2004). This is so even where a person asserts that the failure to enforce the
ordinance creates a nuisance or interferes with use of their home. Sumner v. Board of Adjustment
of the City of Spring Valley Village, 2015 WL 12977400 (06/20/2015). The City's ordinances are
intended for the protection of the public, not any particular property owner. The City Council has
not granted to Maragos the right to appeal a permit decision regarding his neighbor's property.
2. Maraqos does not identify the regulations involved. In order to make an appeal, the
Code of Ordinances requires that Maragos "identify the parts of this Code or other applicable
regulations which are involved." Section 18-7(a)(2). In his application, Maragos simply states"I
do not know the exact section involved." Application p. 2. Further, Maragos's application does
not make any reference to a specific code provisions. Maragos's appeal should be dismissed
because it does not identify the parts of the Code or the applicable regulations involved.
3. Maraqos requests relief outside the scope of the building code.
As noted above has three basic concerns: 1) the building official permitted the adjacent
property owner to place fill dirt on the adjacent property "without providing for a structural
element that would keep the dirt off" Maragos's property; 2) the building official permitted the
adjacent property owner to construct a wooden fence gate that may encroach on Maragos's
property if opened fully; and 3) the building official may have permitted the adjacent property
owner to place a mechanical unit too close (i.e., less than 3 feet)3 from Maragos's property. The
2 Similarly, Section 18-91(b) provides that the building official shall initiate and prosecute cases involving
enforcement of the City's ordinances. If a person other than the building official desires to prosecute a case
for violation of an ordinance,then the case is referred to the building official and if a complainant disagrees
with the building official's decision to prosecute the case, then the appeal is to the City Manager (not the
Board). See Building and Standards Commission Rules of Procedure,Article VI(b),attached.
3 See City Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A, Section 7-101, Regulations, tables, etc., Table 7-6, Projections
Schedule, Note 6 (SIDE YARD: Indicated equipment may project into an interior or street side yard(but not
3
BSC should dismiss Maragos's appeal because 1) Maragos fails to specify the actions requested
from the BSC, and 2) the City does not have any applicable building regulations authorizing the
building official's to deny the permit at 5928 Auden based upon Maragos's permit concerns.
Additionally, Maragos's objection to the AC unit placement is based on a zoning ordinance outside
the jurisdiction of the BSC.
a) Structural element to keep dirt off adjacent property. The City has no ordinance
requiring that a property owner install a "structural element that would keep the dirt off" an
adjacent property. Section 18-56 generally requires a site drainage plan for new construction.
Property owners are permitted to add fill to their property provided that the fill does not
significantly interfere with established drainage patterns across property lines. See 18-56 (c). On
December 25, 2022, the building official advised Maragos that the adjacent property had been
graded to keep water from running onto Maragos's property. Application p. 6. On March 21,the
building official advised Maragos that the yard elevation adjacent to Maragos's property was
consistent with the approved drainage site plan. Application p. 7. As noted by Section 18-56(f)
of the City's ordinances, Maragos may have state-created rights regarding drainage which he
"remains free to pursue". However, Maragos fails to allege facts justifying the BSC to review,
reverse or modify the decision of the building official that the adjacent property owner's
improvements complied with City's ordinances.
b) Wooden fence gates. The City has no ordinance that prevents a property owner from
constructing a gate that may, if opened, encroach upon an adjacent property. Rather, it is the
property owner's responsibility to either operate the gate so that it does not encroach upon the
adjacent property, to place a staub or other retaining device to prevent an unwanted
encroachment, or to obtain permission from the adjacent property owner to enter upon the
adjacent property. Regardless, as a result of Maragos's concerns, the adjacent property owner
installed a staub, and then a spring on the gate, to avoid encroaching upon Maragos's property.
See Hunt email dated 12/26/2022,Application p. 6; and Hunt email dated 3/21/2023,Application
p. 7.Again, Maragos fails to allege a basis for an appeal of the building official's actions regarding
this matter.
c) Encroachment of AC. Although the City does have a regulation that requires a person
to place an AC at least three feet from the adjacent property,the regulation is found in the zoning
ordinance. See Footnote 1, above citing Appendix A, Section 7-101. The City building official
advised Maragos that the AC unit complies with the City's setback rule. Hunt email dated
3/21/2023, Application p. 7. The City notes that Maragos does not claim the neighbor's AC is
situated less than three (3)feet from Maragos's property line; rather Maragos only requests that
the BSC provide "reliable confirmation" that the AC unit complies with the City's ordinances.
Attachment to Application, unnumbered page 11 because the AC setback arises from the City's
zoning ordinance,the BSC should dismiss Maragos appeal regarding this matter.
4. Maragos's appeal untimely.
Finally,the City Code provides that"if the application is filed more than 30 days following
the action sought to be reviewed, the applicant or permittee must demonstrate good cause for
closer than three feet to a property line) only if it is fully encased in a sound-absorbing cabinet, or is
otherwise designed and operated to comply with the City's noise regulations;see Chapter 54 of the Code of
Ordinances.However,equipment replacing older equipment in a side yard may project as close as 18 inches
to a property line, if the fire marshal determines that such projection will not significantly interfere with
emergency access,either on the same site or on another site.)
4
the delay; otherwise the review may be dismissed by the hearing board. Section 18-7(a)(6).
Although Maragos states that there is no written decision, Maragos's appeal includes an email
from the building official dated December 26, 2022, that addresses Maragos's complaints fill and
gate complaints. Application p. 6. Both matters and the AC are again addressed by the building
official in his email to Maragos on March 21, 2023. Application 7. Maragos files his appeal on
May 5th, 2023, 130 days after the first email and 45 days after the second email of the building
official addressing his concerns. Maragos offers no explanation why he failed to appeal the
written action of the building official within thirty days. Again, the BSC may dismiss Maragos's
appeal because he failed to timely appeal the building official's actions.
SUMMARY
The BSC should dismiss Maragos's appeal from the decision of the building official to take
no action regarding Maragos's complaint regarding his neighbor's yardwork,wooden gate and AC
placement. The City's Ordinances do not provide a general cause of action for any person to
enforce the City's building codes; rather, only a person who has applied for a building permit or
who has a building permit and who is adversely affected by a decision of the building official may
appeal the building official's decision to the BSC.
Additionally, Maragos's appeal should be dismissed because Maragos fails to identify the
city regulations upon which his appeal is based, the City does not have regulations that require
structural elements to prevent dirt off an adjacent property, the City does not have regulations
that prohibit a gate from being constructed or designed to open onto an adjacent property, and
the City's rules regarding the placement of an AC are based upon its zoning regulations.
Finally the BSC should dismiss Maragos's appeal because he failed to timely appeal the
building official's actions about which he complains.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Bounds
Olson & Olson, LLP
City Attorney
5
O q i
City of West University Place
APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS ("CITY")
x,-. 5
Address of site: 5 9 24 v c to S4 r OO V 'T Y . ? fib c
Legal description of the site: GT 7 ' C./x.3 S .r 7�-P Irry 5 7
Applicant: 57 `( "-k a S A i, /L) co C
Address: 1ui r-- vv 9 t
Contact: V . '� 0 E .A . Dial p R p 6 0 C
Phone: --.77 ; `- — -- ‘,'0 --qi y Fax:
Email Address: ,\.,;v\o/ 72/0 .2) S' r u v� a -,n 1 4 . r-'01
Decision or Action Requested(check one or more and provide requested data):
k)Appeal. Hear and decide an appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination made by the building official (or
other administrative official) of the City.
• Name and title of the administrative official:
• Is the official's action in writing? ( )Yes; ( ) copy is attached. ( ) No, but the action appealed is as follows:
• When was the action taken? Note: Appeals must be filed within a reasonable time. Please explain any delay
below:
• • Exact code of ordinance section(s) involved:
• Grounds for appeal:
5 `ems k , Cit") 'w A- $
( )Special Exception.
• Exact code of ordinance section that authorizes the special exception:
• Exact wording of special exception requested:
( )Variance.
• Exact code of ordinance section from which a variance is requested:
• Exact wording of variance requested:
Other Data. Are there drawings or other data? ( )No ( )Yes (list items here and attach them)
State of r'L)C,tc County of +1tZ l4
This instrument was acknowledged before me on / ► £ 20
by
Anna N Evelyn
(Seal) My Commission Expires
a/16/2o2s
298a67o 1 ' 1
My commission expires: ' - ', jr, . i
, NotaryPublic
*****$500 AL) *****
FILING FEE. P OVIDE ORIGINAL PLUS 15 COPIES (16 TO OF ALL SUBMITTALS
Signature of applicant: . Date: a `
,r
For Staff Use only Date filed:,' C "..). Date heard: 1t Docket#: I "wj
Form BSC-102
City of West University Place
APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE,TEXAS("CITY")
Address of site: 5928 Auden St.
Legal description of the site:
Applicant:Spyros A. Maragos
Address: 5932 Auden St.
Contact: Spyros A. Maragos
Phone:+1-713-560-8169 (cell)
Email Address: maragos@alum.mit.edu
Decision or Action Requested (check one or more and provide requested data):
(X)Appeal. Hear and decide an appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination made by
the building official (or other administrative official) of the City.
• Name and title of the administrative official: Brian Hunt, Building Official
• Is the official's action in writing? ( )Yes; ( ) copy is attached. ( ) No, but the action appealed is as
follows:
I do not know if the official's actions are in writing, but I appeal three actions of the Building Official,
with reference to the development next door at 5928 Auden St.:
1) The developer raised with dirt the yard elevation on his side of our common property line,
without providing for a structural element that would keep the dirt within his property.
2) The developer's wooden fence gate encroaching on my property.
3) I was told early on that the AC units of the development would be on the West side of 5928
Auden. It turns out that they were installed on the south side close to our common property
line. Further,the Building Official is claiming that the AC units have been installed at the legal
limit with one inch to spare, according to the Building Official.This third request, I had not
presented while addressing the City Council on March 27th due to the three minutes time limit.
• When was the action taken? I believe that the action (permit of occupancy for 5928 Auden St.)was
taken sometime during the month of April. I am unaware as to the exact date. I wanted to
Note:Appeals must be filed within a reasonable time. Please explain any delay below:
• Exact code of ordinance section(s) involved: I do not know the exact section involved.
• Grounds for appeal:Adverse impact on my property of decisions taken by the developer of 5928
Auden St.
( )Special Exception.
• Exact code of ordinance section that authorizes the special exception:
• Exact wording of special exception requested:
( )Variance.
• Exact code of ordinance section from which a variance is requested:
• Exact wording of variance requested:
Other Data.Are there drawings or other data? ( )No(X)Yes
X pages of document with y pictures.
(list items here and attach them)
State of County of
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20
by.
(Seal)
My commission expires: , Notary Public
*****$500 FILING FEE. PROVIDE ORIGINAL PLUS 15 COPIES (16 TOTAL) OF ALL SUBMITTALS*****
Signature of applicant: Date:_
For Staff Use only Date filed: Date heard: Docket#:
Form BSC-102
Spyros Maragos at 5932 Auden. I am here today to talk about the construction next door at 5928 Auden,
at the corner with Coleridge.
New construction is beneficial for our city. But we have an aggressive developer and a City that is not a
match for him.
There were four changes of guard in the buildings department in about a year. First Paripovich,then
Acosta,then Byars,then Hunt and I do not know who is now. Changes of guard were the periods with
some of the worst abuses on the part of the developer.
Issues:
1)the developer raised with dirt the yard elevation on his side of our common property line.
The picture below was taken Before Construction started:The bottom board of the fence on the 5928
Auden side is at the same level with the board on my side. Additionally,the board on the 5928 Auden
side is slightly behind my gate post/stop.
Bottom Board, 5928 Auden
(picture: Memorial weekend 2012).
m
' by
a
, WO! P t '
spy gy,
t
'kd ...
,4,,,;4"
r.
"' smv o. krvsz
!*.. _w ; ,
w ;
l A
,
Bottom Board, 5932 Auden - [----- '',.,..-:': : : ,"'"*.
'cif
. t
z
r '
.,„,,,,..., . ;I: ., 01
i
e:..* / 1
Ott:.-
t
Next picture was taken after the construction: Where the base board of the fence used to be, at the
same level with and as a continuation of my board, now the yard on the 5928 Auden side is elevated, by
about 3 inches.
(picture Nov-Dec 2022).
e'"::>'-'''''' '4. f -
,....,- ,,,,,,,,,- - ___,,,!... r .
, ..-- .-- ,,, , ,_ ____ 7
•
•
1141
.
,. ' _ ..
f jc. K
.
, ° �
_ '.A4"i/ i, ', '", ;yv, y _ tom., i G x }�y�
.„,,,.. ..„9_,,,,.,4,,,,„,....,,,,,,,7%.44.2.k,,,v. , .7,- .• -4.,, : ,
..4* .
"0,
''. , .
- diillk
Where is the problem for me?Among others,they are using my fence as the retaining wall for their dirt
(which contained and probably still contains asbestos debris),this way accelerating the degradation of
my fence and creating problems when the time comes for me to replace my fence.
Mr. Hunt's response: "The gate is higher because the elevation of that yard is higher than your yard".
instead of doing an independent review, he was relying on the developer for his information. Really
shocking!
° RE:5928 Auden St.Construction:Follow-up on Continued problems - Message(HTML) — O X
File Message Help Q Tell me what you want to do
q Reply ���. /~\
��
��,R,p�4J| ' '
w _ Delete Archive _ �� _ Quick Move Tags Editing Read Zoom
P4 Forward Steps - - - ' Aloud
Delete Respond Quick Steps Immersive Zoom ^
So, Dave Beach: - 2- 12 19
| ~ �
RE: 5928 Auden St. Construction: Follow-up on Continued problems
c' oa,aoem,doau/�ra, Danny Cameron
0`oureplied,othis message on1a/2a2nzzsmrPM.
Mr. Maragos,
1. The front yard has been graded with a swell on the property to keep the water from running
on to your property this will not be filled or flattened.
' 2. The metallic rods are actually the weather head and conduit to run the electric service line
down to underground to the meter can to the house, the wiring coming out of the weather
head will connect to the power lines above it. The shorter service is the temporary service
and will be disconnected and removed once permanent power is connected. --
3. The gate at the fence had a post driven into the ground to stop the swing from coming on
your property. At the request from your wife to the workers that stake was removed. We
will not approve the fence installation until either stop hinges or a stop closure apparatus is
installed on the gate to prohibit it from swinging over the property line. There is currently a
padlock on the gate and the construction supervisor has the key.
4, The gate is higher because the elevation of that yard is higher than your yard.
We will continue to monitor the items you have brought to our attention prior to issuing a Final
inspection to this project.
Brian Hunt
Ch�/Buxd'ngD��/a/
City of West University Place
3826 Amherst. West University Place,TX 77005
Tel 713'662-5830
Fax 713 562 5369
��
Later Mr. Hunt contradicted himself when he claimed:"The yard elevation between the fences is at the
original level." In January the City manager told me that the developer had the right to increase the
elevation.Three contradictory explanations. I suspect none is valid. Please ask the developer to remove
the dirt and reverse the elevation.
" RE:5928 Auden St.Construction:Follow-up on Continued problems - Message(HTML) — O X
File Message Help Q Tell me what you want to do
t;= ›wc 77 �Reply, y ' �}(Eta.,Reply Reply All
Delete Archive C� " Quick Move Tags Editing Read Zoom
L,4 Forward la Steps Aloud
Delete Respond Quick Steps ,y Immersive Zoom
E'rIin `iurr. .Chun: - Spyros Maragos;Dave Beach = Tue 121
RE: 5928 Auden St. Construction: Follow-up on Continued problems
Cc Dave Beach tir.
Mr. Maragos:
1, The gate does not encroach on your property. The post and hinges are not on the property line
and there is a substantial spring installed which will not allow the gate to encroach on your
property. The sidewalk on Coleridge makes a 90 degree turn to the street it does not travel
across the driveway and there is a substantial spring installed on this gate also to prohibit it
from reaching the sidewalk.
2. The yard elevation between the fences is at the original level. As stated previously the Engineer
has signed off on the drainage on this property as being installed per approved design.
3. The measurement from the foundation is the same as the previously measured side of
building. Outside edge of AC is 23 inches from concrete foundation. Side yard property
line per final survey is 5 feet from foundation,AC units are compliant.
Brian Hunt
Chief Building Official
City of West University Place
3826 Amherst St.,West University Place,TX 77005
Tel 713-662-5830
in lir
ATTENTION PUBLIC OFFICLAIS:
This email,plus any attachments,may constitute a public record of the City of West University Place and may be subject to public disclosure under the T
A"reply to all"of this e-mail could lead to violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.Please reply only to the sender.
From:Spyros Maragos<maragos@alum.mit.edu>
Sent:Sunday,March 19,2023 9:45 PM
To: Brian Hunt<bhunt@westutx.gov>
Cc:Dave Beach<DBeach(n7westutx.Rov>:Danny Cameron<dcamerorl westutx.Rov>; �'
After my March 27th presentation at the City Council, I had an April 18th meeting with the City Manager,
the then Building official Brian Hunt, and John Montgomery who had facilitated the meeting. Brian Hunt
claimed that the developer installed a rot board to contain the dirt from coming into my property
against my fence. I was surprised to hear that, and I said that: a)The city had never told me that before,
and b) I have never seen that rot board, between the two fences.
Brian Hunt offered to come and point it out to me. When he came over later that afternoon, he was
pointing to the rot board which was the basis of the fence of 5928 Auden, sitting on the added dirt.
There was no other rot board between the two fences. I can only speculate about his motivation for this
claim, but I was not surprised when he abruptly resigned his position with the City of West University
less than 48 hours later.
5932 Auden`F`ence 5928 Auden Fence
Dirt addition
Rot board,,./ '",„,,,,,,,,s
s
Dirt addition by the
vje
3 inches developer
Figure 1: Drawing of the Fences of the two properties 5932 Auden St. (to the left) and 5928 Auden St. on the
Common property line. (NOT TO SCALE)
Walking around the neighborhood, I have not seen any other construction adding and risr anothering the
yard level to control rain water or for another reason. But I am also worried about dirt the dirt fo
reason:
In the picture below,taken March 7th of this year,you see the then Building Official Brian Hunt pulling
asbestos tiles, I repeat,asbestos tiles,from under my fence.They had been lodged and were left there
since the demolition of the old structure on 5928 Auden some 20 months earlier. Despite my
protestations the developer never removed them, never cleaned up.To help the developer come into
compliance, Brian Hunt took it upon himself to come and remove the visible asbestos tiles. His rational
was: I asked them five-six times to clean up the tiles and they would not do it.
Brian Hunt removed the visible asbestos tiles,this way helping the reluctant developer come into
compliance.Although Brian Hunt now is gone,the problem remains.Who knows how many more
asbestos tiles are covered under the added dirt.
',., ''. f:' ' ' W17-f "1.141,.:,
€ +
40,10
}
I
a3 <.� i
•
ff
Y
23
.
'-•S ft , -;'t' e ,
l' w9„..,,,,, ,,„:„. b4 ...
..,;:-.„,,....,..,„,,, ,,,,,„, , ,_ .
's
,,4,,,..',...,`,1--; '
4 ,, :,
r ,/ ,
,' -----i
b, a ...,r yam. '*§,� 3 4 �* y,a„ F..
2)The developer's wooden fence gate is encroaching on my property.
By design,this gate swings into my property, and for the next 40 years. I will not be able to park my cars
on my driveway close to the wooden gate,
(video still Early March 2023)
^Eq
r..
ds♦
4�#
f �
a Y
..*..,. r
Mr. Hunt claims: "The gate does not encroach on your property". It absolutely does. It has happened
before, and my wife had to negotiate with them to close that wooden gate,for her to open our gate and
our car to come in and out of the garage.
This encroaching violates my rights as a property owner. I asked Mr. Hunt in an email: Do you have the
right to allow the developer to encroach on my property? Never got an answer.
Mr. Hunt is talking about a "strong" spring that keeps the gate in place. Do we have a city service that
will ensure that the spring will be strong for the next 40 years with annual inspections?
I suggested alternatives. Nope. It cannot happen,for a variety of reasons/excuses.And they still want a
gate at the expense of the neighbor.
Well,they have a second fence gate on the Coleridge side, and there is no rain spout in sight. And still
that gate also opens outwards, and encroaches on the sidewalk.That would be public property BTW.
We have two gates and they both encroach. It seems that we have a pattern of behavior and a pattern
of excuses.
11111
+� frit*
•
a
o-
Fe
,
What is the policy reason behind the approval of having two wooden gates encroaching one onto the
neighbor other on public property?
What is the public policy reason of having a gate encroaching"by design"on a neighbor's property?
That over the years creates a legal right. Car hits. Emergency situations etc. despite spring and other
temporary
3)The location of the AC Units.
During the construction at 5928 Auden, I had asked a member of Hunt's staff what was the location of
the AC units, and he told me at they would be located at the West side of the building. Instead they
were placed on the south side of the building close to my property line. Brian Hunt emailed me that they
had been placed at 3 ft and 1 inch away from the property line. However, knowing Hunt's heavy reliance
on the developer for his information, I would like a reliable confirmation.
From my perspective,the first line of defense against the abuses of the developer are the Building
Official and yes,the City Manager. That line of defense has collapsed. I am asking now you,the Building
and Standard Commission to correct the wrongs.
Thank you for your attention.
Coleridge St.
public sidewalk
t �
14 5928 Auden Fence Gate on Coleridge St.encroaches on public sidewalk
AC
Building at 5928 Auden
AC
AC 1 AC 2 Option D...•'�'�.. 1 tion C
.. `.
3 ft. 1 inch Option B*'• • `
•.. ence Gee ,;,
Driveway 3
Common Property Line Gate 5932 ' Q
Driveway 5932 Auden Auden
I
Fence Gate
encroaches
on 5932
Auden,
blocking
Building at 5932 Auden Driveway of
5932 Auden
and threat
to cars on
Driveway
I
Figure 2: Drawing of the two properties 5928 Auden St. (top) and 5932 Auden St. (NOT TO SCALE)
a. Fence Gate encroaches on 5932 Auden, blocking Driveway and threat to cars on Driveway
b. 5928 Auden Fence Gate on Coleridge St. encroaches on public sidewalk
c. Are the AC Units at the right location and is the distance from the property line, correct?
(yes according to the ex- Building official,at 3 ft, 1 inch).