CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Christine Monette | 8/31/2010 12:43:29 PM |
| The Huffman O’Malley Community Council opposes granting this variance for encroachments into the required yard setbacks for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that it will set a precedent which can not be continued. It is not fair to the existing neighboring properties that rely on the established zoning and setbacks to maintain their separation and privacy. The owners of this property had an obligation to know where the property lines and setback requirements were prior to their recent purchase of this home. If this property did not fit their requirements and needs both now and in the future they should have kept looking for property that would instead of asking to be allowed to ignore the requirements for individual personal gain. The “addition” for housing a hot tub, is not simply a small enclosure, but a large renovation and redesign of the existing home’s living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry room with the addition of a very large “rec room” that would house the hot tub, complete with vaulted ceilings and a very large wrap around deck on the back and a cover deck area on the front. The Huffman O’Malley Community Council is of the opinion that this “enclosed hot tub addition” variance request is excessive in it’s scope and is not necessary to accomplish the owners stated objective of having their hot tub indoors for medical reasons. We feel their goal can be met with a more modest addition that’s footprint would not encroach into the established property setbacks and would be more appropriate to the surrounding properties. Thank you | |