HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Correspondence 1995-8-23
'..'
.
.
August 23, 1995
Note to File:
On August 4. 1995, a footing inspection was requested for a carport at 443
Riverview Blvd. Upon reviewing the plot plan, I found that there was a minimum
five (5) foot sideyard setback. The property line location was not marked and
no corner pins could be located. I left a correction notice to provide property
line location.
On August 8, 1995, another inspection was requested for the approval of the
footing. Upon arriving at the job site I was greeted by the contractor,
(Raymond Roth), the owner, and several neighbors. After voicing my concerns
with the contractor on the east property line setback, and location of a road
easement on the east side of the property, he was also uncertain about the
location of the structure. Mr. Tinsley then proceeded to invite me into his
home where he informed me of his former political status as a Planning
Commissioner. After discussing the available information I still was not
convinced of the location Of the structure. I told Mr. Tinsley I would talk
with our survey crew at the city to see if they had any information.
On August 9, 1995 I spoke with Mike from survey in regards to this matter. he
had one some survey work in that area, but felt he could be of no help in trying
to establish. the property and road easement locations. I should mention that
when I met with Mr. Tinsley prior to talking to Mike, I did have a conversation
with a neighbor in regards to the situation. He only confirmed my original
thoughts in regards to the setback issue and I spoke with him after I had talked
to Mr. Tinsley, not before as stated in his letter. When I found that our
survey crew could not help, I left a phone message from Mr. Tinsley that a
survey would be required.
On August 18, 1995 another footing inspection was requested, with Mr. Tinsley
present. He had Bill Guiles, a local surveyor, try to establish the 'property
line and road easement. Mr. Tinsley tried to convince me of the property line
location with information Mr. Guiles had supplied him. Still not convinced, I
informed Mr. Tinsley that I would have to talk to the surveyor in regards to the
matter. I have spoke with Mr. Guiles twice and he is not willing to supply a
letter stating the structure is not in the easement and that the five (5) foot
minimum setback has been provided. .
My conclusion as this point is that the surveyor is not even sure where the
building is located. As per Department policy, I am requiring a survey due to
minimum setbacks, a confusing legal description of the property, and no marked
property corners.
~~
Tom Marx
Building Inspector