Laserfiche WebLink
Committee Chair Davis asked, And that document in question, who agreed to that? <br /> Mr. Anderson replied, I would need to take a look at the specific parties. I know that Tasha Reid- <br /> Outlaw formally was in my office and may have been the drafter of that document along with <br /> Keenan Lane from the South Bend Police Department. <br /> Councilmember Scott asked, Which other house is owned by the property owner? <br /> Mr. Masters replied, He owns the house next door. But I did want to mention one (1)thing. Mr. <br /> Bulot mentioned something about the variances with the fence and the parking. That is not an <br /> issue before the Council. Rather, that is an issue before the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. <br /> Councilmember Scott followed up, How long has the fence been there? <br /> Mr. Masters replied, It has been there for decades. We have pictures going back twenty(20) <br /> years of that fence. It has not always been at the height. Take a look at this from my client's <br /> viewpoint. He goes to the City and asks for a permit to build the deck and they say you don't <br /> need a permit, so he builds the deck and gets sued for building the deck. There was a six foot <br /> high fence along Harris Street which has been there for decades. Under that change of the zoning <br /> code that I referenced from 2004, the area is no longer considered the backyard but is now the <br /> front yard and the limit of a fence on a front yard is three (3) feet. So even this decades old six <br /> (6) foot fence is not lawful. So my client goes and gets a permit from the City to build a six (6) <br /> foot high fence and they sue him for having a six (6)foot high fence. <br /> Mr. Anderson interjected, Just to clarify that comment, there was no suit filed based on the fence. <br /> Mr. Masters replied, Yeah, it's in your lawsuit there, take a look at it. That's one (1) of the things <br /> you enjoined. That is one (1) of the things that Mr. Bulot testified about was that fence. We have <br /> a situation where we ask for a seven(7) foot high fence and the reason is because the excise has <br /> a requirement,the Alcoholic Beverage rules,that if you have an area outside where alcoholic <br /> beverages are being served, the fence must be six(6) feet high. Because this deck is a foot up off <br /> the ground, the fence had to be raised a foot. That's why we ask for the provision to have a seven <br /> (7) foot high fence, which was granted by the ABZA. The fence had originally been there for <br /> years and it was six (6) feet high and it now has another piece on it to make it seven(7) feet high. <br /> But, like I said,my client gets a permit to build it and then gets sued for building it. <br /> Committee Chair Davis stated, With all due respect I know you see them as two (2) separate <br /> issues but these situations seem very dependent on one (1) another. You just shared with us that <br /> there could be two (2) different interpretations of the documents that you signed. If there are <br /> clear issues where there could be two (2) interpretations, why did the City sue them when there <br /> are issues that could be made? <br /> Mr. Anderson replied, Are you referencing the agreement the City made with Robert Burg? The <br /> remediation agreement states, "...due to a number of nuisance calls resulting from complaints of <br /> loud music being played outside, the owner will limit the volume of outside music to at or below <br /> 5 <br />