Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07221997 - D7 D-1 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDONy, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT covK�,� DATE: June 23 , 1997 SUBJECT: Appeal of the County Planning Commission Decision on Patrick Drovin & Chris Balke (Applicants & Owners) , County File #LP892018 to a Residential Second Unit, in the Richmond Area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the findings in Resolution 19-1997 as the Board's own. 2 . Uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission and deny the appeal of Patrick Drovin & Chris Blake. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The background for this project is contained in the April 8 , 1997 staff report to the County Planning Commission ("Commission") . The Commission at the April 8 , 1997 hearing took testimony which focused on the requested variances and the previous denial of the project in 1984 . The Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to April 22 , 1997 , at which time . the Commission denied the application for the reasons identified in Resolution 19-1997. This is an appeal of the County Planning Commission decision to deny the applicant's request to legalize an existing second unit in the East Richmond Heights area. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE b%�� A, �6� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON July 22, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X See the attached Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: IV ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Debbie Chamberlain - 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED July 22, 1997 cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Patrick Drovin (Applicant) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND O NTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY 2 . The property is located in an R-6 zoning district. There are two existing buildings on the property. The existing residence and the proposed second unit. In May of 1980 a building permit was issued for two story garage/den accessory structure with a floor area of 596 square feet, a height of 31'-311 , located 3-feet 6- inches from the side and rear property line. In April of 1984 a building permit was issued for a bath and two dormers. At the time of the inspection, the Building Inspector identified the third story had been constructed without benefit of a variance permit or building permit. The modification to added the dormers increased the height to 34 '-611 . The original request to legalize the second unit under SB 1534 was denied by the Zoning Administrator on September 24 , 1984 , and then subsequently denied by the Planning Commission on appeal . The subject property subsequently was sold and now the current owners are requesting to legalize the existing second unit. No modifications have been made to the unit since the denial by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator on November 4 , 1996 took testimony and closed the public hearing continuing the matter to November 18 , 996 for decision. The Zoning Administrator was unable to make findings as required by County Code Sections 26-2 . 2006 and 26- 2 . 2008 and denied the applicant's request. The Zoning Administrator found that approving the variance would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties within the vicinity, no special circumstances or conditions exist due to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding that would warrant deviation from the strict adherence to the code and that the variance did not meet the intent and purpose of the R-6 land use code. The parking requirements for the second unit were discussed in the staff report to the Zoning Administrator dated November 4 , 1996, in which staff indicated that third parking space would be in tandem. In order to approve the third parking space in tandem certain findings under Section 84-24 . 1006 of the Code need to be made. They are as follows: 1. No other physically viable parking options exist on the subject property. 2 . Parking will not intrude into any of the required front or sideyard setback areas; and 3 . No more than two vehicles may be parked in tandem. Prior to the County Planning Commission hearing April 8 , 1997 , staff acquired an accurately scaled drawing of the subject property from the previous application. Using this plot plan as a base staff determined that in order to accommodate the tandem parking space as identified on the plot plan in the Commission' s staff report, a variance to the sideyard setback would be necessary. The applicant has not provided staff with any justification for approving this variance. The decision of the Commission was appealed by applicants, Patrick Drovin & Chris Balke. The appeal letter is included with this Board Order. The issues of appeal are summarized below with staff response. Issue #1: Ordinance 87-67 (Second Unit Ordinance) was not taken when the application was approved. 3 . Staff Response 11: While it is true that the Board of Supervisors recognizes that there is a shortage of housing at rents affordable levels to low and moderate income households. The Board also recognizes that there are certain code requirements that must be met to ensure that marginal development does not occur and the unit proposed meets all applicable County code. The unit as proposed requires a a- foot 6-inch variance to the side and rearyard setback requirements and also requires a variance to the number of stories , 3 stories - 2 . 5 stories permitted. The lot is considered substandard because of the 55-foot average width (60-feet minimum required) . Lots within the area are of similar size. The Commission found that no unique circumstances existed to warrant exception from the County Code. Issue #2: "Denial of the permit use greatly affects our rights and property values. This decision does not comply with the general policy of Contra Costa County which encourages second units and the Planning Commission' s findings are not supported by evidence. " Staff Response #2: The Zoning Administrator in denying the application stated that it would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties within the vicinity, no special circumstances or conditions exist due to the size shape topography, location or surrounding that would warrant deviation from the strict adherence to the code and that the variance did not meet the intent and purpose of the R-6 land use code. The evidence in the file consisted of the site plan, provided by the applicant, showing the boundaries of the subject property supported by the County Assessor's Parcel Book, the elevations of the proposed second unit, indicating the proposed unit was three stories, a field visit by the Zoning Administrator and the County Code Section 26-2 . 2006 (Variance Findings) and Section 26-2 . 2008 (Conditional Use Permit Findings) . This same information was made available to the County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission specifically continued the matter from April 8 , 1997 to April 22 , 1997 to conduct a field visit and review all the information and testimony presented. Though the Commission recognized that three story structures and reduced setbacks were located within the neighborhood, there was no evidence in the record to support the findings required by County Code Section 26-2 . 2006 as identified by the County Zoning Administrator. Issue #3: The appellant indicates that the Commission erroneously assumed that it was not their intent to make separate water and sewer connections and "fear this was one of the reasons for denial. " Staff Response #3 : The conditions of approval presented by staff to the County Zoning Administrator required the applicant to meet all the requirements of the local sanitary district and water district, which means separate connections for water and sewer to the second unit. The Commission questioned staff if they could waive the requirements which required separate water and sanitary connections. Staff indicated that the code requirements of the sanitary district and water district are not under the jurisdiction of the County and, therefore, could not be amended. Since it is not under the jurisdiction of the County, there is no evidence to suggest the Commission assumed that the applicant was not willing to make the required connections. Issue #4: The applicant was not provided a copy of the staff report prior to the April 8, 1997 meeting. 4 . Staff Response 14: The applicant testified at the April 8, 1997 public hearing before the Commission. The applicant did not indicate that they had not received a copy of the staff report. Additionally, the applicant did not request a continuance to review the staff report. Issue #5: The applicant included an addendum which requested approval for a small addition to the main house. This item was never discussed at the hearing. Staff Response #5: The addition requested by the applicant was not legally noticed for public hearing before the County Planning Commission. The requested addition falls under the County's Small Lot Ordinance. Any proposal would require a notification to neighbors within 300 feet of the requested addition and an opportunity to request a public hearing. This request would be processed under a separate application. Based on the evidence in the record and review of the appeal letter, staff finds that there is no new information which was not presented to the County Planning Commission at the time of their decision. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission and deny the appeal . Alternatively, if the Board finds merit in the application, staff has included the April 8, 1997 Conditions of Approval as presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. DJC/aa BD/2018-89 .DJC ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.7 July 22, 1997 Agenda This being the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of Patrick Drovin and Geertje Chris Balke (Appellants and Owners) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeal on the application to approve the legalization of an existing second dwelling unit in a detached accessory structure for the second residence. The second residence is to have a 3 foot 6 inch side and rear yard setbacks (10 feet side and 15 feet rear required), and a variance is requested for the existing third story (2 & 1/2 stories are allowed).(County File #LP 2018-89), Richmond area. Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Department presented the staff report on this matter. The following people presented testimony: Chris Balke-Drovin, appellant and owner, 5987 Clement Ave., San Pablo; Jan Balke, 5987 Clement Ave., San Pablo; Anne Ruffino, P.O. Box 6394, San Pablo; Sylvia Mortgat, 1750 Golden Gate, Richmond; All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the issues presented. Supervisor Canciamilla moved that the appeal be granted based on the findings contained in the November 4, 1996, staff report, (attached) and that the variances be limited to five years. Debbie Chamberlain clarified, that granting the appeal on the second unit included a variance as to structure height, and side and rear yard setbacks. Vic Westman, County Counsel, advised that the variances can be limited to 5 years and when they expire, and if they are not renewed, there will no longer be a right to the second use of the property. Supervisor Gerber seconded the motion. Supervisor Uilkema questioned the status of the kitchen, and Supervisor Canciamilla acknowledged the motion included kitchen facilities. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is CLOSED; the appeal is GRANTED; and the Conditions of Approval (attached as Exhibit A), are APPROVED for a period of 5 years. Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1996 - 1:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION PATRICK & CHRIS DROWN (Applicants & Owners), County File 92018-89: The applicant requests approval to legalize an existing second dwelling unit in an existing detached accessory structure under the Second Unit Ordinance on a substandard lot. Rear and sideyard variances are requested for the second residence. The second residence is to have a 3-foot 6-inch side and rear (10-feet side and 15-feet rear required, respectively, and a variance is requested for the existing third story (2'/2 stories allowed). The subject property is described as follows: A descriptive parcel fronting for 44.59 feet on the north side of Clement Avenue approximately 100 feet west of North Arlington Boulevard in the Richmond area. The site address is#5987 Clement Avenue. (R-16) (ZA: J-5) (CT 3690.00) (Parcel #419-112-026) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this request for a second unit be approved with revisions and limitations and subject to attached conditions. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The site is designated Single Family Residential-High Density on the County General Plan. B. Zoning: The site is zoned Single Family Residential - R-6. C. CEOA Status: The application is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303-A, Class 3A, the erection of three or fewer residential structures in an urban area. D. Previous Application: Land Use Permit 2124-84 was a request to establish a second dwelling unit under the then existing State law, Senate Bill 1534. That application was heard in 1984 and was denied by the County Planning Commission on appeal after denial by the County Zoning Administrator. E. Surrounding Areas: High density, older residential area consisting of various sized lots on hilly terrain. The site is within the Alquist-Priolo zone for the Hayward Fault. 2 IV. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Archaeological Review: There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. B. Health Services Department,Environmental Health Division: 1. Sewage disposal serving the properties concerned in this Land Use Permit shall be provided by the West•Contra Costa Sanitary District. 2. Water supply serving the properties concerned shall be by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. 3. Any deviations or changes affecting the concept of the land use-Permit on file with the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division, dated February 22, 1989 shall be resubmitted for review to determine if such deviations or changes for the land use permit can be considered acceptable to the Health Services Officer.. C. West County Fire Protection District: No comments on this application. D. Building Inspection Department: Site survey required. E. City of San Pablo: No comments on this application. F. East Bay Municipal Utility District: No comments on this application. G. County Geologist: The site is within the State mandated Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone, or geologic reports are required for certain projects including three story structures. The purpose of such report is to evaluate, by geologic investigation, the hazard of surface fault rupture. The rupture hazard is not mitigatable when a fault displaces the ground below the structure. It should be noted that as a single family residence of wood frame construction, the structure would be exempt from the geologic report requirements if it were no more than two stories as defined by the Uniform Building Code. The structure site has not been investigated in accordance with Alquist-Priolo Act. According to most geologic maps the site is near or astride the Wild Cat Fault, which is not considered to be active, but is subject to re- activation during an earthquake on the adjacent Hayward Fault. The Hayward Fault is within approximately 500 feet of the site. With these renovations then the structure is exempt from the Alquist-Priolo Act concerns. 3 It should be noted that in discussions with the County Geologist it was felt that it would be difficult to do any type of meaningful geologic survey on this site to determine the exact trace of any fault crossing this small parcel in light of the fact that there are many old slides in this area and it would be very difficult to establish in any reasonable fashion the location of any fault traces on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The site and surrounding area is within an area map as disturbed grounds by the State Division of Mines&Geology. This implies shallow landslide conditions, and effects the area of approximately 40 acres around the site. It is doubtful that the structures, foundation construction took this into account. Summary and Recommendation: The site may be subject to geologic hazards of fault .rupture and landsliding, each alone, or together during an earthquake. The construction of the structure did not meet State and local requirements to mitigate these hazards. Therefore, I recommend that the application be denied. H. West Contra Costa Sanitary District: Sanitary facilities are under the jurisdictions of the West Contra Costa Sanitary District in this area. The sanitary facilities are available for the proposed development subject to the following conditions: 1. Plot plan requires district approval. 2. Appropriate permit and connection fees to be paid prior to connection to main. 3. WCCSD approval is required prior to finalizing permit or prior to granting certificate of occupancy at the second residence. I. El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning_Committee.: The Committee did not submit any comments on this request. V. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS The attached conditions of approval include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be aware of the County Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. The access to this property is very close to North Arlington Boulevard. The applicant should be required to show that they have adequate off-street parking and that the driveway entrance off of Clement Avenue can be negotiated from both directions or modify it so that it can be. 4 VI. STAFF EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL A. Site Description: There are two existing structures on the site and an existing two- story residence and the three-story structure that was built originally as a shed in the early 1980s. There is a one-car garage in the existing residence and a one-car garage within the existing structure that is use as a second residence. There is ample parking on the site in that there is a driveway serving the properties and parking on the side as well as in front of the structure that is presently used as a second residence. It appears that these accesses can be easily negotiated from the street fronting on the site which is Clement Avenue. The applicant recently submitted a floor plan for the existing residence as requested in 1989 and a plot plan showing site improvements thus making application complete. _ The site contains a bare minimum of 6,000 square feet of land and the structure being used as a second unit was built at the rear corner of the site with approximately 3'/2-foot sideyards. The second unit contains about 930 square feet of area. Tandem parking in front of the garage in the second unit will be required to allow for three parking spaces on the site as required by the Second Unit Ordinance. As mentioned above, the structure was originally built as a shed and a building permit was issued for that purpose. The previous owner had requested a land use permit approval to convert the shed structure into a second residence. That application, which was filed under previous law and previous County Ordinance prior to the adoption of the present second unit ordinance, was denied after three hearings before the Zoning Administrator in 1984. If this application is approved, variances for setbacks will have to be approved for the residential second unit and if the residential second unit stands as presently designed a story variance will also have to be granted in that it is a 3-story structure. The overall height of the second residence is 35 feet, which is the maximum height allowed in the single family residential zone. B. Description of Surrounding Area: The surrounding area is a single family residential area designated Single Family Residential-High Density on the County General Plan. The lots are small and many of them are rather narrow being 40 to 50 feet wide with a number of the lots with a rather great depth. The lots surrounding the site are generally of the same size as the site or somewhat larger. The area is generally completely developed with single family residences, many of whom have variances from present day standards. 5 C. Application History: This application was filed originally under the previous law in effect in 1989. Staff had a number of concerns over the development of the site in light of the previous approval, denial of a similar request and other concerns involving site geology, over building of the site, etc. The applicant at one time indicated that they may want to withdraw the application and it has been a long time in getting to hearing. Staff would like to apologize for this, this should have been to hearing sometime ago. In any case, staff now recommends that this item be brought to hearing and decision made one way or the other as to whether the existing structure can continue to be used as a second unit, as presently exists, continue to be used as a second unit with some reduction in overall floor area so that the need for a third story variances is eliminated, used as a second unit for the present occupants only, or a decision that the request for the use of the site as a second residence be denied and that the structure then become non-habitable and be used as a shed or storage area. It should be noted that since the late 1980s the site has been used, to the best of staffs knowledge, as a second unit. D. Regulatory, Concerns: 1. Active Fault Zone: As mentioned above the site is within the Alquist-Priolo area for the Hayward Fault. 2. Flood Hazard: The subject property is within Flood Zone C of minimal flooding for this area of the County. 3. 60 dBA Noise Control Zone: Site is not within the 60 dBA noise control zone. 4. Redevelopment Area: The site is not within a redevelopment district. E. Geologic Concerns: As mentioned by the County Geologist memorandum, staff has major concerns regarding this application as it relates to-the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Act. As mentioned by the County Geologist the site is near the Hayward Fault, a major fault that runs through much of the East Bay Area. The reason for Alquist-Priolo Act concerns over wooden frame structures over 3- stories or more is that there is problems they can run into because of the tallness in relation to their overall size and the problems they may have during the ground shaking of a major earthquake. But staff believes that with some chane in this structure so that it becomes a 2'/z story structure under the County Zoning Ordinance and more importantly a two story structure under definitions of the Building Code that then perhaps this structure could be used as a second unit. Therefore, staff 6 would recommend that within 90 days of the approval of this land use permit, if it should be approved, that the applicant be required to obtain a building permit to renovate the structure so that it becomes a two story structure under the Uniform Building Code or a 21/2 story structure under the County Zoning Ordinance. F. Revisions Recommended by Staff: As mentioned above, staff recommends that if this application is approved a building permit for it be required that would, among other tlungs, remodel the second unit structure. The second unit also will have to be remodeled so that it is exempt from the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Act. If that entails any physical lowering of this structure, then staff recommends that that be required as part of this land use pen-nit. However, the exact determination of what has to be done to the structure would be done by the Building Inspection Department to make it a 2 story structure under the Uniform Building Code. Staff is of the opinion that if the Zoning Administrator approves the application that the sideyard variances should be approved in that the structure exists on the site presently and it would be very difficult to lift it up and trove it and probably serve no good purpose to have the usual 15-foot rearyard or the usual 5-foot sideyard. Whether this structure remains as a shed oris used as a second residence makes no effect on its intrusion into the views of neighbors within the area. The structure was built with a building permit under the previous code that allowed a shed to have a height similar to that of a house. Staff recommends that if this is approved the Drovins be required to contact neighbors that border upon the area of the site where the second residence is located and that they plant suitable row of trees if that is the wish of the neighbors to help screen their structure from the neighboring property. Because of the location of this second unit staff recommends that the trees be planted on the neighbor's property if that is the wish of the neighbor. If the neighbors do not want-or will not allow the Drovins to have trees planted on their site, then that requirement can be deleted in the future. This should be accomplished within 90 days of the effective date of this permit. VIL ALTERNATIVE As an alternative the Zoning Administrator could approve this land use permit for use by the Drovin's parents only. The Drovins parents are the present occupants of the second unit. If this is the decision then when the parents of the Drovins no longer live in the structure it would have to be converted back into a shed. 7 VIII. CONCLUSION Based upon the above staff report, on the long term nature and the failure to have this application to hearing in a timely manner, staff recommends that the request be approved subject to the applicant remodeling the structure so that it conforms to the Uniform Building Code requirements that it be a two story structure. Staff would allow it to remain as a 21/2 story structure under the County Zoning Ordinance provided that it complies with the requirements of the building code to have this structure be a 2 story structure. The findings as outlined in Article 26-2.2006 and,Article 26-2.2008 as well as those in the Second Unit Ordinance under Article 82-24.1002 can be made. If the Zoning Administrator sees merit in limiting the time the structure can continue to be used as a second unit to the time in which Mr. & Mrs. Drovin's parents live there, the following condition should be added: The second unit can only be used by Mr. & Mrs. Drovin's parents. The permit is not transferable. When the Drovin's parents no longer live in the structure it shall be made a non-habitable structure by removal of the kitchen facilities. AB/aa LPV/2018-89.AB 10/23/96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Patrick & Chris Drovin APPLICATION NO. LP892018 5987 Clement Ave. San Pablo, CA 94806 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 419-112-026 OWNER: Same as above ZONING DISTRICT: R-6 APPROVED DATE: 7/22/97 EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/22/97 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a final development plan, land use permit and rezoning, subject to the attached conditions. HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department t � By: -°-�-� f' Dennis Barry, Deputy Director PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. The Clerk of the Board will provide you a copy of the Board Order with approved Conditions of Approval. This permit will expire ONE YEAR from the effective date of this permit. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2018-89 AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON JULY 22, 1997 1. The proposed structure(s) shall be similar to that shown on revised plans received October 10, 1996 and February 10, 1997 (addition to existing residence) by the Community Development Department. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building shall be subject to the final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the buildings shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened from view. 2. Approval is granted to allow for(a) variance(s) to (setbacks/height/parking standards, etc.) that meet the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: 5-feet sideyard required by zoning ordinance. 3-feet sideyard approved. 15-feet rearyard required by zoning ordinance. 3-feet rearyard approved. 2-1/2 story structure required by zoning ordinance. 3-story structure approved if waiver from State Geologist is granted. The variances are approved for a maximum of five (5) years. 3. Within 180 days of the effective date of this permit, a building permit shall be obtained to remodel the second unit into a 2-1/2 story structure. As an alternative the applicant/owner can request and receive a waiver from the State Geologist in regards to the procedure under the Alquist-Priolo Act to allow the three story structure. 4. The second unit and principal residence exteriors shall be of similar style and design. Prior to issuance of building permits for the second unit, applicant shall submit color samples for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 5. Applicant shall comply with the Residential Second Unit Ordinance - Chapter 82-24 as follows: A. The second residential unit shall provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. B. The second unit shall consist of permanent provisions for food preparation, eating, sleeping, water, and sanitation. C. The second unit shall remain clearly subordinate in size, appearance and location to the principal residence. 2 D. No more than one dwelling unit on the property may be rented, leased or occupied by persons other than the property owners. E. Three(3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on site. Location of the parking must be shown on the plans for building permit. F. The second unit may not exceed 1,000 square feet in size. 6. Proof of recordation of the following disclosure of deed restrictions shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit: "You are purchasing a property with a permit for a residential second unit. This permit carries with it certain conditions that must be met by the owner of the property. The permit (LP 892018) is available from the current owner or from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department." 7. Within 90 days of the effective date of this permit, the owner/applicant shall have contacted the neighboring property owners to the north and east to determine whether or not they would want, and be-agreeable to having a row of trees on approximately 20 feet centers planted along their common property line. If a neighbor is agreeable, trees shall be planted within 180 days of the effective date of this permit. The owner/applicant shall submit a copy of the written agreement between neighbors to either plant or not plant trees. Failure to accomplish this in a timely manner could result in the revocation of this permit. Trees may be up to 15 gallon in size. AB/DJC/aa LPV/2018-89c.AB 10/23/96 3/27/97 7/22/97 - B/S (a)