Open
meeting beginning at 10:00am at the Irish Beach
Firehouse, 15401 Forest View Drive.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at 10:05AM.
IBADC members present: Chairperson Leon Drolet, Nik Epanchin, John McGehee and Walt Rush. Gordon Moores arrived after the approval
of the minutes and treasurer’s report.
Others in attendance: Nancy Epanchin, Annette Fromwiller, David Paoli Jr., Rod Schaeffer, Al
Thompson, Loretta A. Thompson, Lu Vickery, Bettye Winters
and Bob Winters.
APPROVE
MINUTES/TREASURER’S REPORT:
Approve
minutes of 1/20/07: Nik Epanchin
moved to approve the minutes as written.
Walt Rush
seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
Treasurer’s
Report: 1/1/07 to date. The IBADC currently has $1293.02 in net
assets. Walt moved to approve the report
as submitted. Nik
seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
NEW BUSINESS:
Hearings for
New Home Construction and Major Exterior Modification permits will be limited
to 45 minutes; 15 minutes for presentation and Committee questions and 30
minutes for audience input and discussion.
APPOINTMENT OF NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER: John McGehee (15600 Forest View Rd.) submitted an application
to the Committee on 1/21/07. On the Committee’s recommendation, the Irish Beach Improvement Club Board of
Directors, at its 1/27/07 public meeting, appointed
Mr. McGehee to the ADC for the current term, which
expires in July of this year. Leon
Drolet welcomed Mr. McGehee
to the Committee.
SCHAEFFER 2/21 (44641 Pomo
Lake Dr.): Phase
II New Home Construction permit application.
One comment was received from Robards (2/22)
regarding the location of propane and garbage enclosures and the distance of
the deck to the riparian zone. Dave Paoli
Jr. presented the application. He stated
that the owner would like to change the exterior siding from light brown Hardi plank to either light gray Hardi
plank or a combination of light gray (Sherwin Williams Woodsmoke
Gray) cedar shingles on the upper portion and tan (Sherwin Williams Belvedere
Tan) board and batt on the bottom portion. The trim and gutters will also be tan and the
roof will be 50-year Malarkey shingles in Siena Blend color. After discussion of several options to
address the Robards’ concerns, Mr. Schaeffer agreed
to bury the propane tank and move the garbage enclosure up against the east side
of the garage area. Mr. Paoli explained
that the owner would like to put eaves on the house if the proposed change to
building separation policy is adopted (see below). They would be approximately 18 inches and the
Committee believes the impact is minimal.
Water collected from downspouts will drain onto splash blocks. Walt moved to approve the Phase II
application conditioned on moving the garbage enclosure to the east side of the
garage area and burying the propane tank.
John McGehee seconded the motion which
passed 5-0. Walt explained that this
approval is for a provisional permit and that a final construction permit will
be issued when the final construction drawings are received relating to the
location, height and exterior appearance.
The Committee will also require that the permit be signed by the
contractor indicating that he/she has read and understands the conditions and
will abide by the approved color, materials, exterior lighting, location and
height verification etc. As to whether
the deck encroaches into the riparian area, Leon explained that the County
is the authority that makes that determination and suggested that the Schaeffers check with them.
The Schaeffers and Mr. Paoli stated that they
believe the deck is in compliance but will re-check.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
F o r a p p r o v
a l:
EAVE TO EAVE BUILDING SEPARATION POLICY: The Committee proposes amending the building
separation policy to state that the separation will be measured from foundation
to foundation instead of eave to eave provided that eaves on the new structure
do not exceed 3 feet. When considering
decks whose surface is 3 feet higher than the finished grade at the edge of the
deck, the measurement will be calculated from the deck fascia board or equal.
This proposal was first presented at the IBADC
meeting of 1/20/07
and as a result of that discussion, the second sentence was added addressing
decks. There were no comments. Leon
moved to approve the policy as stated. Nik seconded and the motion passed 5-0.
CHANGE TO ALL BUILDING PROCEDURES The ADC shall deny issuing
any permit if current violations to the CC&Rs’ Sections 5.6 (fences), 5.8
(exterior paints and stains), 5.9 (window and door frames) and 5.13 (exterior
lights) exist on the property in question and correction of such violations are
not addressed in the permit request.
The first draft of the proposal was mailed to
property owners in December of 2006 and discussed at the 1/20/07
IBADC meeting. Subsequently, the
Committee proposes amending it to strike CC&Rs Sections 5.6 (fences), 5.8
(exterior paints and stains), 5.9 (window and doorframes) and retain only
CC&R Section 5.13 (exterior lights).
Exterior lighting must be shielded and downcast and currently only six
Irish Beach homes are in compliance. The
Committee will seek to correct the problem by providing general information
through a mailing and posting on the web site and by asking that lighting be
corrected at the time a minor or major exterior permit is sought. Because of the cost, a homeowner will only be
required to correct window frame, siding and trim color violations at the time
they are replacing all windows or painting the house. Leon
stated that the Committee wants to add language to address the correction of
any non-permitted improvements. He gave
an example of someone who constructs an enclosed deck without a permit
and some time later applies for a permit for other improvements. The deck must be brought into compliance with
the CC&Rs and the appropriate fee paid before any new permit is
issued. Construction that was permitted
under previous CC&Rs does not have to be brought into compliance with the
current CC&Rs until and unless the homeowner seeks to improve or modify the
non-conforming work. The Committee
cannot require a property owner to change existing construction that was
permitted in the past nor can it judge the properness of construction, only
whether or not it was permitted. The
Committee does not intend to seek out CC&R violations and may only become
aware of them when the Committee members make a site visit as part of a new
permit application. Lu Vickery stated
that the proposal was changed significantly since the last meeting and, before
approval, should be posted on the web site.
Walt Rush
moved to strike the listing of CC&R Sections 5.6 (fences), 5.8 (exterior
paints and stains), 5.9 (window and doorframes) from the proposal and to leave
Section 5.13 (exterior lights) and to address the issue of non-permitted after
it has been posted on the web site. Nik moved to amend the motion to state that the new policy
will take effect 30 days after posting on the web site. John seconded the amendment which passed
5-0. John then seconded the amended
motion which passed 5-0.
F
o r d i s c u s s i
o n:
PROPERTIES FOR SALE: The
IBADC will inform, in writing, all Mendocino Coast real estate firms that prior
to finalizing any Irish Beach real estate transaction, realtors are encouraged
to check with the IBADC secretary for any outstanding notarized agreements and
CC&R violations related to the property in question.
The Committee members explained that the intention
is to encourage disclosure and inform real estate agents and brokers that the
IBADC files may contain agreements between property owners or document CC&R
violations of which the buyer should be made aware. Al Thompson pointed out that they cannot
contact all real estate agents and suggested that it is not the IBADC’s responsibility to inform them. Gordon stated that under California
law the realtor must disclose all known information and as a realtor himself,
he feels it is in his best interest to know of any agreements or CC&R
violations in order to avoid problems later.
Several set back agreements between property owners have been made in
the last several years that are not recorded with the County. Nik stated that a
future Committee may have difficulty defending its position if a seller did not
disclose a set back agreement that restricts the building envelope and the
Committee did not attempt to inform real estate agents of the existence of the
IBADC files. Leon
stated that a draft letter would be formulated and presented for discussion at
the next meeting.
EXPIRED PERMITS
Leon
stated that the Committee is working on formulating a policy to make them more
diligent in monitoring the completion of permits and their expiration
dates. The Committee will first try to
work with the party if they have not completed construction in time and will
notify them by registered mail of the non-compliance to the permit. If necessary, the Committee will pursue the
matter in small claims court to collect the appropriate fee(s) in order to
bring the permit into compliance. A
decision to go to small claims court would be made at a public meeting after
other attempts to resolve the problem fail.
The policy would go into effect on a specified date and apply to permits
that go into non-compliance after that date.
The Committee is currently working with several holders of expired
permits to bring them into compliance. Community
input is encouraged.
NEW PERMITS: The IBADC proposes to offer two
additional permits: categories strictly for the use of an Owner construction by
him/herself. All other aspects of New
Home Construction and Major Exterior Improvements are unchanged.
·
New Home Construction 36 Month Permit- Cost $5000 with a performance
deposit of $750. The exterior
construction must be completed within 36 months from start of
construction. Permit is not renewable.
·
Major Exterior Improvements 36 Month Permit- Cost
$3000 with a performance deposit of $375. The exterior construction must be completed within 36 months from
start of construction. Permit is not renewable.
Leon explained that the
Committee is attempting to address the issue of longer building times for new
home construction and major modifications when the work is done by the owner
instead of a contractor. The current new
home construction permit costs $1500 and allows for a twelve-month building
period with two possible three-month extensions for an additional cost of
$1500. In other words, the builder must
pay fees of $3000 for an 18-month construction window. The proposed permit for owner/builders
increases both the time allowed and the cost.
One aspect of the discussion is the cost of the permit and whether or
not the proposed fees are reasonable.
Another aspect is the possible creation of a second Performance Deposit
(PD) that is tied to the timely completion of the exterior construction. Currently the IBADC requires a PD to help
ensure the proper verification of the foundation location and building
heights. When the verifications are
completed, the PD is refunded. The idea
is to motivate builders to complete the project within the permitted time,
perhaps with a sliding scale, schedule related performance bond. The Committee will continue to accept
reasonable third parties delays that are outside of the control of the
builder. At this point, the IBADC has no
means by which to penalize a non-compliant builder and no funds for a serious
legal action. The idea is that the loss
of the PD may be a motivation to complete the project within the permitted time
and, if necessary, a means by which to pay for legal action. Community input is
encouraged.
ARE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS PROHIBITED BY THE CC&Rs?: Leon
explained that a community member approached him who would like to put out a
political sign. A discussion of the
subject included the issues of freedom of speech, the potential divisiveness of
political signs, political versus other types of signs such as decorative flags
and banners and window signs versus yard signs.
The CC&Rs only allow real estate signs and any legally required
signs and specifies the allowed size.
There was general agreement that if political signs are allowed, they
must be within the CC&R defined size of four square feet. It was suggested that political signs be
allowed in windows but not in yards and that, they must be removed on Election
Day. The item will be posted on the web
site for more comments.
MEDIATION COMMITTEE: John
McGehee
reported that the Committee lost one member due to personal reasons. The Mediation Committee has met and started
the process of formulating a procedure.
COMMUNICATIONS:
SEGHESIO 1/018 (15020 Navarro Way): 2/14/07 ADC letter regarding the need to
complete the exterior staining of the addition in order to close Major Exterior
Modification permit 0902-0118. Ms. Seghesio is in
the process of getting bids or staining the exterior.
MCCONNELL 1/034 (14820 Navarro Way): 2/26/07 Notice of the variances
approved at the 1/20/07 ADC meeting sent to
neighbors within 300ft. of the project.
The 30 day public comment period ends on March 28th.
KELADA 1/035 (14800
Navarro
Way): 2/14/07 ADC letter regarding the need to repair the garbage
enclosure. No response
has been received to date.
ALLRED 1/050 (14720 s. hwy 1) 2/17/07 Notification of intention to repaint the
house with color changes. Color samples
were submitted.
CONNER 1/063 (44000 Noyo Way): 1/22/07
Receipt of one year pre-construction permit renewal fee for Major
Exterior Modification permit 1005-1063.
The permit now expires on 10/9/07.
GORDON Moores 1/095 (44001 Noyo
Way): 2/5/07 Letter to the Committee regarding
the status of Minor Exterior Improvement permit 1004-1095 for the placement of
an office sign. A letter of response
was received from William Moores on 3/14/07. The Committee contacted William Moores at his
office and he joined the meeting. This
issue involves a Superior Court Judgment dated 3/22/04 regarding the office
stairs and sign, an “Order Confirming and Clarifying Terms of Judgment” dated
6/10/04, as well as IBADC Minor Exterior Improvement permits for an office sign
and stairs, issued on 10/16/04 and 11/20/04 respectively. In accordance with the judgments and by
agreement of both parties, the IBADC acted as arbitrator for the projects in
addition to its usual role of hearing and issuing construction permits. Gordon
Moores argued that the current location of the
shared office sign, as placed by William Moores, is not in the approved
location and physically intrudes into the space occupied by the lower east
staircase rail. As a result, William
Moores has removed the rail to install the sign and Gordon
Moores subsequently removed the sign. To resolve the ongoing dispute, Gordon
Moores requests that the Committee determine if the
sign is in the proper location as approved in October of 2004. He also argued that the wording of the shared
sign was not agreed to by both parties, as stipulated in the permit. He also questioned whether the permit is
still valid because of the amount of time that has lapsed. William Moores argued that the placement of
the sign was delayed by court proceedings and therefore the permit is still
valid. He argued that as the arbitrator,
the ADC couldn’t go back and change what was agreed to in arbitration. He stated that in May of 2005, Gordon
Moores amended the permit for the deck and stairs,
which led to the current conflict between the location of the stairway rail and
the sign. A site visit was made. William argued that the existing stone pillar
and connecting rail (removed) are modifications to the approved plans that were
not properly noticed and heard according to Committee procedures. The application and modification was reviewed
and Nik noted that the location of the posts is not
indicated on the drawings. Committee
members measured and determined that the location of the easterly post at the
foot of the stairs appears to comply with the Superior Court Judgment of 3/22/04. The Committee referenced a letter to William
Moores dated 7/17/05 in response to his protest of the modified plans in which
the Committee states its authority to approve minor modifications of approved
plans without an additional hearing. After
review of the current location of the sign in relation to the removed rail and
stone post and the ability to see the sign from the westerly end of the parking
lot, both parties, William and Gordon Moores,
agreed that the sign will be moved slightly so that the western most edge of
the sign is no less than two inches east of the easterly edge of the existing
stone pillar/post and the sign is located parallel to the existing
sidewalk. The existing staircase and posts
appear to comply with the approved permit.
CARTER 3/26: 2/2/07 Receipt of notification of
completion of Major Exterior Modification permit
0306-0326 on 11/13/06.
MOORES
5/05 (43551 sea Cypress Drive); 3/10/07 Receipt of fee for pre-construction permit
extension. NHC permit 0205-0505 now
expires on 2/18/08.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MCP: ADC
letter to MCP requesting the name of the corporate spokesperson. Gordon
Moores stated that the request would be fulfilled in
April.
TIM MURRAY 4/10 (15441 Forest View Rd.): 8/25/06 ADC letter regarding NHC
permit 0905-0410. The permit expired on 9/4/06. No response has been received to date. Leon
will contact Mr. Murray in writing to resolve the issue.
TRATHEN 7/26 (44400 O’Rorey’s Roost): 12/23/06
Letter from William Moores requesting an explanation of the ADC’s letter
of agreement with the Trathens regarding their Major
Exterior Modification permit 0705-0726. Leon
explained that much of the issues with the project were due to miscommunication
and the Trathens have complied with the Committee’s
requests for information which has resolved the questions.
ADJOURNMENT/NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is scheduled for May 19th, 2007.
Minutes submitted by
Jean Selk