5206 SEAHURST AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

, August 4, 1980 Page Fourteen I 2. The view of the adjacent property would have been obstructed even if the twenty (20) foot setback would have been adher.ed to. 3. The builder did not make the error maliciously or with any intent to damage anybody's property. 4. 'i':�e �,ossibi'.ity of demolishing the bu�_lding or moving it does not fit the level of the error. Mr. Ken Callahan, the Building Official of the City, mentioned the corner stakes were established mistakenly on a survey completed prior to September of 197?. A later survey revealed the error. Dennis Jordan, an attorney, represented Mr. Sheldrew, the property owner to the East, who was against the granting of the variance for the following reasons: 1. An experienced builder should have the correct property lines. 2. 11r. Sheldrew's view and privacy have �-een eliminated. 3. The applicant has no extra or ordinary circumstances and does not mcet any of the four reasons needed for. granting a variance. 9. The constructed duplex does not meet the general decor of the neighborhood. 5. An i+iicial complaint had been issued prior to the building of the new duplex. The IIoard then mentioned that proper corner stakes should have been placed knowing t;:�y were right. A builder who builds for a profes�ion should know t!�^ oropc::- property lines and should not profit Uy these � kinds of mistakes. Many of '.he neighbors w��re against the 9ranting of the variance and some of their reasons were: 1. The duplea was built on a very limited size lot and some- thing shoul�', be done. 2. Ti,� appv;,rance and loc� cost construcCion is detrimental to the area. 3. The owner of the pr��perty sl•�ould not be allowed to get away with an impropar setbark. i