7/10/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planner Challacombe commented that while the matter appears to be resolved by the above letter, Mr. Lloyd did call and say the survey sketch, which was erroneous, and the letter did not include the footings underneath the retaining wall surface; so, there still may be some dispute on the footers. He felt the DER and the County should not issue a permit until this is entirely resolved. Commissioner Bird referred to comment #2 and the fact that the Reeds will apply for an after -the -fact building permit, but first must get DER approval. He felt we are not saying the DER should not give them a permit; we just want the DER to be aware of all the facts. He then asked if the 4" in question has to do with some encroachment on the easement. In the following discussion, it was emphasized that question actually is more of a neighborhood dispute and a civil matter rather than something for the county to be involved with. Mrs. Reed wished to know what the county rule is on the footer of a house encroaching on the adjoining property as she and Mr. Reed have proof that the Kelsos are encroaching on them, and yet the County gave the Kelsos an after -the -fact permit for their wall. She wished the Commission to understand that she and her husband were accused of an encroachment by the County. She and Mr. Reed did not agree and begged'County staff - Planner Challacombe, Betty Davis of Code Enforcement, and Building Director Rymer - to come out and inspect this situation, but they did not want to get involved and did not come out. Mrs. Reed continued that she also has a copy of a letter from Commissioner Bowman to the DER stating that they had encroached; she, therefore, believed the DER is well aware of the 4" situation. Mrs. Reed noted that she had always believed the County Commission represents everybody, and wished to know why they were not informed they had been accused of encroachment before this information was sent to the DER. 45 JUL 10 1985 BOOK ��i An