5206 SEAHURST AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

ALLL•GATIONS OF APPLICANT POINT 1 : THE FOLLOWING ARE THE SPECIAL CIRCUPISTANC6S WHIC11 APPLY TO MY PROPERTY WHICH DEPRIVB ME OP RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGGS WHICH ARE ENJOYED nY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THB VICINTY UNDEP. T1{E IDENTICAL ZONG CLASSIFICATION: The structure on this property was constructed in violat.'on of the City's front yard setback requirements as the result of an honest mistake by the builder. l�Then the duplex located east � of the subject parcel was constructed, the then-o:�ner had the proper�surveyed, resulting in a survey stake being place�' at the common property line between the two parcels at its point of intersection with the exieting right of way line on Seahurst. Jade Development had also ordered a survey for its property as patt of it sliort subdivision application, a subdivision which included the dedication of ten additional feet of right of way to the City. One of the owners, Mr. Cole, mistakenly assumec' that the survey automatically included the stalcing of property corners. This is not the case; ��kino is neither., required b� the City nor is it one y s -fiTms`unless speci'�'ical7y ret�estefi3y`ffie client. -- •� � - "' When Mr. Cole went to the property to measure for the foundation forms, , he found both the corner stake from the �rior survey on the easterly property and an existing stake from a prior survey on the property to the '�� west. He thought that these stakes were from his survey and that they , were located ten feet back from the former rig�o: way. This of course �. was erroneous. The forms were placed 20-31 feeC back from these stakes. � When the City's foundation ins�ector measured the fronl yard setback, he too mistakenly used the two exisling stakes and approved the project. After a complaint was received from the easterly prope�:ty owner (Pir. Sheldrew) the City again came to the site and measured the setback. Again the inspector (and the Building Department Director) used the existing stakes as a reference and rejected Lhe complaint. Shortly thereafter, however, the error wae confirmed. Quite simply, a mistake was made because things were not as they seemed. The same mistake was made on three seoar�te occasions by separate individuals. There was no attempt Lo deceive the City; there would be no reason or beenfit in doing so. Had the stakes been placed on the new front property line, there is no question ChaC the building would have been placed in compliance with the CiYy Codes .