January 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

applicant. She stated that with regard to this (fence) project that the direct • neighbors had been informed in conversation and that she had explained the necessity of fencing for her dog. At this time, a neighbor mentioned the HPC but her fencing contractor had stated that no permit had ever been required. She expressed the presumption that someone had complained and that her direct experiences with others in the neighborhood since the fence was erected were of four individuals who were pleased with its appearance. Mr. Talley expressed that the purpose of the commission was to assist owners and enforce regulations which were developed by the neighborhood, and that he hoped that she would not take these proceedings as someone trying to pick on her. He stated that the commission was in a peculiar position as he felt her property looked quite nice but that the commission was charged with maintaining the established standards for the neighborhood. Mr. Talley asked if there was any documentation regarding the condition of the hedge. Ms. Lackman stated that having been unaware of need, that she had prepared none. She went on to state that both the house and yard had suffered years of neglect prior to her purchase of it. The hedge had been allowed to grow without pruning and therefore would have been bare after shaping to its proper form. Neighbors had complained to her of the appearance of the hedge. She further stated that there had been a concrete paved dog kennel with rusted metal fencing in the rear yard. She is working with Faidley and Custom & Moore to retain the plant specimen in the yard which are of value. Fr. Bullene inquired as to how far forward the hedge had come. Ms. Lackman indicated that it had extended to the sidewalk. He noted that the standards forbid fencing forward of the front of the house but do not address hedge barrier at this • location. He recognized that he could support the motion on the floor. Mrs. Hostetler called this question. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Lackman added that her fencing contractor had indicated that there was some deviation in height requirements from Mishawaka to South Bend. The chair then entertained a motion regarding the fencing. Jerry Wiener moved that the commission approve the white PVC fencing. Mr. Borkowski seconded this motion. Ms. Lackman noted that the fence enclosing the tennis court across the street extends forward of the setback line. Mr. Talley inquired of counsel as to the advisability of splitting the fence discussion into front and rear parts. Mrs. DeRose indicated that she felt this was advisable in these circumstances and that she felt the discussion would center on the front portion. Mr. Wiener amended his motion restricting approval to the fencing behind the front setback. Mr. Borkowski seconded this amendment. Mr. Wiener then sought to verify that a building permit was required for the fence. Mr. Duvall replied that when he had received a complaint regarding the fence that he had referred it to the Building Department who had proceeded to place a stop work order on the project. Therefore no permit has subsequently been purchased for the fencing as one would not be issued without a COA. Hearing no more questions, the chair called the question. The motion was passed unanimously. Mrs. DeRose suggested that the chair proceed to the remaining conforming issues. So doing, the chair requested a motion regarding the planting beds. Fr. Bullene moved that the commission approve the planting beds in the rear • yard. Mr. Talley seconded the motion. Bearing no discussion, the chair called the question. The motion passed unanimously. The chair then requested a motion regarding the fencing extending along the west property line forward of the front setback. Mr. Talley moved to deny this item from the application. Mr. Wiener seconded the motion. Mrs. Hostetler inquired or Staff what the applicant's course of action would be in the case