April 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the property owners. Mr. Talley asked that the COA be put into committee. President Oxian replied it already was. He elaborated that this was not a formal meeting due to a lack of a quorum and that he would not put the issue to Committee unless it was put to Committee at the formal hearing. Mr. Talley stated that the owners of 1081 Riverside Drive were under the impression that some of the plantings in question were on their property and they would take whatever legal action they could to stand in the way of the execution of the COA if it is approved. President Oxian inquired of Mrs. Hendriksen what planting were on the property line. Mrs. Hendriksen stated that according to the stakes put up by Mr. Talley's surveyor, the proposed changes were all on the side of 1077 Riverside Drive. She added her understanding at the meeting with the owners of 1081 Riverside Drive was they approved of the changes she had proposed. Mrs. DeRose said it appeared at least two of the proposed items had nothing to do with the property line and the two that possibly could be disputed would be disputed at the owners sufferance. Mrs. DeRose stated if the COA was approved and the owner took the action and the work turned out to be on the neighboring property, it was a private dispute. Mr. Talley said he did not dispute Counsel, but he was under the impression after the November Commission meeting that the Commission had made some strong recommendations requiring 1081 to seek further legal counsel which has resulted in $4,500 fees to date. He reported the owners of 1081 were not advised of any changes to the ruling of the Commission and have incurred additional expenses operating under the impression that no landscaping was to be addressed without both property owners having a survey. Mrs. DeRose indicated even from a reading of the first minutes the point was that any landscape changes by either party required a COA. She added a further refinement of that was that any change of landscaping on a disputed property line would involve a survey or something to resolve the differences of the owners. Mrs. DeRose stated the Commission was trying to tell the property owners that it cannot become involved in property line disputes. Mr. Talley interjected that the Commission had become involved. Mrs. DeRose said the Commissions involvement was only to the extent of saying if the COA involves a property line dispute the owners would need to get their evidence to determine the property line. Mr. Talley agreed and added that 1081 had indeed presented that information as a preliminary survey. Mr. Talley restated the belief that the COA proposal was for plant material involved in the disputed property. Mrs. DeRose said if the Commission approved landscape changes, even on a disputed boundary line, all the COA said was this was a historically appropriate change. Mr. Talley stated the owners of 1081 were mandated to make changes to their COA of November 1994 based upon testimony given by the owners of 1077 Riverside Drive which he believed to be perjured information. He added 1081 Riverside Drive had never been advised of changes made to the directives issued by the Commission. IIe said Counsel's statement that Commission rulings were based upon historical appropriateness was shown to be inaccurate when looking at the requirements made for the COA for 1081 Riverside Drive. He noted that they were required to make changes in their COA based on the property line dispute and alleged damage to trees. Mrs. DeRose questioned if Mr. Talley's proposal had been for the removal of trees or shrubbery. Mr. Talley replied negatively. fie reported due to property line question raised by the owners of 1077 Riverside Drive, the owners of 1081 had a survey done. The surveyor determined there was plant material overhanging or on the property line. Plant material was not addressed in the COA application made by 1081 Riverside Drive, however the owners of 1077 brought up the issue at the Commission meeting and the Commission made a judgment on the COA based on that information. Mr. Talley noted the objection of the owners of 1081