Mary Hoy maryhoy@kc.rr.com
To:
maryhoy@kc.rr.com
Ray and Linda: This is your chance to speak out publicly. I've got it into the system this far...please turn out with a crowd!!!!
Dear Residents:
Last Wednesday eve. November 10, 2010, the Board of Aldermen held twohearings (water rate increase and budget) followed by a special meeting. We approved the 2011 budget and approved a water rate increase and increase in grinder pump charge from $6.00 bi-monthly to $12.00 bi-monthly.
Tomorrow night, November 16, 2010 at 6:00 PM at City Hall the PlanningCommission is holding a public hearing on whether two of our ordinances should be changed. The first, 405.110 deals with the 15,000 square feet buildable lot. The consideration would be should existing homes on less than 15,000 square feet be allowed to rebuild. The second section under consideration is section 405.340 dealing with building permits. I know that many of you are very concerned about lot size and I urge you to attend this meeting. It has not been discussed at a public hearing for some time and this is your opportunity to be heard.
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend as I have a family emergency todeal with in Iowa. I will however, be anxious to hear from you after the meeting.
Mary Hoy
Westside Alderman
The Ray and Linda mentioned in the above email are presumably Ray Staton and Linda Cone. An email from Ray is bouncing about the net regarding his point of view of the current building codes.
Here is Ray's email:
Subject: Fwd: FW: BOA Notes and Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:59:20 -0600
From: Ray Staton
Reply-To: raystaton@gmail.com
To: Don & Mary Hoy
Neighbors with lot size and setback issues, this is our chance to be heard. For too many years, WL residents who have lots under 15,000 square feet and setbacks that do not meet the ordinances have been taxed as though they had build-able lots. When their house burned down or was severely damaged, they learned that they had an unbuild-able Fishing Lot. In the case of lakefront property, a build-able lot is worth around $300,000, but a fishing lot is worth less than $50,000. Second Tier lots are typically worth $70,000, but drop to less than $10,000 as Fishing Lots. Quite a difference! The current ordinance was enacted after many homes were already in existence and is unfair. The proposed ordinance change that is going to be debated Tuesday night, Nov. 16th, 6:00 PM at City Hall can restore fairness to this situation. Please come and support the ordinance change that would grandfather in all property that had existing homes when the current ordinance was passed. Come and support this change even if you do not presently have an issue. Someday, you may decide to purchase another place at WL only to find that it has issues with the current ordinance. Also, WL is notorious for having no two land surveys agree so that the lot you think meets the 15,000 square foot rule today may be declared a Fishing Lot with the next survey.
Please pass this notice to your friends and neighbors at Weatherby Lake and attend the meeting.
Thanks,
Ray Staton
Where to begin?...Mary purports to be representing the wishes of many on the 15,000 sq ft rule "I know that many of you are very concerned ", when it really is two people, Ray and Linda. This isn't the first time she has raised a concern alluding to a consensus that is nonexistent. Ray's email is such a hodge-podge of information that is wrong I hesitated to publish...Ray, when was the last time a house burned down on a "unbuild-able Fishing Lot" ? (Curiously, the Mayor, used the same reasoning with me..."what if a house burned down" regarding the 15,000 sq ft issue this past May)
My point of view is this...the current codes serve the City and citizens just fine, there is no need for a change. If you live in a home on a lot that is less than 15,000 sq ft (it is your responsibility to know this) and it burns to the ground there is a process to rebuild if you so choose. If you are buying a lot with home that is less than 15,000 sq ft, might be a good idea to check with City Hall if you don't know the codes. If you are a real estate agent and don't know...what can I say?
My recommendation to the Planning Commission...thank the citizens present for their input...and do nothing, because there is nothing to do. The current codes are working as intended. Period.
5 comments:
I think it is absolutely asinine that a property owner should be prevented from investing in their properties. I believe that we should support residents who want to invest in their homes
by making them larger and updating them. In my opinion, it should be an
exception to deny a building permit to a neighbor who wants to improve their
own home rather than the other way around (indeed, I am hard pressed to come
up with a situation in which a sound structural extension/expansion that did
not adversely impact another's direct sight line should be rejected.)
The current ordinance needs to be rewritten.
Any lawyers out there know if this would apply?
Missouri Constitution - Bill of Rights
Section 13.
Ex Post Facto Laws - impairment of contracts - irrevocable privileges - That no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities can be enacted.
I looked up "Ex Post Facto Law" in my old law dictionary.
Ex Post Facto Law. A law passed after the occurence of a fact or comission of an act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences or relations of such fact or deed...
...An "ex post facto law" has been defined as (1) Every law that makes an action, done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action..."
- Sections quoted from Blacks Law Dictionary - Fourth Edition - 1951
I agree the current ordinance needs to be reviewed to make sure it still makes sense. Looks as if there is reason to reconsider it. Mike, I think you were remiss in mentioning it is more than just Linda and Ray that would benefit from a revision or review of the current ordinance. From what I understand there were several who voiced concerns over the current ordinance. So I think it is wise for the Planning Commission to review the current ordinance and determine if it still makes sense.
By the way, who was it and when was it decided that 15,000 sq ft was law? In Ray Staton's case he simply wanted to add a garage to his house so that his car would not be sitting outside in the rain and the ice and snow. He wanted this for safety reasons and because he thought his neighbors might appreciate him keeping his cars indoors rather than outside, as I understand it. It seemed like a reasonable request to me even though his lot size did not meet the 15,000 sq ft standard for the ordinance.
Any Lawyers out there? Please .... Perry Mason Jr is gone.
Be careful what you ask
What happened at the meeting. Did anyone go?
Post a Comment