Laserfiche WebLink
C. POINTS RAISED <br /> 1. Northside Rock Wall Height <br /> As stated in footnote 2, the neighboring landowner improved the <br /> then existing rock wall on the north side and increased the height of the rock wall. The <br /> landowner did not consent to such construction if the work exceeded the code height <br /> limits. <br /> 2. Bathroom Renovations not Covered by Plumbing Permit <br /> The landowner had discussions with county officials that the work in <br /> question were covered by the existing plumbing permit. <br /> 3.a. Continued Use of the "Temporary"Office Building <br /> While a seventy years might not be deemed to be "temporary," the <br /> office building was permitted as a structure for use and occupancy as an office. The <br /> permanent use of the structure presents a zoning question, not a building code question <br /> (see footnote 6). The structure was permitted for human occupancy in 1957 and there <br /> is no complaint that the structure presents a risk of harm to others. <br /> 3.b. Connection of Temporary Office Building Roof to Hotel Building <br /> The connection in question is the extension of the office's roof to <br /> the main hotel building. This is de minimis. <br /> 4. No Permit Found for the Swimming Pool <br /> As stated above, one can infer that the landowner had included the <br /> swimming pool in the permit for the hotel building. <br /> 6 <br />