PC 012203 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson replied that if the application lapsed, co nzpliance letters would he sent to the applicant, and ultimately, a compliance hearing would be scheduled if there was no satisfactory resolution. If the Compliance Officer found against the applicant, sanctions and fines could be imposed- In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Mr. Iserson did not believe that a performance bond had ever been required for a project on private property. He noted that if the applicant did not comply, the City would have to use that money to rebuild his house on private property. He was unsure of the legality of that situation, and staff would be hesitant to use that approach. Ms_ Nerland noted that there was no legal remedy to an applicant continually extending a building penzzit for interior work- THE PUBLIC HEAE2_ING WAS OPENED_ Joanne Norman, appellant, 3565 Kings Canyon Court, noted that the applicant had petitioned the City three times since 2000. She noted that all the building permits had expired, and he had not addressed items that the staff requested that he complete by December 7, 2001. She had attended two meetings to discuss ways to come to closure on these issues, and although the dates and times were set up at his convenience, he had never attended the meetings. At these meetings, the neighbors were told that there would be code enforcement action taken against Mr. Duggan if he did not follow through with staff s directives. Size noted that he had not complied with any staff directives, and to date, no sanctions had been taken against him. Ms_ Norman requested that sanctions be enforced at this time, and noted that Mr. Duggan needed to finish the development in a timely fashion- She believed that if she did not complete the work, the penalty should be severe. She noted that he had sutf3cient time to comply with staff's request, and that it was time to face the consequences if he failed to follow through. She noted that he recently put up a fence on both sides of his property without installing a gate; when he needed access to his property, he removed the entire fence. She noted that there was currently no fence on the right side of the property; on the left side, one slat had been missing for over a year. She noted that slit spoke with all her neighbors regarding these issues on December 16, 2002, and added that 21 neighbors from Kings Canyon Court and Zion Canyon Court signed her petition- The neighbor stated that they were tired of being woken up by hammering ai 6 a.m., and that he did not comply with the rcgulaU.ons of working from 9 a. m. to 5 p.m. They also expressed concerns over the safety in and around his yard, and the general rundown appearance of his property. She noted that she lived next door to Mr. Duggan, and saw the impacts every day. She estimated that Mr. Duggan had been working on his property for at least 17 years- She hoped that the Commission took their concerns more seriously, and deny Mr. Duggan's request for City approval of this project until he finished his previous work. She expressed concern that he was manipulating the system to maximize the delay on his construction work. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2003 Page 12