January 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

plant material for the removed hedge. Mr. Wiener assented that this might be • so but expressed concern regarding the precedent of allowing such a fence. Mrs. DeRose noted that the fence covered with shrubs might meet this criteria but as it stands it is clearly non -conforming. Mr. Talley indicated that he believed the fence was also in violation of the broader fence regulations in the municipal code regarding setback. He called the question, however Mrs. Hostetler suggested that she believed it better to send the application to committee. Mr. Talley then withdrew his previous motion and moved to rescind the vote approving the rear fence. This motion was seconded by Mr. Borkowski. The motion passed unanimously. After verifying the applicants intention to sign the waiver, Mr. Talley then moved to table the application to Standards and Maintenance committee as discussed. This was approved unanimously. Ms. Lackman inquired as to whether she should solicit neighbors regarding modification of the guidelines. Mrs. Hostetler indicated that this would not be recommended but that she should contact the neighborhood association regarding their liaison responsibilities in assisting owners with historic district requirements and noted that Jed Eide, a former commission member, lived in the neighborhood and might also assist her. Mr. Wiener noted that roofing work had apparently been done without proper permits. Ms. Lackman said that this was done by South Bend Roofing. Marcia Stevenson offered that this was a good example of the problem which has developed as district have become more established and properties have been sold repeatedly that owners often do not have the standards passed to them and may be unaware of the district requirements. Mr. Talley indicated that he has had discussion with the auditor's office regarding data entry in their records which will put purchaser on notice as part of the title search process. Mrs. • DeRose noted that although these guidelines are similar in purpose and intent to deed restricting covenants, that they are not attached to the deed as covenants are. The guidelines are restrictions on the use of property by law. Though presumption is made that purchasers understand that the designation carries restrictions, the law is barely satisfied by this and certainly greater efforts at public information would be useful. 3. 1995-1128; 811 Golden Avenue (LHD-RD) - Replacement of attic windows, replacement of plumbing vent pipe, & installation of cable TV service entry. Mr. Duvall distributed photographs and read the Staff Report for this proposal. Mr. Talley moved that the commission deny the application. He further noted that the applicant was not present but that he had corresponded with Mrs. DeRose. Since this correspondence was not submitted with the application nor directed to the commission office, it had not been included in the meeting packets but that the applicant might be under the impression that he had addressed the issues to the commission. Mrs, DeRose then summarized the portions of the letter which bear on the consideration (the letter is attached). Mr. Talley moved that the application be denied. Ile inquired as to his status regarding conflict of interest since lie is a neighbor to this property and is personally mentioned the applicant in some complaints contained in the letter. Mrs. DeRose stated that he was free to make the motion and give any objective statement regarding the merits of the application but that he would need to remove himself and speak as a citizen regarding personal opinions or concerns. He restated his motion for denial • giving reason that the replacement windows are not original, the roof vent does not match the other or the original, and the CCTV wires are not recommended by the guidelines. Not hearing a second, Mrs. Hostetler declared the motion dead. For the benefit of the commission members, Mrs. DeRose quoted the recently