CCP 06172024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the fence would be placed in the right of way, and that the fence cannot be built without an encroachment agreement with Roseville. At that point, all that was left to do was install one fence panel and the driveway gate. Mr. Carrara complied with the stop order and paused the completion of the fenceand gate. An April 25, 2024 letter from Mr. Freihammer statedthat the fence permit was revoked that day proper permits to work in the new fence be removed andthatthe old City fence be reinstalled by May 9, 2024. Mr. Freihammer stated that Rosevillewould remove the fenceand bill Mr. Carrarafor the removalif he did not comply. Mr. Carrara attempted to work out a solution with Roseville officials. Mr. Trudgeon, the City Manager,stated Once that is done, I believe we can have productive conversations about alternatives for locating eal by May 6. In the meantime, Roseville has takensteps to remove the fence. Roseville Code Compliance Officer, Chris Bolstad, contacted the same fence company who installed it for a quote to have it removed on May 10-13. Mr. Bolstad admitted via email that he did not know the linear footage of the fence. The fence company confirmed that Mr. Carrara was in discussions about havingit removed if necessary. Grounds for Appeal Mr. Carrara is appealingRoseville The City Code does not delineate a procedure for the revocation offencepermits within the City of Roseville.However, the reasons given by Roseville for revoking the permit were: (1.)Exceeding the scope of work approved; (2.)Removing the City fence; and (3.)Failing to secure a right of waypermit and encroachment agreement. These reasons will be addressed in turn. First, the scope of work does not exceed what was permitted.The fence that was installed is exactly what was requested and approveda6foot privacy fence that extends the widthas depicted in the proposal and permit. Simply put, the fence was installed exactly in line with the approved diagrams and description of work.Rosevillecannot post-facto revoke a permit 1 simply because Mr. Carrara did the work that was permitted. Second, the scope of work permitted by Rosevilleexpresslyincludedremovingthe Mr. Carrara confirmed with Roseville in November 2023 that he could remove the fence to install his own. Mr. Carrarasubmitted a proposal to Roseville thatstates unambiguously issued a permit that unambiguously and Њ support. The Code Compliance Officer has conceded that Roseville does not know the linear footage of the fenceand a large portion of the fence that was approved has not even been installed yet. 2 Qbhf!2:!pg!331