the citizens of Hankins Subdivision should be refunded the $250 fee required by the city to publically appeal the Planning Director's decision. 

Baker No. 8 - Mr. Baker may have been correct to say we would not be notified about a permit for a garage (1200 square foot maximum).  However, the property owners within the notice area were not notified of the unlisted use with the addition of the living space so that we could object.  The verbal protestations were not considered.  We were denied due process. 

Baker No. 9 - The Planning Department does not appear to be helpful or instructive to private citizens who call or inquire about the process of appealing permits issued by the city.  The citizens of Hankins Subdivision should have been informed from the beginning that there actually were steps we could take about the oversized garage.  This information was not forthcoming from the Planning Department.  Mr. Baker also stated that he agreed the building did not fit in the neighborhood but we were repeatedly told this was a conforming building and that nothing could be done to stop its construction. 


Mr. Appicello said we had sixty days from the issuance of the permit in order to object to the building of this garage.  However, we did object and we were told there was nothing we could do. We were novices and we trusted those in power. We were counting on the direction of the city to assist us.  We were offered no insight into the legal process of filing appeals. At this point we reiterate that Mr. Warner applied for the permit 40 days before he owned the property and the size of the garage was not known until summer which was well over the 60 day appeal period.  So how could we possibly have objected by writ of review in time?

Statewide land use goals advocate citizen participation and we would expect that the city would encourage participation by all citizens at all stages.  Your process is flawed and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are not met when you shut us out of this process.

In conclusion -

- A permit for a garage was requested on the application.
- The garage was built out of compliance.
- A living space was added unlawfully.
- The dwelling is occupied without being certified.
- The owner and the city admit the violation.
- The violations must stop.
- The code must be enforced.
- The penalties must be imposed.
- The structure must be abated.