Loading...
none, , Correspondenceeitv 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 July 25, 2007 Mrs. Cathy Nichols 14 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mrs. Nichols, • //e//l%3! INCORPORATED JANUARY 24. 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310)377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Thank you for your recent letter and calling to our attention the barn at 7 Quail Ridge Road South. From the perspective of enforcing the municipal and building codes, it is important to know when there is a presumed conversion. With the knowledge of a converted barn that does not comply with the Municipal Code, the City is in a position of initiating code enforcement efforts that ultimately could involve legal prosecution. However, before commencing with enforcement measures, the Planning Commission and City Council will be discussing the topic of barn conversions on a broader, citywide basis. From the discussion, direction will be received relative to code enforcement efforts. Your interest and perspective as well as the input of the entire community will be valuable on this matter. We hope you will contribute to the dialogue and welcome your participation. Thank you. Sincerely; /1-- Ffnton D bier ruch City Manager AD/ 07-25-07 n i ch o!s-1 t r. d oc c: Mayor and City Council Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director ® Printed on Recycled Paper Tony Dahlerbruch, City Manager 2 Portuguese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills BY Board of Directors of the Association 1 Portuguese Bend Road • City of Rolling Hills MAY 2 2007 May 19, 2007 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Dear Directors and City Manager, I am concerned that it appears that the very large, new, two story "barn" with second story dormer windows which was recently built at 7 Quail Ridge South is being converted into something else. The owner has recently added very high quality sliding glass and screen doors normally found in a house. They often close the barn doors over the new doors to hide them when they are not using the building. A satellite dish has been placed on the roof (even though the house is much higher and better positioned for satellite reception, so the dish must be for an entertainment room in the new "barn"). Lots of trucks have been coming and going since the "barn" was finished. One neighbor mentioned air conditioning being added, but I do not know if this is true. At a recent pool party, couples in swim suits were coming and going from the nearby pool into this building as if it were a house. The history of this property raises significant concerns about this apparent conversion. The owners wanted to build a cabana, but were turned down by the planning commission. instead of working with the planning commission to get approval, they went to the City to get an over-the-counter barn approval. Since they had already done extensive grading of the property over at least two weekends (something several the neighbors saw and some reported), they were within grading limits and built the "barn". It now appears that they are in the process of creating a cabana much larger than what they were told they could not build. This seems very unfair. I know they tried to sell the property at a multimillion dollar gain and failed at such a high price. That is, however, no excuse for breaking the rules that all the rest of us have had to follow. Finally I have mentioned to both the Association and City staff that when the pool was built, the pool equipment was not covered, fenced or screened. I had understood that this would be done and that landscaping would be added to the pool and barn to provide screening, but the landscaping added provides no screening of the equipment or barn. As a result I look at their pool equipment and am bothered by the noise, not to mention the starkness of the huge "barn". To further add insult to injury they have moved their large ugly (black and bright yellow and blue) trampoline so that it is totally in my view not even partially hidden by the barn. At the pool party they had 10 kids in it bouncing and yelling. Itcduld easily be moved to be hidden by the huge•"barn" but then they might see it from their house. Could you please look into this situation? Thank you. Sincerely, L i V • December 11, 2009 Planning Commission Dear Planning Commission members: I wanted to take a moment to send you the documentation to which I referred in you November 17, 2009 meeting. In this meeting I told the Planning Commission that I had come to the meeting to ensure that the covered porch expansion would not occur on or near my property and to remind the City that I believe that several feet of my neighbors' second driveway and landscaping is on my property. In 2002 when their driveway was built and landscaping completed, I expressed my concern to the Community Association that I would lose my property because their driveway was on my land and by all appearances it looks like their property. I used as proof that my property corner monument was removed when their driveway was built and that several feet of asphalt which was on my property was removed. The Don Crocker said that the plan the Association had approved for 16 Crest had the neighbor's driveway going up to their property line but not beyond it --see attached approval map. My neighbor did not agree that the area in contention is on my property. The Association said that a new survey would need to be done. My neighbors did not want to pay for this and neither did I. Per our discussion following these meeting the Nagelhout's suggested that to protect my property rights and yet avoid paying for a survey, they would provide me with the attached letter and would also send a letter to the Association which recognizes that we disagree on where the property line is and that by waiting to correct this encroachment until a survey is done at some point in the future, I am not in any way relinquishing my property rights. I send these attachments to you to ensure that the City remains informed that a property line dispute exists and that I have in no way relinquishing my property rights. Thank you for your time RECE ED ols Road West Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 DEC 1 1 2009 City of Rolling Hills By IP • • December 29, 20Q2 Ms. Cathy Nichols 14 Crest Road W Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Cathy: The purpose of this letter is clarify our belief and intention that if a portion of the driveway and/or landscaping on the east side of our property, although approved by permit with the Community Association, encroaches upon your property, that this in no way eradicates your right to ownership of that portion of the property. In addition, it is our belief and intention that this applies to all successor owners of your property and our ProPerty. We have both agreed for economic reasons not to perform a professional survey to determine the degree to which the driveway and/or landscaping may encroach upon your property. We acknowledge your belief that the driveway and/or landscaping does encroach upon your property, and should a condition arise to require a professional survey, we will engage a mutually agreeable engineering firm to perform the survey. Cathy, thank you for working out this issue with us in a cordial and collaborative manner. We have enjoyed having you as a neighbor and look forward to a long and friendly relationship as part of the Rolling Hills Community. Sincerely, (� Robert V. Nagelhout & 'Julie A. Nagelhout 16 Crest Road W Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Cc: Peggy R. Minor — Association Manager • ; �\o r y'T..'f'• •,� 6 tfY`�� µ I I Members of the City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road . Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: • By DEC 1 3 2002 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS As is explained in detail in my attached letter to the Association, I am increasingly concerned that actions taken by the Association and the City in approving the building and landscaping of my neighbor's property at 16 Crest West is making it appear that my neighbor owns my land. I own to the center of my neighbor's circular driveway that borders my land, 14 Crest Road West. I did not want it built but was informed that the Association approved and since they had the easement they could give access away. I was assured that this in no way would affect my ownership or control of my land. I received the same assurances as I questioned my neighbor's landscaping of my land in the easement which borders our properties. Then a small rock wall and a wall of small trees bordering the driveway were added on my land as well as theirs. The landscaping of my land by my neighbor makes it increasingly appear that they own my land. (Given that the original owner was allowed to put this immense house far over against one side of his property over my objections, I own very close to their house.) I therefore want a letter from the City of Rolling Hills and the Association Board's lawyers stating unequivocally the this is my land now and forever and my neighbor's do not now and never will have ownership of. nor control of, my land despite the action that the City, The Association and my neighbor's with their approval may have taken to make it appear otherwise. I have not from the beginning understood why this was approved. It is however very important to me that this in no way affects my ownership of, control of, and use of my land. Given the appearance that the combined actions of the City and the Association have created, I need written recognition, not just verbal assurances. that I am in no way relinquishing my property rights since I clearly do not wish to do so. Sincerely, r.% r/. Cathy Nichols 14 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 • • Board of Directors Rolling Hills Community Association 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills. California 90274 Dear Board Members: December 11, 2002 I am concerned about the actions taken by the Association and perhaps the City in regards to granting the use of my property to my neighbors at 16 Crest Road West. It increasingly looks like my property belongs to my 'neighbor. I do not want to loose rights to my land. (I fought the original house plans years ago unsuccessfully being concerned with its placement so near my property in what appeared to me to be the easement and its immense size, planned multiple family use, etc.) As it became clear that the new owners were planning to place the circular driveway on my property. I called Peggy Minor to request that this not be done. She told me that it was a grandfathered driveway because the original house used it and it was in an Association easement so according to the rules I had no say about its use by my neighbors. This seemed strange to me since the house was torn down and placed differently on the property. In addition the 15-car garage is on the opposite side of the house and has another driveway to access the house and garage. I expressed strong concerns that I did not want to loose control of, ownership of, or use of my property. Peggy assured me that that would never happen. It also seemed to me unfair to let my neighbors pave my land when they were already covering so much of their own with concrete. She explained that I had no say because the Association controls the easement and had approved the neighbor's plan. I called again when the neighbor's landscaped my property along the easement which borders our two properties, again being assured that sprinklers, lawn. etc does not affect ownership. The most recent step has been the addition of a small stone wall and a wall of trees along the driveway. It clearly makes it look as if my neighbor owns my land. I am very concerned that years from now I will be told that I gave up ownership of my property by granting my neighbors use of it. I have not. In fact I asked that this not be done. The Association and the City including whoever approves the landscape and hardscape plans has made decisions which worry me greatly. My property goes to the center of my neighbor's driveway. When the driveway was put in my property marker was removed. As the landscaping is being completed, my property more and more appears to have been granted to my neighbor. At the Cnristmas Party I expressed my increasing concerns to some City officials and was told that I should take action to ensure that my rights are protected. I therefore want a letter from the City of Rolling Hills and the Association Board's lawyers stating unequivocally that this is my land now and forever and that my neighbor's do not now and never will have ownership of nor control of my land despite the actions that the City, the Association, and/or my neighbor's may have taken to make it appear otherwise. Sincerely,. Cathy Nicho s 14 Cr .Road West Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 NA A-- V7 C.7 2V-A`t‘..) bOLLA2--144"At 0.3 b1. • c601-17...A Cr t kitL , 2,3 V-064.z.c) 1-J ., .„. /..: .. ......„ ..".L..z....: i I ...,,,„, ,- ' ,:?( Z si 1:1 i .....eiti - A L. . .. -7,.. ` ' ? 2 ....„4'.....--...— , i .a../ 4.. . A.. 4......"-... 2 .././ cint OF ROLLING IISLL ir) Coy 46=A:le 441 0 3C-SV -ec‘ -6 r4et•si- it) 13. •Ote... eel -AO 1 •--,. / ) -I, , ,. i 0 n---rv-NrC -r1-4 (4, 1,5 CtS ,..1t-)V0...&YtAd•-) TT) 91ZOC:34JC..e.. \-st-.A.Nd -rt-k P I . i 4:" idszPAIra I I /