July 2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

get them back, apparently through the legal counsel. Her wood windows will be restored to her. I believe that when she assesses their condition, and talks to another contractor, she will either, restore the original wood windows to the front and live with the ones in the back, which are not as visible from the street, or she may seek replacement of all of them. GERALD UJDAK: Going on to item number three. 2002-0708; 909 Riverside Drive; demolish a wood frame garden house. Karen, fill us in. KAREN HAMMOND NASH: The garden house issue here is the ship4ap or Dutch lap potting shed type garden house that is in the comer of a very large formal garden. The garden has a nice view of the Saint Joseph River. This potting shed, garden house, when it was originally built, it was nicely designed and attracti-ve, a person working in it or sitting in front of it would have had a lovely panoramic view of the formal garden and the river. However, the present owners have not been able to keep up with its .maintenance. Our records have reflect that they have put $20,000 or $30,000 into repairs and partial replacement of the slate roof on their house; and a substantial amount of money put into repairing the replacement of the decorative stone walls in the front of their house. They have maintained most of their house beautifully; but, this garden shed has just completely gotten away from them. In normal circumstances, statf would say that this potting shed is a valuable, and even a character defining, or assist in being character defining element of the yard and garden and should be retained; however, our inspector's observation seems to indicate that it is dilapidated enough; that if we wanted to retain it we should have started some enforcement action earlier, an enforcement action indeed would have been difficult on a homeowner who would have done so much to heighten the rest of the property. So statY reluctantly and sorrowfully would consent to the owner's request to demolish the potting shed. JOHN OXIAN: I disagree. First of all this is a situation in which you allow this to happen; it is the same thing that happened at Oliver School. This is neglect by the property owner to purposely allow this to deteriorate. Now, just because she spent money to fix her roof or whatever else she did, fine and dandy, but, that has nothing to do with this. I don't know how long she has been the property owner there; I most likely wouldn't leave it on her, but, this is inexcusable. The excuse of saying that they spent money to fix the house up; and allowing something else to fall down is wrong, and it just doesn't add up. What you're doing is allowing something to --- GERALD UJDAK: Karen, do we have any idea ofhow long this current property owner has resided there? KAREN HAMMONDNASH: About ten years. GERALD UJDAK: It took more than ten years for this thing to rot. This has been rotting for probably forty years. JOHN OXIAN: I disagree with you there, Gerald. 7