Re: response gto J.D. ACC -- Farm People's Opinion Access

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:43:52 01/06/03 Mon
Author: Maggie
Subject: Re: response gto J.D. ACC
In reply to: George W. Taylor 's message, "response gto J.D. ACC" on 07:47:09 01/06/03 Mon

When was the last time you were in S.E. Los Angeles? Your statement is insulting, not to mention racist and demeaning.

Why did we say, no mpore chain link fences ! The
>simple answer to the question is: we did not say, no
>more chain link fences. If you were a new resident and
>drove around The Farm, one would think that this is
>becomming S.E. Los Angeles, We said no more chain link
>fences between a home and the streetline of the
>property. What we said is that it is our intention to
>approve or disapprove based on the ACC guide lines, It
>is unfortunate that one can drive around and see any
>chain link fences that enclose the area of a home
>between it and the street. Since you are speculating
>on a rumor, here is why we are simply going to
>enforce the rules, as our preticessors should have
>done, It might be that the folks who have them,
>received written permission, but even that is
>unfortunate. no one will get it from us from here on.
>Begin with the 1995 AC rules as revised in May of
>1995, at the bottom of page 5. The rule discussed the
>types of fencing allowed. and I qquote: "All fences
>must be approved by the cOMMITTEE. Block wall, Solid
>wood, grape stake, split rail and chain link ARE
>NORMALLY APPROVED. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ALL FENCES NOT TO
>EXCEED SIX FEET".
>At THE TOP OF PAGE 6 OF THE RULES INDER PROPERTY lINE
>fENCES: "Must be "good neighbor" or courtesy fences,
>which means that all poles, posts, and horizontal
>members must face to the inside of the lot. Variance
>to this requirement may be considered with written
>consent and approval of the property owner of the
>adjoining property. This variance, if granted, must
>be surrendered to the ACC for their files.
>Under, "Lots Less Than One-Half Acre: "The fencing or
>wall shall go no closer to the street than the front
>of the house, except by a written approved variance
>from the ACC.
>
>Under Front Property Line: it states "Only decorative
>fencing not more than 40 inches high and defined as
>open, such as split rail, wrought iron, etc., will be
>approved.
>THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE DID NOT SAY NO MORE CHAIN
>LINK FENCES, IN EFFECT WE SAID WE ARE GOING TO ENFORCE
>THE RULES. WE CAN NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE PAST, BUT
>WE SURELY CAN ENFORCE WHAT GOES ON TODAY AND BEYOND.
>IF YOU WANT A FENCE TO ENCLOSE YOUR STREET SIDE
>PROPERTY, IT IS GOING TO BE AS STATED WITH OUR
>APPROVAL OR NOT AT ALL.
>HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
>RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, IN BEHALD OF THE ACC
>GEORGE W. TAYLOR
>PHASE REPRESENTATIVE FOR PHASES 2,3 & 4

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]