Loading...
285, Construct a fence around the p, Staff Reports(213) 377-1521 MEMORANDUM oLLcn d/ILL eommunit I.!.oaiation � 9 � of dQanc%o JnaL'os (Rules NO. '2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 ROLLING HILLS CALIFORNIA June 3 , 1981 To: Board of Directors, R.H.C.A. From: Roger Vink, Architectural Inspector Subject: Ken Vroom pool, 26 Middleridge South On March 11, 1981 I was asked to look at the area which the Vrooms wanted to build a pool,. at the location between Vroom's and Rockwell's property. There were two stakes in place between the properties. One at the westerly slope and one at the easterly slope:. Measuring in line with these, I measured 13 ft. to Vroom's existing fence. There is a 10-ft easement there. Then on the 16th of March Peggy and I went back up to look at the area together. The stakes and fence were still there. A. 10-ft. measurement from the fence into the yard was the approximate pool location. On Tuesday, May 7th I was checking out another job site. Then I noticed dirt had been hauled out from the Vroom property. I went there, and talked to Mr. Quinn, the pool builder for Vroom. I asked him why no one had called for an inspection. He stated he thought the truck driver stopped by. I told him he has built enough pools here and that he should have called me himself to make sure. The pool was staked, and the dig out for the pool was on, Saturday the 4th or Monday morning the 6th.of May. The fence was torn out also between Vroom's and Rockwell's property at this time. I had no reason to doubt the two stakes that were in place were not correct. The stake on the westerly slope lined up with the property spike in the street on Middleridge South. On May 21st or 22nd Mr. Rockwell called questioning the new fence that had been installed between his and Vroom's property. He also questioned new planting outside the fence. Later, him to call I asked him it, and who He said Mr. when I called Mr. Quinn's office I left a message for me. I met him on Blackwater Canyon the next day. when he dug the pool on Saturday the 5th and staked showed him the pool location according to the plan. Vroom showed him the pool location. • • Mr. Vroom came out of his residence when I went up to check on the complaint about the fence. This was on the 23rd of May. When I started measuring from the new residence addition to the new fence Mr. Vroom stated that his information was correct about the property line location, and that he had gone to South Bay Engineering office. They showed him where the property lines were on his original survey map. He then took me to Middleridge South where the spike was in place in the road. We then came up the slope in a straight line to the easterly slope where there was still a stake in place there. He then pointed down the slope to a small tree in the brush. He said that is where South Bay showed him on the map that was where the corner property maker was originally. He said that Rockwell's corral was even in the easement at one point. The next day he came in to see me and Peggy. I asked him at the time if he would get a new survey to satisfy the Rockwells. He.said "No, that South Bay would charge him $2000.00 for it." He also added that as long as Mr. Rockwell was complaining, let him survey it. When Mr. Rockwell was told this he called South Bay Engineering. They surveyed it for him on the 16th or 17th of June for'$750.00. Since then there have been many phone calls here to talk to Peggy and me, both from Mr. Vroom and Mr. Rockwell. Mr. Vroom came in on the 25th and told Peggy and I that we now had given the wrong infor- mation to him. I stated to him that the first time I went to his property and measured from the stakes to the fence, it was the exact area where he later showed me he had gotten the information from South Bay Engineering. Also the exact same location where he showed Mr. Quinn for the digging of the pool. Now, Mr. Vroom, after seeing the new survey, is saying to. Peggy and me that he had the wrong information:and had made a mistake. He also told this to Mr. Rockwell Monday evening the 22nd of June. This can be verified by Mr. Rockwell as he told me this by telephone Tuesday. June 30, 1981 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: PEGGY MINOR RE: KEN VROOM - 26 MIDDLERIDGE SOUTH POOL CONSTRUCTION On May 29, 1981, Mr. Jack Rockwell, 32 Middleridge South, contacted me regarding placing a boundary fence on his property to protect his children from the pool area under construction for his neighbor, Ken Vroom. He said that in measuring his house and studying the plan by Robert Schrank, builder of their homes, he believed that the fence placed by Mr. Vroom was either in the easement or on the Rockwell pro-- perty. I called Mr. Vroom on this day and asked that he provide the survey information he had previously said he received from South Bay prior to approval of the pool plans. He told me that he didn't have a drawn plan by South Bay but had acquired information from South Bay to locate the pool on his property. In reviewing issuance of the pool permit, the initial contact was made by his contractor, Dick Quinn, who visited the office 2 or 3 times in an attempt to coordinate the plans with the "as built" site plan submitted by Bob Schrank. He also advised (as well as Mr. Vroom) that the plot plan of the house prepared by Bob Schrank was not correct and they had figures and information that would verify this. Roger Vink visited the site alone and with me at a later date to view the staking that we believed to be done by South Bay. We accepted the plans and stakes as represented by the property owner because we knew that many discrepancies existed on the Schrank construction jobs. The plans sub- mitted showed a 10' easement plus a 10' side yard setback which was acceptable with regulations. On May 29, I called Mr. Vroom, questioning him about his plans and he said the information was received from South Bay and plan was based upon this information. He was very vague about the survey markers placed on the property and refused to clarify his plans with regard to the boundaries, stating that his pool would be soon finished and demanded that a final be given. He said that he had discussed with South Bay costs for a survey and decided that $2,000 was excessive and had used their figures. I called Bill Kinley on May 29th, advising him of events transpired and he directed that no pool final be given until the property boundary dispute was settled. I called the pool contractor that a boundary dispute placed doubt as to the validity of his plans. In questioning him, he advised that South Bay and Mr. Vroom had provided the infor- mation for his plans. Mr. Vroom visited the office on June 5th, advising that Mr. Schrank had advised him that the houses were not located according to the Association plans. We did receive "as built" plans from Schrank and I am uncertain as to which plans he is referring to. On June 17th Mr. Rockwell advised that a survey by South Bay shows that Mr. Vroom!s deck, fence, pool equipment and landscaping is on the Rockwell property. I requested he send me a copy of correspondence he intended to send Mr. Vroom and advised Mr. Kinley of this information. On June 30, 1980 I returned from a week's vacation to learn that Mrs. Clifton has been handling the matter and will report on her activity. Today Mr. Rockwell brought a letter he received from Mr. Vroom which is attached. Rockwell wants everything removed from his property, his easement and the Vroom easement as well. He feels his rights have been imposed upon and his property is devalued by his neighbor's encroach- ment on the easement. Regarding side yard requizements, the Board of Directors modified Build- ing Regulations on March 19, 1981 to provide a 25' setback requirement on 2 acre parcels. The pool plan check for the pool was issued March 11, 1981 which was prior to change in regulations.