Bay Drive project gets a split decision

Approval of a project proposed more than 10 years ago by Charles and Valerie Griswold for their property on Bay Drive in Three Arch Bay came down to one foot on Tuesday.

The City Council wrestled for more than an hour to determine whether the proposed eaves atop an elevator enclosure should be 1-foot wide, 6 inches wide or be eliminated altogether before approving the wider width. The project has been in the works since 1997, a woeful history of reviews, revisions, a request for a rarely heard permit revocation hearing, acrimony, accusations of fraud and dishonest conduct and litigation.

“It has been an emotional and financial nightmare for the Griswolds,” said their attorney Gene Gratz, who represented the family at public hearings. “But as far as the city is concerned, as of Tuesday, the Griswolds will be allowed to proceed with construction.”

However, neighbors who have opposed the project have an appeal pending in the Fourth District Court of Appeals on a previous council approval of revisions made at the Dec. 5, 2006, meeting. The opponents firmly believe and have alleged publicly that measurements on plans were fudged and approvals were based on fraudulent information.

“That challenge was denied by the trial judge and city Attorney Philip Kohn’s motion to dismiss was granted,” Gratz said. “They have no case, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they appealed Tuesday’s decision in court.”

Sid and Lesley Danenhauer have been battling the project for about 10 years, Craig and Kathleen Miller for five years.

“We believe we are fighting for the right thing, accurate plans and following the rules,” Sid Danenhauer said.

The Griswolds hired local architect Jim Conrad in 1997, and the plans he prepared were approved in 1998.

Although the Danenhauers opposed the project at the Design Review Board hearings, they did not appeal the approval to the council.

Despite a delay in the Coastal Commission process, a building permit was issued, then revoked in 2003 by Community Development Director John Montgomery when he determined that the coastal development permit was not properly issued.

The Griswolds appealed the permit revocation to the council in June 2004 and the building permit was reinstated, bitterly opposed by the Danenhauers and the Millers, but not appealed to the court, which was their right.