Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArea Variance 525 - William M. Shannon - 8231 Atlanta AveI 25, 1963 s Oits Oo'unail ,. p. , G. Box 100 -"—CE 1' ED Huntington Beach CITY, of HUNTINGTON REACH w; oali.fornia FEB 2 51953 ; PAL �3s lrea Variance 525 Aertr airs: I wish'to appeal the deciolon given by the Planning aomniamion, February 191, un ' ;pie aboro" referred Area Variance. ". ix foot ienoa betxesn our ro e Thin variance o��noa,. ne a r p p � at 8231 ltlantn. and thu. Arandeve' a property at 8221 1,tlanta. Tie Taxlauae allove ram to build this Pena• out ,to - within fLftaen feet ;-of the front property 11a+t. we fe'ol this Mould be ' detri- nemtal to, the.. appearnos of our 'acme. Itwod14 hide our house, cu:tall our -view and out oft our_,iSght and air. We; are not alone in`this opinion. All of our friends,and the few neighbors ve know` ha ve_' been in complete accord that the oertalmly wouldn't want, -it. A fence man called on us one W. Sjit and -told tea that ho had �bsea Called to givd,: an estivate on this -fence. He wanted to ]Gnaw if we,: knew 'about it b4cauae he. didn't think i.t tag. fain to its, He �. even went so far an to'say be wouldn't put it up if it didn't waiA, into We already have our :rear fence. up to -this wcs nt jas t a olevar salesman hoping to make money an us. 1-thInk ho could be considered an unbiased obderver. i Ifa dev Y � d t feel xe have been traa:ted , fairy in tL1a latter iia . di told` ue about it xe would ' Ave ee Bit a naeighb��i hadu t n t en,reeeive a"nation 4f the hearing, IS wouldn't h been a %o ha ring: na' th= fence would have gone all the way to, the property, line as orlglially requested and' we would- have been stuck with it, . The". Planning ' Qeamideion records show, that this notice wee- mai fled , to us; but," we did -not.. rscelXe it. And I. did not - throw, it away because ' it was third''lass mail as suggested bythePlanning Gomaission 9oorotarT. I throw third class ,nail away n, iter I' sae whe it is from. Although .the va.rllance stated block wall, tLe Srandaaels are ,getting estimates on grapestake fenoing. Grapestake :lei very attractive In the back' yard, .but I oGrthinlr don't want to ..look out my front,.xindow at a nix foot; grapgetake ,fonce. It would make our front yard look like a corral. The oed;' .regarding ienaind lay lade' to. proteat people. It'd' seem _ right : is - change i.t;. at our expense. ,;10 arm . verf proud nl�' our h6mIa and' xe bought„It, becanes it -raced- the ®oeane flow, solAsous :, waitsr td -cut. sst;:'part of thsf:, Tiow wa,, eve., oe .aueh. love,.,i`t hire 1 ' ids in I3itnti�gt�n paaah. By husband dri.Res all' � the war is Vexioe`, Where + . r , SS. J Ir a' r rr •�?1 .3,. he is a Los Angeles City fireman, so we oan li've in this area. We plan to retire here. It would be a bitter disappointment t6 find that en.established rule could be changed to spoil what,meass sa'much to us. the The. Brandoweis want. this fence to, create a patio ia/front of their « ertr. Thoy�claim the waytheir house Is eltuated on the 1dt makes this more to their liking.They knaw ho , thoir house was situated on the lot when they bought it. we did not have a a foot fence In our front yard when -.►re bought ours. I certainly don't think they should be given special prlvllages, at our expense# I hope this letter does not soumd' like suaother spiteful housewife or. a neighborhood 1tAA We do not even 3csow these People. Our owner, oontact' has been when I invited their` small son to; a party+. Mr.,Brardeweis andhisolder eon oane too And -it was verjr'friendlT. Z h&4e spoken to ' Mrs. 8randeweis exactly three times. And only about weather$ children, pate, eta. Neither family is vafriondly, we ate both,just very busy and haven't had time get better acquainted. I inf 4med the . Bravdowaf s laat Satuz,Ja; that 11ZtenAod . to' Appeal the dealesicn tad they said that they already had �tbeir permit. - In this possible? Don t, they have to wait ten days in case 'there .is an appeal? Sincerely, 'Mrs. williaz K. Shannon 8231 Atlanta Ave... Huntington Boolph, Calif. r .h city Oounoil city Ball Huntington Beach Qalifornia 17e, March 1963 � RECEIVED CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH VAR? 519533 • A.M. lioliili%t i i 2 P.M. RR: Area Varia�rce 525 My husband and I find it difficult tt.� get up in a public meeting and express ourselves coherently regarding this fence, So I rm taking this paeans of pleading our scare. I feel I can do it mare clearly and I hope, logically. I, told you in mar previous letter all the reasons why we do not want a six foot fence alongside our front ;ard. If there In to be a fence ( and we don't - care if there ion t aw�n�_____) we want it to be only the regulktion forty two inch height nor twenty feet and than six feet in height as stated it the building code. Rvidently, this is not an unusual request since it is,in the building code. We can only assume that the building code reflects the wishes of the majority ox citizens. This same restriction.regurding fence height is in effect in many cities that seek to. keep building standards high and equitable to all. We have invested $20'000. plus improvements in Huntington Beach because there are good schools, � library facilities, adequate fire and police protection and building standards. its could have bought for lose money., iu, axeses where these facilitie© do not exist, but we bought here because they do exist here. As investors and future tax -payers tte.expacat to have our children edueatod, to read library crooks, to have our hones and lives protected AND be able to depend an tke rules regarding building. We are not asking for someth ng different"or s,gecial privileges. We are asking that the already established rule're§arding fences be complied with. I hope I don't antagovitze you by sounding like a tar --payer". I grew,up in and married into a civil service f9mily and held a civil service position myeelfe I know how irksome it can be to be reminded of a tax-peyers`rigrhts. I don't mean to do it arbitrarily. The Brandeweis maintain that they need a six foot.,fenoe fifteen feet from the property line for privacy, Kith ,the regula►tion'six foot fence at twenty feet from the front property line, they would. still hale, privacy. The masonry inspector stood on our. front,.porch this morning and looked over at the fence and the Brundexeia.pro' arty, and made the statement that we oertainly could not see Into their patio. 111 the exira rive feet they care askiha' tour wil'. do is ourtail our view and cloac us in. it --the last aouaoil meeting, Mr. Brandeweis used ate preoadent to granting. him .& variance, the fact,, that a six foot fezzes , etas - built along' the property line at 0atamarran and. Szawblyd. This 'fenoe is alongside , the garage of the ad joinling property, no",- `sloagside the, house and a 7arianoe ryas, not needed. r r • .. .. .. ... ,. .. ..-, ,�.., �r. .. .. .,. .. .. &. :, .err k.��,....e. ..,tfa•,.�5•t;;�f,'� � � 1 M�h 23, 1963 Oity oounCil RE: Area variance 525 Page 2 The Brandeweis state they want this variance from the regulation fence because of the gray their house is situated on the lot. They bought their house after completion, so they knew how it was situated one the let. W— dick not have or expect to have a six foot fence in Vront of our acme when we bought it and we do swot want one. The laud on the other side of our home is unimproved and.it le Zoned for manufacturing. There is no reason why a tall building could not be Oreoted there. We would then be closed in and,hidden by a six foot faros and a tall building. We couldn't do A'thing about a tall bu�.ldin$ because: that zoning was in effec when we bought our hona, BUa same token, the rule regwrding height of fence was in e±'feet *lien we bought our home and we are asking that that: rule not be eha ged. One day when I was verking in the yard, Mrs. Brandewels told as that she didn't want a six root fence along the baok';Df their, lat on Schooner where it could Y,: built without a variance because it roulZ,interfers with her view of the Cabana Club. She also,stated that li som,ething nice Has built across Atlanta she was going to have another sliding door installed on that side of bar house so she could Look out at it. I can't help but think that the old saw about wanting your cake and eating it too applies here. It in unfortunate that a rr�}tlatlon .fence along Schooner would interfere with one of Mrs, bran'tisweis' views. However, a non regulation fence as proposed by the Hrandeweia between our properties would interfere with our view. So, again I repeat, we are not asking for a departure .from the existing 'rules and regulations. We are simply asking that said rules be followed. I want to emphasize also that we do not mean to interfere with the all foot 1enoe tbey want on the front of their property and around the curve Au long as the six toot height does -not start closer than fifteen feet from our property line. Ve are .only interested in the fence as it effoets our -side of the property. No matter what .your deolsion may be, we still love Huntington Beach and think it is a wunder.ful pl,L,oe to ral.se our children and enjoy our old afe (fay husband ban .a spot plchtd out on the pier to retire to with his £ishinv poia`1• fe also want to than:;, you for your time and oonsidi,ration. Particularly, Kr•. U'r33c. i t sure he has performed, well bend the call of , duty. lie apologize for taking up time th.t you liesd for, iteportant ai7io issues. However, this swatter which,.1 iteraally should ;have been didau' used "ovt4r the back.. fens N'l use takauto e 4ad _the Planning Commi.saic►n vithout -any prellalwLry, ixqulry..10 so could only be settl.ad though 'Channels.