HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 329; Juniper Beach Ltd.; Variance (V) (2)B..s Request for vazianas to reduee side rard setbaa to one foet en prope-
mrth aide Juaiper sf., between Crrlsbd Blvd and Garfield rt . (APN404-
23249). Case file V-329; Ap&hmlt t Jim Idirschberg;
A.a ownera of the property adjacent to and east ef mbjerdr property 1c8
vigorouslg oppose PblY side yard ret back ohpaee. requirement this only leaves 10 feet between structure., which we feel
is abrolute minilaurn. in event of ume type emergemy, such PB fire , er a meckanisrL break- down of public utilitieo, or of exirting pkumbing, electrical, etc. facili-
ties.
Ploo a reducmd set ba0k would encrouch on privacy, making livirsg here UIO, bearable, creating a structure to close to neighbors for comfort and a potential noise enfroucbment probleme
With the preaent 5 foot
Anything lesa wnuld not provide adequate aceems
We also objeet te any aide yard reduction on esthetic md health grounds.
Suppose we put in a wall, or fenoa. Think it would look terrible to hare
rnythiqf less than 5 feetgeporation.
uould be impossible to keep the area clean, rerulting in a aatural en- riornment for pests, rodent., ve&j,ete. ts live and breed.
We also feel any ewe of thfe type would adversly effect ow property
value, and if granted, it would Opuae problems in event of an^ future
development of our property .
Also If there were 1 feot, it
The original establishment of present minimwar is good, and should not
be tampered Witha
In wnclusion, we ogpeae q change in aide yard ret back, and
ernestly request the planning commiseion to dew any request for Am ohanqee -
Thankyou very much.
Pakrick D. Biller
P-Oe BOX 483
Crrlsbad, Calif . , 92008
RECEIVED
CMOFCARl BAD Phr’ 5 Depe it