Sunday, November 20, 2016

Popout neighbor from hell

In early 2015, the City Council majority voted to approve some extraordinary setback exemptions for what appeared to be a ridiculously narrow, unbuildable sliver of a lot.

An EU commenter wrote:
These are encroachments into side yard setbacks. The municipal code has restrictions on encroachments. Using the words "pop outs" suggest a legal use which it isn't.  Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer legalized an open season of illegal encroachments for every property owner in Encinitas. The builder wanted to live with his family and attorney wife on this nonconforming lot with illegal encroachments. The builder threatened a lawsuit and had contacted the attorneys that represented the BIA against the city if he didn't get his building permit. The builder also wanted the council to give him special treatment. Read his letter. This isn't a case of decks encroaching into side yard setbacks. The developer pushed out the house sidewalls to put in kitchen cabinets, a wet bar, 12 feet long "window seating" extending out from the house and other encroachments.

And here it is under construction:



The neighbors aren't pleased.








34 comments:

  1. Yep that's to close to have an attorney neighbor.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a bunch of whiny crybabies. I hope they build to 48' and force a lawsuit and Marco kicks the city and neighbors asses...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gee, thanks 5:29pm for your contribution to the discussion of this travesty allowed by the city.

    The door is now open for any lot owner to get around a reasonable set back from their neighbors property lines.

    This couple knew what they were buying and what the codes were. They should have been forced to live with the restrictions in place. This was a complete sham by planners and council to even consider these bump outs. Bump outs indeed.

    A bay window here and there could be appropriate. These bumped out walls are another thing entirely.

    More poor decisions allowed by the planning commission and council will only exacerbate terrible rulings to come. The door is now open even wider for more of this to come.

    The short sightedness of what our city allowed with this single lot, will spell more to come. Unbuildable lots are now open season. We have no standards, no codes, that cannot be worked around. Sad state of affairs that something like this has been approved. Fire them all. Defend our community. What a novel thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julie G not making good points again. Staff answers to city manager, who answers to council. Period.

      Delete
    2. That's where you're wrong, 7:17.

      City council answers to staff while city manager sits silent.

      Delete
  4. That's a one-off custom home on a legal lot. Our Planning Commission approved it and the City Council rightly supported them. Creative unique homes are part of the character of this city.

    If a tract of them were on the plan it would be proper to raise a stink but one house, no problem, just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1.

      The neighbors obviously feel entitled to a buffer they don't own or pay property taxes on.

      Delete
    2. Also, many parts of the city only have five foot buffers between property line and the residence, totaling 10 ft buffers between the primary structures on adjoining residential lots. A pop-out there would be much more concerning, in my opinion.

      Wasn't this a case where the property was zoned for 10 ft. setbacks between the house and the property line?

      Delete
  5. 7:17pm. Wrong, wrong again. I am not Julie G. I am sure she can do a better job than most of us, including you and your misguided leanings.

    May you one day have a project go in next door that compromises your quality of life. See how you feel then. The ramifications of approving these large and long bumped out walls will surface, now that this precedence has been set.

    This young couple knew what they were buying into, and apparently knew they could get away with obliterating standards with such an obliging planning dept, commission and council.

    Lots such as these can be developed responsibly without doing what was allowed there. Small homes for small lots without manipulating standards in place.

    A growing family like theirs will outgrow the confines of this small site in no time and our community is left to deal with the aftermath. Maybe they will move in next to you and have some large bumped out walls 4' from your property line.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wall to wall rat traps - the Gaspar World!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Meanwhile the city of Dallas is staring at bankruptcy due to its underfunded pension funds. Gee anyone on this blog know a city that underfunds its pension??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And there's the root of the city's rush to approve all projects, all day. Lotsa dough for city coffers which are, supposedly, "in fine shape." Go down the line of all 5 council members and they'll spout the same lie.

      Delete
  8. If the neighbors wanted the space between homes, why didn't they buy the lot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should they have to when we have code in place? The problem is staff who bend the code to breaking.

      Delete
    2. End of the day, if it's a legal lot of record, in a single-family zone, they have the right to build a single-family home. The Zoning Code does allow for Variances, etc. when there are special circumstances. Like a substandard, non-conforming lot size. Not saying it's cool, but unfortunately the law and not necessarily Planning Staff's fault. Once again, thank your Planning Commission. Don't know the history, but did the neighbor's appeal this decision to CC?

      Delete
    3. 9:10 Your comment is mind boggling in its depth of stupidity.

      Delete
    4. It was appealed. The Planning Department made it doubly difficult by making an administrative decision, bypassing the Planning Commission. The neighbors appealed and lost. Planning staff recommended rejecting the appeal.

      How often does the council not support staff? In this case it was a gross misinterpretation of the code. It all hinged on the meaning of "livable space." Staff claimed the popouts weren't livable space.

      Delete
  9. 12:23- your comment is mind boggling in its depth of stupidity. 9:10's comment makes so much sense it's beyond your capacity to reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, I'll buy the lots on both sides and the back of mine so nobody encroaches on my property line. If 9:10/3:30 thinks that's reasonable, a brain transplant is called for.

      The muni code specs setbacks for a good reason. They should be minded.

      Delete
    2. 7:27- what greater set back could there be than an empty lot?? Annnnnnnnn, you lose again.

      Delete
    3. 10:35

      Did you offer the Olivenhain neighbors the money to buy the skinny lot between their properties?

      Your suggestion to buy the lot is idiotic unless you give the neighbors the bucks.

      The muni code is supposed to preserve setbacks. Neighbors buying adjacent lots is not a substitute.

      JFC, how dumb are you?

      Delete
    4. If I remember correctly, the neighbor to the north was given the opportunity to purchase the lot, but they could not agree on price.
      It is not uncommon for homeowners to purchase the lot next to them as a barrier to encroachment. I know of several owners who have done it in Cardiff, Leucadia and even Olivenhain. Irrespective of 11:16's opinion, it's really not that idiotic!!
      This really boiled down to respecting setbacks vs. an implied taking of property by rendering the lot unbuildable. Who knows how a court would have decided this.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    5. 12:01 The point is that setbacks are in the code for a good reason. They should be respected. No property owner should effectively be required to buy adjacent lots because the city ignores its own ordinance.

      Delete
  10. Slimy Mikey, crawl back into your subterranean den and stay there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That was Bruce actually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you know Bruce, you know a) he doesn't post here much less look here and b) Mikey has a signature style produced by an altered mind that reads very much like 3:30.

      3:30 could be Mikey, could be Jerome. It's nearly impossible to tell them apart.

      Wonder if Mikey didn't get paid since T failed?

      Delete
  12. I don't believe it is $sss$ Mikey at least knows how to compose a sentence. His lowness does not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. all legal lots in this city will eventually get built.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Remember Tony's "oops" face after he helped push this approval through? He looked like he realized too late what he'd opened the city up to...he's always a day late and dollar short, though.

    Write him and ask him what he's going to do to fix this mess. A vote can be reversed...it just takes admitting the mistake, bringing the item back, and voting again. They can't do anything about this project, but they certainly can about more to come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1:32 PM
      The city plans to make it legal as in tightening it up. It and other changes to the municipal code were approved at the last Council meeting for the planning department to work on amendments to the LCP.

      Delete
    2. Insider taking time out to post. Good to know you good people are going to "tighten up" the mess you made.

      Delete
    3. 12:03 PM
      No, not tighten up as in planning lied, just adjusting the number of ways a popout can be built and calling it legal. The tighten up is for public consumption. Expect the popout house to be declared legal.

      Delete
    4. It's already vested/legal/whatever you good folks call it. Bending the rules is your specialty, no doubt room for "interpretation" will be left in the code.

      Paranoid and negative? Nah, just call me experienced ;)

      Delete
  15. Kusiak approved this idiocy. He should be the next to go. He can ride off on his new mountain bike.

    ReplyDelete