Homeowners in a new development on Spring Hill road may find the
fence they have assumed was their property line is beyond the open
space easement and not actually the property line. The development
is located on the south side of Spring Avenue, adjacent to the west
side of the Mount Hope cemetery, at the base of a hill.
Homeowners in a new development on Spring Hill road may find the fence they have assumed was their property line is beyond the open space easement and not actually the property line.
The development is located on the south side of Spring Avenue, adjacent to the west side of the Mount Hope cemetery, at the base of a hill.
A plan for the project was adopted by the City Council in October 1999. Developer/owner Andy Latala of Westpol Properties presented a plan then, which was approved, for the development which included a development limit line requiring all land on slopes in excess of 10 percent to be left as open space.
According to a report from city staff, the purpose of the limit line was to prohibit the encroachment of backyard improvements up the hillside.
Latala in a letter asked the council to consider at the Aug. 20 meeting increasing the boundaries of 14 of the 21 lots in the development to the 20 percent slope line.
Council voted 4-0 to deny the request.
Latala did not attend the meeting.
Homeowner Larry Toliver told the council he was been mislead when he purchased his home.
“I bought the property with the understanding that this was my land within the fenced area,” he said. “Not to put up a structure on, but at least to beautify … I also understood that perhaps in the future, even the land behind the fence could be beautified.”
There is a “v” ditch drainage swale that runs behind the properties before the fence, which is the actual 10 percent line. When developing the properties, developers apparently installed the fence beyond this “v” ditch.
Stuart Whitter, a homeowner in the area before the property was developed, asked the council to honor its previous agreement with the developer.
“You can’t add anything new now,” he said. “The developer went into this knowing about the open space boundary. I am asking the City Council to reject the proposal based on the agreement with the community, the agreement with the developer and solid business sense. Where does all this stop? I think it has to stop with the original agreement.”
Homeowner Alan Palmer, who is a resident of the adjacent housing development, added that some of the homes in the development are larger than specified in the original plan, some in excess of 4,100-square-feet. He asked that the council not only reject Latala’s application but also that any property beyond the original agreed-upon boundary be returned to its original state.
