COA APPLICATION #2020-0302: NORTHERN INDIANA HISTORIC SOCIETY INC. V. SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked what they planned to do with the house. Mr. Shaffer clarified that they had a large family and that it would be used by their children when they come to town, and that they do not intend to rent the property out. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko clarified that she is curious about the future replatting of the property or whether it would be combined with the property on Jefferson. Mr. Shaffer stated they removed the fence at the rear of their Jefferson property around their pool, which then required that they have a fence elsewhere to comply with the fence requirement for the pool. And that if they went to sell the property, they would be forced to erect a new fence along the property line. Commissioner Down-Krostenko asked for clarification regarding double -lot properties that have fences, that are technically are in violation of the guidelines. Specialist Toering clarified that there are at least three lots that have fences forward of the set -back lines. Administrator Feasel clarified that these may have been approved by the Commission. Specialist Toering clarified that there is a fence at the west end of East Wayne Street on Eddy Street, and another on the corner of Jefferson that is quite obscured by greenery that is quite old. Both of these fences are believed to predate the establishment of the district. All of these properties indicated are comer lots. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification regarding the precedence that would be set by approving this project, specifically with regards to double -lot properties that were not corner lots. Commissioner Deegan clarified that this property would be the only lot that would have fence material forward of the setback, but it is not the only lot that is a double lot. Commissioner Gelfman asked for clarification on the amount of the setback. Mr. Shaffer stated that the setback may be some 20' to the hedge. Specialist Toering approximated the measurement of the setback to the house (based upon MACOG's website) to be Commissioner Andrews asked if replatting the property should be more concerning to the Commission. Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that this would be a zoning administration question. Further, if the fence does not comply with the zoning setback. Specialist Toering clarified that were the project applied for the fence in line with the setback of the house, staff would have administratively approved the project, as it would then comply with the standards and guidelines. Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked for clarification as to whether the existing fence was in violation of both the Zoning ordinance and Historic Preservation. Specialist Toering clarified that the fence is violation of the Historic Preservation Standards & Guidelines. Mr. Shaffer stated that `they' said it was ok. Legal Counsel Kennedy clarified that the zoning ordinance is not necessarily the Commission's concern, but whether the project complied with the Standards & Guidelines. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: N/A PUBLIC DISCUSSION: N/A Commissioner Downs-Krostenko made a motion to deny COA#2020-0403, in favor of the relocation of the fence along the sidewalk back so that it is parallel to the corner of the house. Seconded by Commissioner Stalheim. Six in favor, none opposed. Vote: 6 — 0. Motion to deny COA #2020-0403 passes.