Citation in context
December 20, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
12-20-16 BOA Minutes December 20, 2016 Page 2 of 5 to the appellant as to wherein and why the decision is allegedly in error. The appeal was submitted to the City Clerk on November 10, 2016. Section 400.230 also requires the aggrieved party to provide a copy of the appeal and supporting documents to the applicant within three days of filing and that proof of service be provided to the City Clerk within six days of filing; proof of service was received by the City Clerk on November 15, 2016. Staff has reviewed the appeal application and the rationale provided by the appellant as to why they object to the approval of the addition of a window. The appeal states that the window greatly impinges on the appellants’ privacy, however, nowhere does it allege that the decision made to approve the window was in error; pursuant to the requirements of Section No. 400.230 above. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the appellant has not provided sufficient grounds for a request for an appeal and it should be denied. Recommendation is to consider the appellants’ written request for an appeal of the Administrative Architectural Review Board decision along with the staff’s analysis as set forth in this report. The Board may consider the appeal on the record of the City Manager’s decision, or may, at its sole discretion, receive additional evidence in such manner as it deems appropriate in light of the circumstances. The Board shall approve, modify or disapprove the appeal.
12-20-16 BOA Minutes December 20, 2016 Page 1 of 5 THE CITY OF CLAYTON
Board of Aldermen City Hall – 10 N. Bemiston Avenue December 20, 2016 7:00 p.m. Minutes
Mayor Sanger called the meeting to order and requested a roll call. The following individuals were in attendance:
Aldermen: Cynthia Garnholz, Mark Winings, Joanne Boulton, Alex Berger, Rich Lintz, and Ira Berkowitz. Mayor Sanger City Manager Owens City Attorney Heinz
Alderman Boulton moved to approve the December 13, 2016. Alderman Winings seconded. The motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously on a voice vote. PUBLIC REQUESTS AND PETITIONS
None
A MOTION TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DECISION FOR 8121 PERSHING AVENUE
City Manager Owens reported that this is an appeal submitted by Gail Lynn Elble and Janice R. Hoffman, owners of 8117 Pershing Avenue, of the administrative approval of a window located at the northeast corner of the home addressed 8121 Pershing Avenue. On April 4, 2016, the Architectural Review Board approved the construction of a 2-story, 823- square-foot addition to the rear of the home addressed 8117 Pershing Avenue and an 84-square- foot addition to the west side of the existing detached garage at the same address (staff report and meeting minutes attached). The appeal alleges that notification of the 8121 Pershing Avenue project was not received by Ms. Elble and Ms. Hoffman until after the April 4, 2016 meeting. The Planning Department’s records indicate that the notification mailing list was generated on March 28, 2016, which included Ms. Elble and Ms.
The Planning Department’s records indicate that the notification mailing list was generated on March 28, 2016, which included Ms. Elble and Ms. Hoffman at 8117 Pershing Avenue; the meeting agenda would have been mailed no later than March 29th. During the course of construction, it was discovered that the contractor had begun the installation of a window at the northeast corner of the addition that was not part of the approved plans. On November 1, 2016, an application to amend the approved building permit was submitted which depicted the subject window. On November 2, 2016, the City Manager approved the amendment and construction commenced. Pursuant to Section No. 400.230 “Appeals”, an aggrieved party may, within 15 days of the decision for which redress is sought, file with the Board of Aldermen a written request for reconsideration and appeal of any decision of the Architectural Review Board. The written request must set forth in a concise manner the decision being appealed and all grounds known
The Board may consider the appeal on the record of the City Manager’s decision, or may, at its sole discretion, receive additional evidence in such manner as it deems appropriate in light of the circumstances. The Board shall approve, modify or disapprove the appeal. Gail Elble and Janice Hoffman, owners, 8117 Pershing Avenue, addressed the Board with their concerns regarding privacy. Ms. Elble stated that they are asking the Board to appeal the decision of the Architectural Review Board with regard to the second floor window on the new addition at 8121 Pershing Avenue. She stated that the window was not included in the original plans and while they were out of town in Florida the window was installed facing their swimming pool. She stated that the city inspectors did not follow-up during the construction process and therefore a window was installed without the City’s knowledge. She said that after contacting the City they were assured that the window would not be allowed, but then was informed that the window was administratively approved. Mayor Sanger explained that administrative approvals are a normal process which is done hundreds of times in the course of business in the City. This issue was determined to not be a major change as it was facing the Thompson’s rear yard and therefore approved administratively which is the issue that is being appealed. Alderman Berkowitz stated that he is trying to understand the “gravity” of the complaint and what is the issue with regard to this particular window.
This issue was determined to not be a major change as it was facing the Thompson’s rear yard and therefore approved administratively which is the issue that is being appealed. Alderman Berkowitz stated that he is trying to understand the “gravity” of the complaint and what is the issue with regard to this particular window. He commented that he probably does not notice his neighbors’ windows in their back yard and wanted to know of Ms. Elble and Ms. Hoffman’s concerns. Ms. Elble stated that her concern is the behavior of their neighbors. They now have a window and will be able to look into their back yard and swimming pool (i.e. children throwing debris into the pool, climbing on the fence, pointing, etc.)
Mayor Sanger stated that clearly this is not the first issue that has come about between the neighbors. There have been multiple police calls (on both sides) and he feels/hopes that this is an end of a very long string of issues between these neighbors. He expressed that he is sorry that this has happened to both parties involved. Ms. Hoffman stated that their relationship with their neighbors at the 8121 property has not been a stellar relationship for many years. She stated that if the Planning and Development people had done what they needed to do and enforce the ordinances set forth by the City a lot of this angst would not be happening. She noted that both she and Ms.