Laserfiche WebLink
� :. <br /> PC Exhibit B <br /> PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM RESPONSES <br /> 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted <br /> by the Zoning Chapter." • <br /> RESPONSE: The property owner intends to maintain the property in question as his homestead <br /> with the intention of being compliant with all applicable ordinances. <br /> 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his properly not created <br /> by the landowner." <br /> RESPONSE: It is the landowner's position that there was no intent, at any time, on his part to <br /> circumvent any of the applicable ordinances. It is the landowner's position that <br /> he retained a licensed contractor to obtain all appropriate permits and to work � <br /> within the requirements of the City. It is the landowner's position that he had no <br /> notice or belief in any manner during the construction phase of his landscaping <br /> project that his property was in any way non-conforming or non-compliant, as he � <br /> :,;;.. relied on the representations made to him by his contractor. It is the landowner's <br /> position that remedial measures are a significant expense and the landowner has <br /> been unable to obtain cooperation from the landscaper, as that entity is no longer <br /> in business. It is the landowner's position that he has attempted to take all <br /> appropriate remedial measures to correct the problem at hand, but has been forced <br /> to retain a new landscaper and incur substantial new costs, as the previous <br /> landscaper has not accepted responsibility to rectify the problems. It is the <br /> landowner's position that, during the construction phase in question, he received <br /> no notice of any kind that he was non-compliant, and that the problems that are <br /> now before the City all arose after the construction, so as to prevent landowner <br /> from taking any steps to alleviate the non-conformities. Upon reviewing the <br /> City file, there is a blank sheet of paper, without any City letterhead, - <br /> stamped "denied" dated 5/25. Thereafter, there is a Permit dated 5/30/2007 <br /> . • (presumably the denial was also 2007) for the stairway. It is the landowner's "� <br /> position that he never received the aforementioned denial, a copy of which is <br /> attached to this Response. It should be noted that various other notices were <br /> sent to the landowner by certified mail concerning notices, and all pertinent <br /> information was sent on City letterhead, with the exception of the attached <br /> denial. All that is certain from the landowner is that he did not receive this <br /> notice, as he most definitely would have acted upon it. Presently, the <br /> landowner has no idea whether any City personnel actually provided that <br /> denial to the contractor, but clearly there is no indication that it was sent in <br /> any formal manner to the landowner. <br /> 3. "The variance, if granted,wxll not alter the essential character of the locality." <br /> RESPONSE: It is the landowner's position that the landscaping at his residence is � <br /> environmentally safe, and not only mainta.ins, but enhances, the essential <br /> character of the locality. <br /> � RE�EI�i�D . <br /> ' JUN 0 6 2012 <br /> CI�aF O�pNQ <br />