CCMIN010296 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis asked if the secondary unit requires a conditional use permit and Council does not have jurisdiction to prevent the creation of a secondary unit, how does this work'/ Mr. Swift stated that Council does have jurisdiction to review the use permit and impose whatever conditions are necessary. Or Council can deny the use permit if Council finds thex~ are issues that cannot be resolved through particular conditions of approval. Mayor Tarver commented that good cause is necessary for this permit to be rejected. Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing open on the application. Nicholas Cassens, Jr., 4082 Suffolk Way, opposed the application for the conditional use permit. He indicated there have been many occupants of the house next door and wanted to make sure the conditions stay with the property. Hc asked Council to use the laws to mak~ the secondary unit acceptable. He asked for the permit to be rejected only if an acceptable design cannot be achieved. Hc pointed out that this secondary unit, along with the deck, were built without permits. He stated that no fence connects the side yard fence to the side of the house, that it, along with the spa, creates a health and safety issue. Mr. Cassens stated that the front door of the secondary unit is seventeen feet away from his house (straight across from his master bedroom/bathroom) and has created a noise problem from people banging on the door at all times, disturbing his sleep. One tenant in the secondary unit had many visitors who wcmt outside to smoke and distributed their trash and cigarette butts on the ground/streets and onto the Cassens' property. He requested Council to require the side door to be removed and require the tenants to ms the secondary unit from the front of the house. He felt that unless this is done, there is no way to stop this activity from reoccurring if the property is sold or if the owner changes his mind about what is allowed. He felt that all the wiring and plumbing should be inspected since it was not done by a professional or inspected before being covered. He felt it is the Council's responsibility to control the adverse effect of this noise source on the citizens under any conditional use. He went on to cite various Municipal Code sections that should be applied to this use. Ms. Michelotti asked what alternative there would be other than removing the door to the secondary unit. Mr. Cassens did not believe there was an alternative other than removing the door. There have been conditions placed on using that entrance in the past, but they were not observed. Ed Bruhn, 4050 Suffolk Way, stated that originally the application was to enlarge a single-family dwelling and somewhere along the line it became a duplex. He felt this is unfair and was detrimental to the other single-family properties. He stated that this unit was supposed to be for the applicant's mother-in-law, but she moved out. He felt that Mr. Slipka has taken advantage of the situation. What will happen if he moves, and what considerations will be made at that time. 01/02/96 - 11-