Laserfiche WebLink
I�hc response states, "I:xisting gradc under thc cxtremc westem edge cannot be <br /> unyucstionably dctemiincd at this timc as it was necess:rily disturbed for ihc conswction <br /> of the footing"—this responsc might bc morc convincing had our original complaint not <br /> containcd a pha;�graph of this arca before construction of thc footing was commenced <br /> (sce original compl�int). Who are 7bny Lee and 13ecky Fauvcr attempting to fool with <br /> this statcmcnt? Arc thcy trying to covcr-up thcir initial approval ofa plan obviously in <br /> violation of thc law'? <br /> Nso, thc statemcnt that"thc cntire portion of the Aeck .ast of the wcstem edge <br /> located within thc sidc yud sctback is wcll undcr thc maacimum allowablc hcight of 3G"" <br /> is untrue: the entire arca has been backfilled with emvel to oumoselv abscure the <br /> heieht. '1'his statemcnt is a twisting of the photographic proof offcrcd by us cicarly <br /> sho�ving thc hcight above thc"maximum allowablc height", and onc can tell this rvas <br /> twisled by thc use of thc terms'btherwise stateJ"--- it had to be 'btherwise stated" in <br /> order to twist the obvious fact of a height violation into a statement that no height <br /> violation cxists. "I�hc rosperosc admits thc dcck is ovcr thc masimum allowablc height <br /> within thc sidc setback, though it attcmpts to twist thc fact that thc hcight violation cxists <br /> fiirthcr back �mJcr the Jcck whcrc lhc builder has purposcly backfillcd thc entirc arca <br /> with gravcl to obscurc lhc hcight. <br /> rlgain, what is particularly insulting is thal this hcight violation was not donc <br /> inadvcrtcnlly, hut rathcr was a pur�scful dcsign by thc builJcr to dcccivc your <br /> department by conslructing a stcppcd/terraced �xdestal and backtilling the entire arca <br /> within the sidc setback. 'I�hc fact that wc ��intcd out this inlentional Jeccption of thc <br /> huildcr to 'I'ony Lce und Becky Pauvcr and thcy still have taken no actiun, but rathcr have <br /> nUcmptcJ lo covcr-upivalidatc thcir initinl approval of codc violations to a casual rcader <br /> who may not chcck thc photographs anJ facts that contradict thcir statcments, raiscs <br /> yucstions about thcir intcgrity to thcirjob and commitment to thc public anJ your <br /> dcpartmcnt. <br /> Are such purposcly-dcccptivc building tactics the rypc of'thing you want to <br /> cncouragc applicants/buildcrs lo perpctratc on your dcpartmcnt'? <br /> It thus lar apprus that such Matant deccit works if one wants to purposcly violale <br /> thc law. <br /> 13vcn attcr 'I�uny Lcc and l3ccky I�auvcr aJmit thc dcck cxcceds "thc maximum <br /> allowablc hcight ol'3G"' thcy havc thc ncrvc to statc that this violation of thc maximum <br /> hcight rcyuircmcnl such that thc hcight ���ithin thc sctback is "grcatcr than 36" is <br /> incicvanf'. <br /> Why do wc h�rvc codes with maximums and minimums•'? <br /> Is it your Jcpartmcnt's position that all such codcs aro irrclevanC? <br /> 7Z0 <br />