Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADM22-0021 Additional Information1 DATE 04/28/2022 UNIT/LOT 320 & 321 (Merged) Fence Height Application NAME Steven and Virginia Watts PHONE (805) 720-0114 (805) 717-7027 ADDRESS 6226 Woodbury Dr., Magalia, CA 95954 APN Previously 066-240-008 & 066-240-009, merged via Butte County into 066-240-054 We are including this edited document because we wrote it for the Paradise Pines POA when submitting our fence variance request and they didn’t pay any attention to it, basically telling us to apply for a permit to the County. Hopefully it pretty well documents our situation for you, as it includes maps and pictures. We can’t tell you how frustrating it is to have a POA that makes you apply for a variance permit ($75) through them and then refers us to the County to apply for an additional fence height permit ($203) for the same fence project. Then they claim even if the County approves it, they can still deny it because they can impose stricter rules than the County does! Our original proposal to the POA was for 6’ wood fence because that is what their rules stated were allowed with a variance request, but now we are requesting 5.5’ in the setback areas due to the maximum height info provided to the POA and us by Tristan Weems. We are leaving some of the POA info in here for background info, probably more than you need or want! The area of specific interest is the South West corner of the property because of the 25’ setback. (Fences will run just inside the property lines). On the rear property line West end, the last 25‘ West to the SW property corner at David Ct. (the 25’ setback area) will be 5.5’ Cedar fence and then along the David Ct. property line, from the SW property marker 72’ North will be 5.5’ Cedar fence and then the remaining 68’ North toward Woodbury will be 42” welded-wire decorative see-through fence. We requested a variance from the Paradise Pines POA to build a 6’ Cedar (now 5.5’) fence on the rear and side property lines of the South West corner of our .49 acre merged lot. That portion of our merged lot was previously a single lot facing David Court, but it is now our backyard. Ours is an unusually-shaped corner lot with a brand new 2600 Sq. Ft. main house and detached garage facing Woodbury Dr. and the former David Ct. parcel is now our back yard. Prior to the fire, the front portion of our merged lot was lot 321, which was a home facing Woodbury Dr. (6226 Woodbury Dr.) The rear portion of our merged lot was lot 320, which was a small mobile home facing David Ct (13580 David Ct.) Points of discussion:  We have followed all the rules and invested over a half million dollars so far to improve our property. We spent several thousand dollars to officially merge lots 320 & 321 into one .49 acre lot with the County so we could build our retirement home. Our new 2600 sq. ft. home 2 and 440 sq. ft. garage face Woodbury Dr. and officially use the 6226 Woodbury Dr. address. What was lot 320 on David Ct. is now simply our backyard, but continues to be treated as a single lot facing David Ct. by the POA.  We are spending over $35,000 to build top quality fencing on our property.  We are asking that you treat our combined lot as one single lot and not apply any rules to the back half that should no longer apply.  We have been told that prior to the post-Camp Fire rebuild effort, there were few (if any) combined lots in the POA. We understand that the existing rules never took into account situations like this, but we are not being unreasonable in asking to fence in our backyard for our privacy, safety and security, as well as that of our grandchildren and our pets.  We want to be able to build a rear deck off of our house and be able to enjoy a hot tub or Birthday Party or BBQ or whatever without people being able to gaze over a 42” fence into our private backyard. This is a huge privacy and safety issue, especially considering some of the riff-raff living up here since the fire. In fact, not allowing homeowners to build a reasonable fence for privacy and security is actually endangering us all.  Prior to the POA contacting Tristan, we were told that without a variance, the fence height could be no more than 36” along the entire David Ct. property line all the way back to our SW property corner marker (which is 140’) and also on the Southern property line within 25’ of the SW property marker. That contradicted their own written rules and would be treating our side street property line (David Ct. side) like a front street property line and our rear property line like a side property line.  PPPOA written rules: Since we merged the 2 lots into 1, the rear portion of our lot should no longer be considered the same as it was when it was a stand-alone lot. It is no longer a single lot facing David Ct. That went away when we merged the 2 lots. It is now just the back half of a merged .49 acre corner lot that faces Woodbury Dr. 3  We are planning to build a 42”, virtually see-through welded-wire decorative fence across the front yard property line and on the David Ct. side property line from the North West property corner nearest Woodbury, extending approximately 68’ South to the property marker that originally divided the 2 lots. Our proposed design is similar to the following pictures and will give plenty of visibility for vehicles approaching the intersection of Woodbury Dr. and David Ct. 4 From the point where we end the decorative fence on the David Ct. side of the property going South to our SW property corner marker and then East in the 25’ setback area is where we were requesting to build a 6’ (now 5.5’) Cedar fence to match the rest of the rear fence we have already built on the property. Due to the maximum allowable fence height information received from Tristan, we are now requesting this to be 5.5’ (66”). This will give us a 6” drop from the existing fence at the setback line out to the corner marker and then North along David Ct. to the point where the 42” decorative fence starts. There is also a vehicle gate planned along David Ct. where the old David Ct. lot asphalt driveway apron is still in place (this can be seen in the 2nd picture below). That gate would be about 12’ wide by 5.5’ high to match the rest of the fence with Cedar facing out and steel frames inside to support the gate halves. We feel that this is imperative for our privacy, security and safety, as well as that of our grandchildren and pets. We almost lost our $6,000 purebred dog the other day due to not 5 having a fully fenced yard and our grandson also snuck out around the end of the unfinished fence onto the adjacent property. Our backyard, which was once Lot 320, with the newly constructed 6’ Cedar Fence. It currently stops approximately 28’ from the SW corner marker nearest David Ct. 6 View looking South, David Ct. on the right. 2 string lines are barely visible. The left one is the 25’ setback line, which runs within 1’ of the house. On the right is the proposed fence along the property line. Note that in this area our property line is 15’ in from the edge of the pavement along David Ct. Because we laid our house and garage out so they would be parallel to Woodbury, our house sits at an angle to David Ct., with one corner coming within 1’ of the 25’ setback line. If we were to build a fence on the David Ct. 25’ setback line, it would come within 1’ of our home, as well as having to jump up a 2’ retaining wall.  There is a lot of confusion about who has the governing rights in the PPPOA. Does the PPPOA have the right to make their own rules, or is the County actually driving all of these rules? If the County has the final say, why are we forced to pay the PPPOA $75 for a variance process that the County has the ultimate say in? Do we now have to apply to the County for variances after applying to the PPPOA? Will the County let you approve our variance request if it meets their requirements? Are you prepared to grant or recommend our variance for approval as long as it meets the County requirement? 7 Are the PPPOA CC&R Fence Rules in contradiction to the actual County Rules?  We find it ironic that the POA and County prefer your fence to be 20 – 25 feet inside your property line, yet on a property ½ acre or less the County allows Marijuana cultivation within 15’ of the property’s boundary. Now that makes no sense at all.  Our opinion is that the more area of any property that is inside a fence line, the more likely it is to be well maintained as opposed to what is outside the fence line and out of sight of the property owner. View looking West toward David Ct. Our newly constructed 1” x 8” plank 72” tall Cedar fencing, built as far as we are currently allowed. 8 A view showing how far over David Ct. swings toward our next-door neighbor’s property. As can be seen, their driveway is on the opposite side of their lot from the proposed fence. 9 Overhead view. Lowest post hole is at the SW Property Corner Marker. The Paradise Pines POA’s poorly drawn and inaccurate fence example drawing: 11 View facing Woodbury. String line on the left is the proposed fence line along the West property line. Orange X next to the green water meter box is the property marker that used to divide lots 320 & 321 and marks the approximate point where the 42” decorative fence begins, extending 68’ toward Woodbury. A 25’ setback fence would have to go up a 2’ retaining wall and pass within 1’ of house. 12 Proposed 6’ (now 5.5’) fence line along West property line looking toward rear of lot. Green water meter box at bottom is about where the fence would go from full height wood to 42” decorative going toward Woodbury. The driveway apron where the gate will go is shown here. Next-door neighbor street view. Huge 100’ circle at end of David Ct., biased to their side by 25’, allows enough room to back out of their driveway with a clear street view toward Woodbury. 13 This string line is the 25’ setback line, runs right up the retaining wall within 1’ of the house. The 25’ setback line changes direction slightly along the front lot, passes within 1’ of house. Our proposed fence line string is just visible on the right side of the picture below. The green water meter box in the right middle of the picture is about as far North as the proposed 5.5’ fence goes, then it drops to 42” decorative see-through fence. Note: The West property line is 15’ in from the edge of the David Ct. roadway. 14 Plot map of our combined lots compared to neighbors. As shown on the following map, the next-door neighbor that shares our Southern fence line (Lot 319) has a huge 100’ circle at the end of David Ct., biased 25’ to their side, giving them plenty of room to safely back out of their driveway with a clear view of any traffic. We are bearing the cost of all fencing; therefore all fences are on our side of the property line by a few inches. We also own Lot 323. 15 Our lots number 320 and 321 were officially merged by the County. Again, next-door neighbor (lot 319) has a huge 100’ circle at the end of David Ct., biased 25’ to their side, for plenty of room to safely back out of their driveway with a clear view of any traffic.