Board of Adjustment Documents 1979

Home Browse Search

Reed: (Continued) DiCarlo: - / Reed Minutes - Page 3 September 20, 1979 the one wall or two adjacent walls up with the back wall not up at the time. B~t yet, we had two Council members present at that meeting, and both were in favor of declining the motion of allowing that rear yard set back to be altered. And, if 11m not mistaken, one of those Council members at the present time is applying for the same thing. Justifi- ably so, 11m having a tough time dealing with the situation as far as whatls good for the goose is good for the gander. I donlt understand the presentation after the fact of the presentation for Mesa Point and it's similarities, and yet the response was there that evening and that's my problem with this right now. If the Board, I feel, is to justly vote on this, it should be in the same manner as we voted on that evening. Even more so because this one hasn't even taken place yet, where that one had, through error, was brought about, but yet still declined. So that's where my comments lie at this point. May I respond to Mr. Davies and to Mr. Reed? About that evening, you are absolutely right. I did respond against that. At this time, I'll ask you for a variance prior to any construction, even though it was the fault of the contractor, the City Building Department, or whoever. I think it was pointed out that those people, prior to them starting construction, that they were out of compliance with the code. Yet they asked for a variance after con- struction. And the thing that bothered me is that you're talking about an area that is less than a year old. First, the area that I am requesting a variance for is approxi- mately 20 years old, and with no obstruction. If you remember there was discussion about obstruction of a view and things like that on the one at Mesa Point. Yes, at that meeting there was a mention of views and the possibility of the view being affected. I think that what was brought out at that meeting concerning the view by the owner of the objecting party, it was as if the view wasn't the primary concern of theirs. It was brought out later in that meeting, when it was brought to their attention that there would be anouther structure directly in the view and then this wasnlt the primary criteria. As far as that being a new area, less than a year old, versus this area, which has been established for 20 years, lid like to ask Steve at this time what were the lot square footages of that area 20 years ago in relationship to the lot square footage of the present one. To be able to better adapt myself to how much square footage of that property is being taken up in relationship to the on up on Mesa Point.