1050 Acacia, Montara |
Project was not built in compliance with
approved plans
|
| Exhibits: Correspondence, Photos and Documents: [webpage] |
| Summary & Violation Details: [HTML] or [pdf download] |
| Brief Narrative Summary: [webpage] or [pdf download] |
| County Contact Info: [webpage] . . . . . . . . Planning Dept Org Chart: [pdf download] |
revised 9/28/07 INTRODUCTION ****************** Documents referenced below are in the format: (DOC-yymmdd) where yymmdd is the date of the document (yy=year, mm=month and dd=day). ****************** This document is a summary of issues regarding the construction of a single family home at 1050 Acacia in Montara, CA (APN# 036-121-410; PLN2005-00418), constructed by Nelson Builders of Burlingame. These issues include zoning regulation and grading ordinance violations, failure to construct in conformance with approved design documents, failure to perform work in accordance with submitted application documents, and submittal of inaccurate information to the County. These issues have been documented thoroughly in correspondence to the County Planning Department and to Supervisor Richard Gordon, beginning in September 2006 (DOC-060908c). Additional significant early correspondence includes: DOC-061009h , DOC-061106a and DOC-061127c (partial list). Key issues include: The building is about three feet higher than was approved by the County and about two feet higher than zoning regulations allow (based on Contractor's survey); the first floor at the rear of the building is about three feet higher above the natural grade than is shown on the approved design drawings; deep fill dirt (over three feet at the Southwest corner) has been added around the structure - not shown on the approved design drawings and in violation of County Zoning Regulations and the Grading ordinance; a fence was constructed at the South boundary reaching a maximum height of 9'-6" whereas a 6' fence was approved and the maximum height allowed by code is six feet; and the site drainage has been severely modified to re-direct flow to a different adjacent property without a required drainage plan. The County has failed to enforce the County Zoning Regulations and the Grading Ordinance at the 1050 Acacia project and allowed the project to be built in non-compliance with the approved plans. The County has engaged in a cover-up of blatent zoning violations and non-compliance issues. The structure is complete and was approved by the Planning Department in approximately late July 2007. As of the date of this document the County Planning Department has only provided a single significant response: a letter dated 12/15/06, signed by Lisa Grote (DOC-061215). This 12/15/06 letter from the County is entirely without merit on all issues addressed; it is factually inaccurate, uses improper methodology, and incorrectly interprets the County regulations. A detailed response to the County's 12/15/06 letter can be found in a letter to the County dated 2/2/07(DOC-070202e). The Deputy Director of Public Works, Douglas Koenig conducted an investigation of two of the issues at 1050 Acacia and issued a report on 6/12/07 (DOC-070612D). This investigation was made at the request of the County Manager. The author of this summary document, a licensed civil engineer, reviewed Mr. Koenig’s report and issued a detailed analysis in a letter to the County dated 6/28/07 (DOC-070628D). This analysis showed that Mr. Koenig did not conduct a proper investigation and Mr. Koenig’s report was error-filled: the report selectively used data that appeared to support the Planning Department’s position, while ignoring data that would have shown the Planning Department’s errors. Most of the evidence and analysis presented by the 6/12/07 Koenig report was false or incorrectly interpreted. Mr. Koening was sent a request for retraction of his report via email on 6/28/07 (DOC-070628H) The Contractor/Owner of 1050 Acacia is in violation of Zoning Regulation 6300.2.6 (chapter 20 pg 20.5) regarding building height and finished grade, Section 6412 regarding fence height, and Grading Ordinance Section 8600 regarding grading without a permit. The Contractor/Owner is in violation of the Planning Department's approval Decision Letter Conditions #1, #5c & 14d . Details are provided in sections following the index below. The County Planning Director is in violation of County Code Section 6591 (chapter 31 pg 31.1) which states: "It shall be the duty of the Planning Director of the County of San Mateo to enforce the provisions of this part...". In addition the Planning Director is in violation of Section 8607.1, which requires the Planning Director enforce the provisions of the Grading Ordinance and issue a stop work order under the conditions of this project (i.e. over 2’ of fill without a permit). On 2/26/07 the office of Supervisor Richard Gordon issued a letter (DOC-070226) stating that they had reviewed the development with the Planning and Building Department and now consider the matter closed. The County Planning Commission was notified of this issue via an email dated 3/13/07 (DOC-070313). On 3/14/07 DOC-070314 was submitted at the Planning Commission meeting. The 3/23/07 version of this summary document was emailed to the Planning Commission with a letter dated 3/23/07 (DOC-070323). On 3/28/07 DOC-070328a and DOC-070328b were submitted at the Planning Commission meeting. On 4/11/07 DOC-070411a was submitted at the Planning Commission meeting. The County Board of Supervisors were notified of this issue via email dated 4/12/07, with an attachment of this summary document (version: update 4/12/07): Church DOC-070412b , Tissier DOC-070412c , Hill DOC-070412d , Jacobs-Gibson DOC-070412e , Gordon DOC-070412f. Meetings were held with all Supervisors between 4/10/07 and 4/17/07; each Supervisor was given a printed version of this summary document (Supervisor Gordon received version DOC-070410, all others received DOC-070416a). The Deputy County Manager for Community Services, Peggy Jensen, was notified of the 1050 Acacia issue via email dated 4/13/07, with an attachment of this summary document (version: update 4/12/07) DOC-070413a. At a 4/19/07 meeting, Peggy Jensen was handed a detailed engineering calculation (DOC-070418) showing that the topmost point of the 1050 Acacia structure is approximately 30' high above natural grade, a violation of zoning regulation 6300.2.6. The calculations handed to Jensen were stamped and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer (the author of this document) and are based on data from the Contractor's survey. At the 4/19/07 meeting Peggy Jensen was also handed a copy of this summary document (version: update 4/16/07) DOC-070416b. In a 4/25/07 phone conversation, Peggy Jensen stated that she had reviewed the 1050 Acacia issue with Planning Staff and had determined that the issue was handled properly and she would not be taking any action. A letter summarizing the 1050 Acacia issues, along with a detailed calculation of building height and links to significant correspondence, was mailed to the Planning Director - Lisa Grote on 4/25/07, with email copies to the Board of Supervisors, County Manager and Planning Department Staff (DOC-070425b). The height calculation document attached to the 4/25/07 letter is DOC-070418 . A copy of the summary document you are reading was also attached to the 4/25/07 letter (update version 4/24/07). The 4/25/07 letter noted that there is no reasonable excuse for the Planning Director to not comprehend that the 1050 Acacia project is in violation of the zoning regulations, and thus the County Planning Department position of maintaining the validity of the County 12/15/06 letter is an act of intentional deception. This deception has defrauded the community, resulting in a material loss of property value. On 5/1/07 a letter was sent to all Supervisors (DOC-070501f) with a proposal for a dispute resolution procedure. In a 5/10/07 meeting with a neighboring property owner the County Manager agreed to have the County evaluate the height of the structure. In a 5/25/07 phone call, the Planning Director (Lisa Grote) indicated that an Engineer from the Public Works Department would begin an investigation the week of 5/28, and that a hold had been placed on any final inspection for occupancy until the County determines if any violation exists. On 5/18/07 an email was sent to the County Manager and copied to the Supervisors and Planning Department summarizing the fill dirt/grading issue: DOC-070518 On 5/23/07 an email was sent to the County Manager and copied to the Supervisors and Planning Department regarding the drainage issue: DOC-070523 On 6/6/07 an email was sent to the County Manager and the Public Works Dept. with a proposed scope of the investigation for the Public Works Engineer: (DOC-070606). (The County failed to address the majority of issues raised in this proposed scope). On 6/12/07 the Deputy County Manager, Peggy Jensen, issued a letter addressing some of the 1050 Acacia issues; attached to the letter was a memo from Douglas Koenig, a Deputy Director of Public Works, addressing two of the 1050 Acacia issues (DOC-070612D). A preliminary response to this 6/12/07 letter was sent via email on 6/19/07 (DOC-070619). A detailed response to the County's 6/12/07 letter and DPW memo was sent to the County in a letter dated 6/28/07 - this response showed that the County letter and DPW memo were both error ridden and included much false information (DOC-070628D). On 6/28/07 an email was sent to Douglas Koenig of DPW requesting that he retract his 6/12/07 memo (DOC-070628H). On 7/3/07 the Deputy County Manager, Peggy Jensen, issued a letter stating that the County stood by the conclusions of their 6/12/07 letter and considered the case closed (DOC-070703A) Links to key documents including correspondence, plans and photos is available HERE. A link to a set of pre-construction photos: photo-gallery-051107. Photos after foundation piers were poured: photo-gallery-060618. Photos showing the project near completion including grading and the structure: photo-gallery-070314 & photo-gallery-070506. The author of this document owns property adjacent to the 1050 Acacia site and is a California licensed Civil Engineer with experience in management of public works construction in the Bay Area. The Board of Supervisors should initiate a complete, competent investigation of all issues listed and referenced in this document. The investigation should be independent of any influence by County agencies. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * INDEX to this SUMMARY DOCUMENT (these are links to sections in the document): 1) ZONING REGULATION
VIOLATION (6300.2.6) - Maximum building height 5) FAILURE to MEET PLANNING DECISION LETTER CONDITION #1 - Construction not in conformance with approved plans - First floor height above natural grade6) FAILURE to MEET PLANNING DECISION LETTER CONDITION #1 - Construction not in conformance with approved plans - Deep fill around structure7) CHANGE TO DRAINAGE PATTERN and FAILURE to SUBMIT DRAINAGE PLAN 9) WORK NOT PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION - Grading 10) FALSE INFORMATION ON APPLICATION - Tree removal 11) PROJECT DOES NOT MEET MIDCOAST DESIGN STANDARDS 12) TREE REMOVAL WITHOUT PERMIT and MISREPRESENTATION TO COUNTY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1)
ZONING REGULATION VIOLATION (6300.2.6) - Maximum building height The Contractor has presented at least two additional surveys showing revised grades; these surveys are labeled Oct 2006 and Nov 2006 and can be found in the 2/2/07 letter to the County (DOC-070202e attachments 6 and 7). Referring to the Nov 2006 survey you will find two grades on the north side of the structure, 189.8 and 190.5; these grades are on top of the fill imported by the Contractor, and thus these two grades are higher than natural grade. The average of these grades is 190.1, thus even using grades that are on the high side of the building, on top of imported fill, the building height is 218.7-190.1= 28.6 feet. If the natural grade is determined at the location required by the zoning regulation (i.e. under the peak of the building), and the correct sites grades are used to determine the actual natural grade (i.e. Nov 2006 survey), a reasonable estimate of the minimum height of the building is 30 feet. These calculations are detailed in the 2/2/07 letter to the County (pages 4 and 5). The 2/2/07 letter used a conservative analysis which resulted in a height of 29.5 feet. The building height issue was also submitted to the County on a Violation Complaint Form on 2/7/07 (DOC-070207a). The County response to this complaint is on the County website (linked here). (A copy of this County webpage as of 3/5/07 is included here: CSM-DOC-E however this version may not be current) The County response is that the case is closed based on the County 12/15/06 letter. 2) ZONING REGULATION VIOLATION (6300.2.6) - Finish grade at perimeter County Zoning Regulation 6300.2.6 (page 20.5) states: "Finished grade, measured at the outside face of exterior perimeter walls, shall not significantly deviate from the natural grade, to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee." In fact, the finished grade around most of the structure is significantly higher than natural grade. Finished grade, as-built by the Contractor, is over two feet higher than natural grade at the rear of the structure, as measured by Planning Department staff on 12/1/06. Based on measurements taken 6/15/07, finish grade is over three foot higher than natural grade at the South fence at the back of the building, therefore finish grade is over 2.5 feet above natural grade at the Southwest corner of the perimeter wall. A reasonable estimate is that finish grade is between 1 foot to 2 foot higher than natural grade on most of the north side. Several of the photo sets on this site illustrate the fill around the house. e.g.: photo-gallery-070309. There was no pre-existing retaining wall along the South side, thus the fill depth at the South fence, adjacent to the back of the house, can be easily and accurately measured to be over three feet deep by measuring the height of the fence on the South side (9'6") and subtracting the height on the North side (6'-3") to arrive at a fill depth of 3'-3". Photographic evidence shows that the natural grade is relatively flat between the fence and the perimeter of the house. The documents submitted by the Contractor, and approved in the design review process, clearly show and state that there would be no significant fill around the structure. The submitted drawings A5.1, A6.1 and A6.3 all show the existing grade cut on the north side. On the west and south sides of the structure the existing grade is shown either cut or filled a few inches (reference submitted and approved design drawings and/or a marked up version of A6.2 here: DOC-070202e attachment 4). A note on the Site Plan, drawing No. A2.1 states: "Grading Note: NO SITE GRADING REQUIRED EXCEPT FOR MINOR ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED FOR DRAINAGE AROUND HOUSE, DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH TO STREET." (DOC-070202e attachment 5) A letter from the architect, Michael Froehlich, dated September 12, 2005, included with the application for design review states (DOC-050913a page 17): " Grading - The project site is almost level with only a slight slope down from north to south. Only a minimum amount of grading will be necessary to assure positive drainage around the house and to construct the driveway and driveway approach...". In addition both the Environmental Information Disclosure Form and the Certificate of Exemption for a Coastal Development Permit as submitted by the Contractor have check-boxes in which the Contractor has certified that no grading would be required. It is clear from the record that the Coastside Design Review Committee was never provided any documents showing significant fill on the site and thus the CDRC never approved any fill. The County responded to this issue in their letter of 12/15/06 (DOC-061215 paragraphs 7-8). The County response refers to 80 cubic yards of fill on the site that "is required to create a minimal slope away from the house for drainage purposes and does not constitute a significant alteration of the natural grade". This County response does not address the zoning violation in any way. The zoning regulation refers to "finished grade" i.e. an elevation at the perimeter of the structure; the regulation is not about volume (cubic yards) of fill. The large amount of additional fill is deepest at the lower side of the lot; therefore the fill was clearly not installed to "create a minimal slope away from the house for drainage purposes". The County response on this issue is incompetent and without merit. The grading/fill dirt issue was brought to the County's attention in an email dated 9/8/06 (DOC-060908c) and in a letter dated 10/9/06 (issue No.2) (DOC-061009h). The County was notified of the related zoning violation in an email dated 11/6/06 (item 2) (DOC-061106a), a letter dated 11/27/06 (item 2) (DOC-061127c), and a letter dated 2/2/07 (page 6) (DOC-070202e). This grading issue was submitted to the County on a Violation Complaint Form on 2/7/07 (DOC-070207b). The County response to this complaint is on the County website (linked here). A copy of this County webpage as of 3/5/07 is included with this documentation as CSM-DOC-E. The County response was that the case is closed based on the County's 12/15/06 letter. The fill added around this structure was never reviewed or approved by the Design Review Committee and is not shown or indicated on any design submittals. The fill was placed to raise the lot elevation not for drainage purposes and clearly is a significant deviation from the natural grade. Therefore the fill is a violation of Zoning Regulation 6300.2.6. 3) GRADING ORDINANCE VIOLATION (8600, 8602, 8603) Grading without required permit The Contractor has performed grading activity without a permit in violation of the San Mateo County Grading Ordinance Section 8602.1.(Grading Ordinance partial) The grading work consists of a large amount of fill placed around the entire structure. Section 8603 of the Grading Ordinance provides a list of exempted conditions for which a grading permit is not required; however, the work performed at 1050 Acacia does not meet any of these exemptions. This grading issue was submitted to the County on a Violation Complaint Form (mailed on 2/23/07) (DOC-070223). The County response to this complaint is on the County website (linked here). A copy of this County webpage as of 3/5/07 is included with this documentation as CSM-DOC-E. The County response on the website, as of 3/12/07 states: "this project was exempt from requiring a GRD permit per Section 8603.1, which allows a quantity of grading when done under a building permit (this is the exemption by which most such projects are exempt from these requirements). Per the previous information supplied to us by the project owner's (Ron Nelson) engineer, Lisa Grote indicated in her 12/15/06 letter that the grading that occurred qualified under this exemption category." The County interpretation of Section 8603.1 is erroneous; the exemption allowed by Section 8603.1 does not apply to this situation. Section 8603.1 is directed at excavations and the fill material generated by those excavations. In fact the exemption in Section 8603.1 explicitly does not exempt the grading activity as conducted by the Contractor at 1050 Acacia. Section 8603.1 states "This statement shall not exempt from permit requirement under this chapter any fill made with the material on- or off site from such excavation..." In this case the fill would be that generated by drilling piers for the footings. There is no basis for the County's statement that " ...Section 8603.1, which allows a quantity of grading when done under a building permit... ". In fact Section 8603.1 makes no mention of "grading when done under a building permit". The County response on the website (as of 3/12/07) states " Lisa Grote indicated in her 12/15/06 letter that the grading that occurred qualified under this exemption category.". In fact there is no mention in the 12/15/06 (DOC-061215) letter that the grading qualified under any exemption category. Note that the fill is over two feet in depth therefore exemption 8603.8 does not apply. A County planning staff person measured the fill at the northwest corner as over 2 feet on 12/1/06 and since that time there has been additional fill placed. Based on observation and site measurements, a reasonable estimate of fill depth at the southwest corner of the structure would be over two and one-half feet (over 2.5'). The County Planning Department is currently in violation of Section 8607.1, which requires the Planning Director to enforce the provisions of the grading ordinance and issue a stop work order under these conditions. 4) ZONING REGULATION VIOLATION (6412) - Fence height The Contractor at 1050 Acacia constructed a fence along
the South property line that exceeds the six (6) feet maximum height
allowed in zoning
regulation 6412. Per measurements taken on 6/15/07 the fence reaches
a maximum height of 9'-6" adjacent to the back of the building.
Measurements were taken on the South side of the fence, measured
up from the existing and original natural grade. The fence is shown from
both sides in this photo set:
photo-gallery-061106. This fence issue was submitted to the County on a Violation Complaint Form on 2/14/07 (DOC-070214). The County response to this complaint is on the County website (linked here). A copy of this County webpage as of 2/27/07 is included on this website as CSM-DOC-F (outdated now); the County response indicates: 'Field inspection' : "side yard fence over 6ft on high side with fill. front yard over 4ft." and 'Code Violation Notice (1) Sent', dated 5/17/07, done by 'GFW'. The fence has not been constructed in accordance with the submitted design. The submitted design indicates a 6 foot high fence with no retaining wall section at the bottom. This significant change, without County approval, is a violation of Design Approval Condition #1. 5) FAILURE to MEET PLANNING DECISION LETTER CONDITION #1 - Construction not in conformance with approved plans - First floor height above natural grade The first floor of the structure has been constructed approximately three feet higher above the ground (natural grade) than was shown on the submitted and approved design plans at the rear of the building. (Note that this is a separate issue from the zoning violation regarding overall height of the structure). The original design documents were extremely defective, showing site grades up to three feet higher than they actually are at the rear of the lot and one to three feet higher throughout much of the rest of the site. These defective drawings resulted in the CDRC and the community being misled about the height of the structure, in particular the first floor, relative to the surrounding ground. The building has not been constructed as shown on the approved plans, and this non-conformance is significant and negatively impacts adjoining properties. As an example: Sheet A6.2 of the submitted design plans shows the structure very low to the ground with the first floor less than two feet above the natural grade and the same two feet above the bottom of the rear / west fence. However the as-built elevation of the first floor is about 6 inches below the top of the rear fence as verified by Planning Department staff during a site visit on 12/1/06. Refer to the 2/2/07 letter to the County (DOC-070202e), attachment #4 wherein drawing No. A6.2 has been marked up to graphically show this large discrepancy (labeled REAL-6.2). Condition No. 1 of the County Planning Decision Letter, dated 11/14/05 (DOC-051114) states: “The project shall be constructed in compliance with the plans approved by the Coastside Design Review Committee. Any changes or revision to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Officer if compatible with Design Review Standards or, where necessary, the Coastside Design Review Committee with applicable fees paid, for approval.” The project has not been constructed in compliance with the approved plans and the Contractor has failed to submit these major changes to the County. In addition, the County has failed to enforce this condition of the permit. The issue of this major non-conformance with the submitted design plans was a subject in the following correspondence to the County: email dated 9/8/06 (DOC-060908c), letter dated 10/9/06 (DOC-061009h issue No.1), letter dated 11/27/06 (DOC-061127c item #4), letter dated 2/2/07 (DOC-070202e pages 8 and 9). The County has responded to this issue in County letter of 12/15/06 (DOC-061215 paragraphs 11 and 12). The County response is entirely without merit as detailed in the letter to the County dated 2/2/07 (DOC-070202e pages 8 and 9). Since the Contractor failed to meet the Conditions of the Planning Department's Decision Letter, final approval for this project should not be issued. 6) FAILURE to MEET PLANNING DECISION LETTER CONDITION #1 - Construction not in conformance with approved plans - Deep fill around structure Condition #1 of the County Planning Decision Letter, dated 11/14/05 (DOC-051114) was violated when the Contractor placed a large amount of fill around the structure without first submitting this major change to the County for review. Fill depths reach over three feet at the fence line adjacent to the Southwest corner of the building. The design drawings show no significant fill around the structure and the permit application states that only minimal grading will be required. This change to the design is not compatible with the Midcoast Design Review Standards (page 5) (available here) which require that the work: "(1) Minimize filling or placement of earth materials." and "(3) Limit grading to the footprint of the structure and its immediate vicinity..." and "(4) Result in a finished grade beyond the structure and its immediate vicinity that is similar to the existing grade...". The issue of this major non-conformance with the submitted design plans was a subject in in the following correspondence to the County: email dated 9/8/06 (DOC-060908c), letter dated 10/9/06 (DOC-061009h issue No.2), email dated 11/6/06 (DOC-061106a item 2), letter dated 11/27/06 (DOC-061127c item 4), letter dated 2/2/07 (DOC-070202e pages 6 and 7). The County has not responded directly to this issue. The County has responded to a related issue, that is the zoning violation regarding fill around the perimeter of the structure, reference County letter of 12/15/06 (DOC-061215 paragraphs 7 and 8). The County response is entirely without merit as detailed in the letter to the County dated 2/2/07 (DOC-070202e pages 6 and 7). Since the Contractor failed to meet the Conditions of the Planning Department's Decision Letter, final approval for this project should not be issued. 7) CHANGE TO DRAINAGE PATTERN and FAILURE to SUBMIT DRAINAGE PLAN The Contractor has made major changes to the lot grading and drainage pattern at the 1050 Acacia site. These changes will result in drainage which previously flowed across the south property line, to be now directed to the west property line. The grading and drainage changes made at the site are not shown on the approved design plans, and have not been approved by the Coastside Design Review Committee. The Planning & Building Department’s ‘Decision Letter’ for 1050 Acacia, dated 11/14/05, Condition No. 14d (DOC-051114) states: “A site drainage plan will be required that will demonstrate how the roof drainage and site runoff will be directed to an approved location.” An investigation of the County files has produced no evidence of an approved site drainage plan for this site. This issue was detailed in an email to the County dated 5/23/07 (DOC-070523). [Return
to Index] Condition #5c of the County Planning Decision Letter, dated 11/14/05 (DOC-051114) states: “Prior to Planning approval of the building permit application, the applicant shall also have the licensed land surveyor or engineer indicate on the construction plans: (1) the natural grade elevations at the significant corners (at least four) of the footprint of the proposed structure on the submitted site plan, and (2) the elevations of proposed finished grades.” The plans available in the Planning and Building files as of 10/9/06 (after start of construction) did not indicate natural grade elevations at the significant corners of the footprint as required by Decision Letter Condition #5c. Subsequent reviews of the files have also found no evidence of the required information. The issue of the failure to meet the requirements of Planning Decision Letter Condition #5c was a subject in the following correspondence to the County: letter dated 10/9/06 (DOC-061009h additional item No. 2, page 6), email dated 11/6/06 (DOC-061106a item 6). The County has never responded to this issue. Since the Contractor failed to meet the Conditions of the Planning Department's Decision Letter, final approval for this project should not be issued. 9) WORK NOT PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION - Grading The Contractor submitted three forms during the process of obtaining initial approval from the Planning Department. The Contractor has not constructed the work in accordance with these submittals. The three forms are detailed in parts A, B and C below. A) Application for Design Review, as
submitted by the Contractor on 9/13/05 (DOC-050913a),
the following items on the form are at issue: B) Environmental Information & Hazardous Waste Site
Disclosure Form, as submitted by the Contractor (CSM-DOC-050913c) C) Certificate of Exemption or Exclusion from Requirement for a Coastal
Development Permit, as submitted by the Contractor (CSM-DOC-050913b) 10) FALSE INFORMATION ON APPLICATION - Tree removal At the beginning of the project the Contractor submitted
three forms,
all of which indicated that no trees were to be removed. The Contractor
removed trees both before and after these forms were submitted. The
three forms are detailed in parts A, B and C below. 11) PROJECT DOES NOT MEET MIDCOAST DESIGN STANDARDS The 1050 Acacia project fails to meet the requirements of the 'Standards for Design of One-Family and Two Family Residential Development in the Midcoast' (available here: from County website or this website Feb 2007 download) Issues include: 1) Site Planning and Structure Placement 2) Complement Other Structures in the Neighborhood 3) Building Mass, Shape and Scale 12) TREE REMOVAL WITHOUT PERMIT and MISREPRESENTATION TO COUNTY Note: It appears that the County removed the 1050 Acacia information from their website sometime after mid July 2007 (e.g. VIO2005-00185). You can find screenshots of the website pages as of 7/12/07 at this URL: http://1050acacia.info/exhibits/other1-exhibits.html On 9/12/05 the Contractor removed significant trees without
a permit and subsequently misrepresented the case to the County Code
Compliance officer. The County has been made aware of the situation
and has not responded appropriately. The only County response to this issue is found in a County letter dated 12/15/06 (DOC-061215 paragraphs 15 & 16, pages 3 & 4). The County's response is inaccurate and misleading; this is detailed in a letter to the County dated 2/2/07 (DOC-070202e page 10). END OF DOCUMENT |