July 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STAFF REPORT CONCERNING 5I3 RIVER AVENUE EDGEWATER PLACE HISTORIC DISTRICT At the June 2005 Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to review the fence located parallel with the front porch at S 1 River. In a previous CoA that may not have been delivered to the applicants by the previous director, the Commission approved the replacement and move of the fence with the condition that the fence be returned to its original location before or upon the sale of the property. The property is now in foreclosure, the owners are in the middle of divorce and bankruptcy proceedings, and few if any of the residents on River Avenue feel offended by this fence. The fence is a 4' tall privacy fence; the vertical slates mimic the vertical porch railings. The fence is the same height as the porch railing, and does not extend beyond the front porch of the home. The owners removed the lawn behind the fence and installed pea gravel for their large dogs. Since approval of this fence, the Commission approved a fence in the West North Shore LHD that does extend beyond the front wall of the house and has obscured their neighbor's sight lines to the river. The Commission did not require removal of this fence upon the sale of the property. There are several issues to sort through: I. Are the past owners responsible for the realignment of the fence? I would answer yes to this question, but it is complicated by the fact that we are not sure they were given proper notice of the condition. Furthermore, the past owners are in bankruptcy proceedings and have been foreclosed upon. 2. Should the requirement of the CoA pass to the next owner? I would say that this would be unfair and unwelcoming as a Commission member stated. 2. What if the Commission does require the past owners to realign the fence, and they do not comply? The only recourse would be to sue the past owner. Is this a situation that warrants a drawn out lawsuit? In my opinion, it does not. The fence is about I0 — I5 feet across and does not obscure much of the house, only a portion of the side of the house. Its a minor feature that has not damaged the house. The pea gravel will probably make the house more difficult to sell and is an expense if the next owners want to remove it professionally and time consuming if they do it themselves. Its a situation that does not warrant a lawsuit, but perhaps some patience. Conclusion It would be my hope that the next owners would not like the fence -pea gravel configuration and would want to remove the pea gravel (at least) and the fence on their own volition. A smart buyer might go for a lower price of the house to supplement the cost of removing the pea gravel and fence and planting new grass. Another option would be to contact the real estate agent for the bank and suggest that the house might sell quicker and at a higher asking price without the pea gravel and the fence.