HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 01-03; Tamarack Manor Variance; Variance (V) (3)I
,&: :-- <>- h /rz 4 ,/
/- .-* ECT ;;’2
pLANij\*:C rFD:pTR’ENT ”, To: The Carlsbad City Clerk
ReE: V 01-03-Tamarack Manor Variance
I am submitting this letter along with the $660.00 fee, to request an appeal of the decision
made by the City of Carkbad Planning Commission, regarding the Tamarack Manor
Variance on 10-16-02.
Ci‘i C’
Carisbad
CITY CLERICS OfnCE -
In December of 1994, we purchased our home at 3890 Margaret Way. When we bought
the home, it was listed m the MLS has having a gramy flat in the rear yard. We also have
letters fiom the previous owner and neighbors, stating that the granny flat was in
existence and used as a habitable dwelling since the early 1960’s.
In 1998, after my fhther-in-law moved in with us due to health reasons, we went to the
City Building Department and expressed our desire to renovate the granny flat and
inquired about obtaining the necessary permits.
We were advised by the City employee we spoke with, that due to set backs, we could
not obtain a permit to renovate the granny flat. However, she then told us we could fix
the granny flat, but it would make us a non-conforming property, witch would limit the
amount we could add on to our main structure.
At this time the City Building Department was aware of the granny flat’s existence and
that it was not permitted and did not meet setbacks, yet we were not advised that we
would be asked to tear down the structure ifsomeone complained about it.
In early 2001, we began to renovate the granny flat. Smce the structure is over 30 years
old, much was needed to improve the granny flat to make it safe and comfortable. The
renovation of the granny flat came at a great cost to us fmncially, but since we believed
we were not doing anything inappropriate because the Building Department was aware of
the structure’s existence, and it was for the we&e of my disabled fiither-in-law, we were
not afiaid of the hancial commitment. So it came as a great shock to us when we were
notified by the City that we might have to remove the granny flat.
Since the notification, we have attempted to resolve this by cooperating fully with the
City, by submitting all necessary variance requests and addressing any issues raised by
the City st&
We also have had great support &om our neighbors who have signed a petition and
written letters of support for the granny flat. As I have stated, the granny flat has been in
place and used as a habitable structure for over 30 years. In renovating the granny flat we
were simply trying to improve the safety, comfort and aesthetic appeal of the structure. If
we had had the slightest doubt that what we were doing was not OK with the City, we
would not have spent the thousands of dollars to renovate the granny flat.
Thank you for your consideration m this matter.