December 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

work was begun. Mr. Duvall clarified that Mr. Talley never maintained the concrete of the driveway was ever splayed, but maintained that there was a straight shot of concrete and off to the side was a small triangular area which contained basically what is now proposed- paving bricks and patio blocks. He continued this area may have been grown over or unused and not terribly evident, but he could not verify this one way or the other because he did not anticipate this dispute and did not take observation to that level of detail. He restated that the fundamental question was in regard to the in-kind replacement which was first permitted. He stated it was true the filling in of the area that had pavers with solid concrete was a divergence from the in-kind replacement for which the COA was given. He explained the. issue now is whether brick pavers are substantially different than concrete pavers or whatever was filling in the space before and whether that accumulated material was substantial enough to be accredited as pavement. President Oxian gave his opinion that no one had a COA application for removal of the shrubs and trees, so to him that was a moot point and removal of them would be illegal. He also noted the King-Hendriksens had both agreed the brick material would be better than concrete because the Norway Maple had already been damaged and this tree was not on the property line, so he didn't see how approving this COA was going to hurt anyone and would make parking for 1081 Riverside Drive easier. He further stated anything beyond that would be turned ovor to the, Commission's Legal Counsel and the Commission would not do anything further until the situation was settled. Commissioner Choitz disagreed. She stated tier opinion that the flange was too wide and surely Staff had never approved anything that came up to the driveway ribbon so unsmoothly. Mr. Duvall clarified for Mr. Talley that Commissioner Choitz was referring to the right: angle of the apron at the point at which it connected with the ribbon of the drive. She asked to see what the Staff approved and suggested tabling the application until more details could be given. Mr. Talley stated the apron was not too wide because his tires barely fit on the apron now. Commissioner Choitz inquired if the area had been mud before. President Oxian referred Coiiimissioner Choitz to Mr. Duvall's statement. of Mr. Talley's contention that the previous material was various pavers. Mr. Talley reminded the Commission that although they must give approval for the trees to be removed, the issue is a legal dispute involving boundaries and the owners of 1077 Riverside Drive had done nothing to address that issue. Mr. Talley accused the owners of 1077 Riverside Drive of going around the neighborhood telling people he. had not followed procedure and he assessed this to be harassment. Commissioner Choitz noted how often boundary disputes have been settled peacefully. Mr. Talley noted he had never been involved with anything like this dispute before either. Commissioner Choitz related her belief that the letter Mr. Talley had sent to the King-Hendriksens was outrageous. Mr. Talley disagreed. President Oxian interrupted and asked that one person speak at a time and wait to be recognized by the President. He pointed out the Commission had heard from both parties and now it was time for Commissioners to ask questions. Commissioner Bullene asked the King-Hendriksens if they had any objection to the shrubbery being left as is. Mrs. Hendriksen stated their belief that the shrubberies are theirs and emphasized they did not want anything to happen to them. President- Oxian asked that the Commissioners stick to the issue filed on the COA. Commissioner Bullene inquired if Mr. Talley's intention was to remove the shrubbery and charge the owners of 1077 Riverside Drive. President Oxian stated no one can remove them without a COA. Mr. Talley confirmed lie had no intention of doing so. President Oxian added that was why