02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment F December.2, 2009 City of Ram~ey-Boar~. of Adjustm,ent RE:.Request to support Mr. Mark Hilliard'S shed.v ariance Requ~st at 5161.. 1 56th Lane . To City Staff: My name is JeffDurant~d I am.the oWner ofth~ residence at 51 SO- .jS.6\hLane due West of the HiIiiard.resic;lence.... . I suppo.rt grantfug the variance applied for by my neighbor Mark Hilliard for each .ofthe following. . reasofis:. . .. . . . 1.: The alternate shed location proposed by city staffwill result in large scale earth fill and will direct more unwanted water-drainage onto niy property.. The existing current drainage is acceptable to all pmties and ~he iD.sp~ct6r's alternate location proposal.will direct unwanted watei' onto my property U1~ecessatily. This can be completely avoi~ed if the variance is granted. 2. . Th~ ~ity staff~temate locationproposaI. is also. unacceptable to me because it will place the shed structure in a location that diminishes:thc;) value of my property, !is shed location pl~oposed by c~.. staff, will be directly visib.le from all my d~ck; pool and garden areas. The location proposed by Mr. Hilliard will be mostly. hidden ITom all adjoitrlng lots and Will be screened by trees/foliage. It will ma,intain the.essential natural wooded charactel~ of our lots. Having a lai:g~ storage shed $nost in my backyard.wlll not improve my lots value. . "3. The inspector's altemate location will also severely restrict effective maintenance vehicles access beCause placing the shed in alternate location will block.any future mamtel1ance equipment access that might be needed by,both our properties as might be needed for repair of ston'n damages 01' for . water ~ui?ply-well maintemmce equipment. This wouJ.d be a situation where the city's refusal to . . grant a variance would impose unreasonable. future restrictions necessary to .properly maintain our homes, lots and water utilities in case of damages. Mr. Hilliard's proposed shed location is the bestfer all the lots bordering his property becaust'} it minimizes:the visibility ofth~ sl.1ed for all neighbors,maintains property values, protects existing mature trees and eXisting natural drainage, an~ aliows for future "access to essential utilities . such as . water~ electric RTI:d cable .sho1ild maintenance e~ipinent need.to be brC?ught-in for. essential repairs. . r wouldurge.you to. not accept the city staff's alternate.site locatio~.foi'1:he buildi~lg.as its only iinpact; would be to lower property values and unnecessarily restrict future access for essential repairs. The city st8ft' proposal provides no advantage to ac~ property owners. . .., 45