HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24 Letter from Eric & Lisa Carlson
Jl,;lo:l'~,
..,--
Cx.l
'>
--I
'":....,
~
." "\
",,,,,,",,
.,," '-~
,~~
.~
October 24, 2006
Re: Public Hearing October 24, 2006: Application of Brighton Corporation for a Vacation of
2 feet of the required S-foot side drainage & irrigation easement on the east side of Lot 16,
Block 12 of Paramount Subdivision No.7 located at 1037 W. Bacall St, Meridian, Idaho
President Wardle and City Council Members:
As authors of the letter opposing the vacation / variance application, we are writing this letter
to again reaffirm our stance in light of recent proposals made to us by Brighton Corporation. There
is some additional background information that we feel you should be aware of related to this
application.
I.
,...,~ 1-,",.'
.<..0 <."
~'
:..; -1.1"
r' ..
-l t..1
',::;;; r.
~~J
~~.'
.2: 0:.
u.... u..
"",,,\ .........
:-' :(;:
L We entered into a contract to purchase this property and have our home built on
January 17, 2006 - before construction of any of the neighboring homes had begun.
We chose the home on this particular lot specifically because of the size of the lot and
paid a premium of $12,000 for what we were told was the above-average square
footage of the land. We were especially drawn to the prospect of having enough room
to add a third bay to our garage, since boats and RVs are required to be stored in an
enclosed structure as per our neighborhood CC&Rs.
2. On May 22, 2006, during the final inspection of our home prior to closing, we were
made aware of the encroachment issue with the house next door. We were told that
Brighton Corporation was also aware of the encroachment issue and would be fixing
the problem.
Within a few weeks of moving into our home, we were contacted by Bill Thornton of
Brighton Homes about the possibility of selling two feet of our land to remedy their
mistake. We were not interested in selling any of our property and when pushed to
"name our price," we offered what we knew to be an unreasonable price reflective of
our disinterest in selling. We requested that any future offers that the Brighton Corp
wished to make should be made in writing for review by our attorney.
4. Our next contact with Brighton Homes was on September 20, 2006, at the community
meeting required by the hearing process. Brighton proposed their solutions of
installing rain gutters and made a conciliatory offer to provide us with a couple of
trees to serve as an aesthetic barrier to their encroaching home. After the meeting,
we provided them with a letter expressing our concerns of the impacted value and
safety of the situation and asked that they rectify their mistake by moving or
remodeling their home.
5. We received no response to our comment letter and had no contact with Brighton
Homes until this past Thursday, October 19, 2006, at 6:00 pm, the same day that
staff published their report recommending denial of the variance. Jay Walker came to
our home unannounced and requested that we sit down with him and discuss the
situation. We again expressed our concerns of the viability of future expansion, the
future devaluation of our home and safety issues. Mr. Walker proposed allowing one
of their staff architects to review our home plans and assess the possibility of building
a garage in that area with one foot less land. He made us a verbal offer to buy one
foot of our land for an amount which we felt insufficient, as we did not buy our land
and home to sell it off in pieces.
6. The following day, Friday, October 20, Mr. Walker returned to our home at 6:00 pm
with DJ, their architect. According to DJ's renditions of the proposed third garage bay,
the minimum dimensions for the foundation of the garage addition would need to be
eleven (11) feet. Our current side yard is sixteen (16) feet. After selling one foot of
our land, we would no longer be able to build our garage and remain in compliance
with the five (5) foot easement requirement, and would require a vacation ourselves.
Mr. Walker presented us with a term letter that was drafted up in anticipation of
securing our interest in selling the land. Without being given opportunity to let our
attorney review the document, we refused to sign the letter when prompted; we
refused to give verbal acceptance to the conditions listed; and have not given them a
price relating to this transaction-as the land is currently not for sale. We requested
.
.......,
~:~j ;~, 3.
time to speak with our attorney regarding the potential liabilities involved as well as
time to come to our own conclusions about the proposal.
At this time, we feel backed into a corner and pressured to make our decision without being
given ample time to weigh the consequences of such a transaction. In addition, our mortgage
company requires a forty-five day review period and a checklist of 13 costly items before they will
even consider an application for us to sell any portion of our land.
However, the proposed sale of one foot of our land still does not address the encroachment of
this home and does nothing to rectify concerns brought forth by the Fire Marshall about minimum
safety setbacks as recommended by the International Building Code. The main foundation of this
home would still only be four feet from the revised property line instead of the five feet required by
the subdivision drainage and irrigation easement requirements, and the offending pop out feature
would only be two feet. Brighton Homes has known about the encroachment issue since May 22,
2006, at a minimum. They were officially denied occupancy and informed by the city of their error
on June 29,2006. In spite of this, they had no further contact with us for four months. After the
Meridian City Staff submitted their recommendation to the City Council to deny Brighton's
application and with only two business days remaining before the hearing date, Brighton approached
us with a written offer to buy our land. From our viewpoint, this is a weak attempt to remedy the
situation.
We have been advised by our realtor and real estate attorney that this encroachment,
brought on by Brighton's mistake, will significantly impact the resale value of our home. When
purchasing this home, we spent many weeks searching for just the right one, in just the right
subdivision, as this is the home in which we intend to raise our children. This house is our dream
home but even more importantly, it's our most valuable asset and has the potential to be our most
critical liability. We are faced with the probability of our home appreciating at a sub-average rate
because of negative curb appeal brought on by the neighboring encroachment.
We want nothing more than for Brighton Homes to take responsibility for their mistake,
uphold the building regulations of the city of Meridian, and adhere to the subdivision standards
which they authored. With that being said, we feel they should bear the financial burden that
accompanies fixing their error, and either remodel or move the offending home. In no way should
we be harmed by their mistake, either today or ten years from now when/if we try to sell our home.
We again respectfully request that you deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Eric and Lisa Carlson
1011 W. Bacall St. Meridian
377-7994