Laserfiche WebLink
• of such a denial. Mrs. DeRose indicated that if the denied fence remains, a <br />court order could be sought for its removal. If the fence is removed there <br />would be no remaining problem. Mr. Duvall indicated that the fence would <br />remain "red -tagged" until such time as a COA is issued and a building permit <br />is purchased. Ile noted that the previous approval of the rear -yard fence will <br />result in a COA which would enable purchase of such a permit. He noted that <br />the plan documentation had been prepared by the applicant and that Staff was <br />unaware of whatever documentation or representations had been made to the <br />applicant by the contractor. Mrs. DeRose indicated that in this case it might <br />be wise to revise the previous motion so as to prevent the contractor being <br />able to purchase a permit until after the non -complying sections have been <br />either approved or removed. Mr. Duvall indicated that it would be useful to <br />hear from Ms. Lackman regarding any correspondence she may have had with the <br />contractor regarding the stop work order and her intentions in this regard. <br />Mrs. DeRose inquired of Ms. Lackman whether additional time would be helpful <br />in discussing the issue with the contractor. She responded that she believed <br />that the contractor had acted in good faith up to this point, and that they <br />had not discussed the fence's removal and that she was not concerned about the <br />financial concerns. There was some brief discussion regarding the requirement <br />for permits in the case of such a fence and the details of such permits. Mr. <br />Talley indicated that the tennis court fence referred to had been in place <br />prior to the designation of the district. Mrs. DeRose expanded on this point, <br />that the conditions existing at the time of a district's establishment are <br />taken as the benchmark for future developments, but all alterations occurring <br />after the establishment need to conform to the standards as developed by the <br />• neighborhood committee. Mr. Fine inquired what the purpose of extending the <br />fence forward in the yard was. Ms. Lackman indicated that her intention was to <br />provide support for plant growth. <br />Mr. Talley inquired after the consequences of denial of the fence at this <br />time. Mrs. DeRose indicated that the proceeding should indicate to the <br />contractor that if the front section were to be removed, an application for <br />COA regarding the rear yard fence would probably receive approval. Ms. Lackman <br />indicated that the only discussion between her and the contractor since the <br />stop work order had involved arranging for completion of the work by <br />installing the "Gothic" caps on the posts. <br />Mr. Talley and Mrs. DeRose indicated that it appeared important an necessary <br />in this case to give clear and authoritative message to the contractor <br />regarding the requirements of the historic district and for permits in <br />general. <br />Mrs. Hostetler inquired whether it would be best to refer the matter to the <br />Standards & Maintenance Committee to meet with the contractor before taking <br />further action. Mrs. DeRose replied that this would be possible if Ms. Lackman <br />was willing to sign the waiver of the statutory limit for the commission to <br />act on her application. The waiver was explained to Ms. Lackman who concurred <br />in so signing. <br />Mr. Talley inquired about the status of the liaison committee for the East <br />Wayne Street- Historic District. Mr. Duvall indicated that whenever he has had <br />business with the neighborhood, he has contacted the neighborhood association <br />through its officers and that to his knowledge there are not individuals <br />currently performing the liaison responsibilities. Mr. Talley minuted that he <br />felt that the commission was upholding its responsibilities and that the <br />• applicant has been acting in good faith. Ile broached the subject of the <br />neighborhood amending the guidelines if in fact the fence was acceptable to <br />them. <br />Father Bullene reiterated that the fence company had acted unprofessionally in <br />constructing the fence without proper permits. He also suggested that the <br />fence, in use as a trellis might conceivable be construed as a replacement of <br />