Owner seeks 6-foot privacy fence at 3900 East Market; committee continues case 60 days to pursue shared-parking, liability talks

The Logansport Architectural Review Committee continued for 60 days a petition from Joe Picosola seeking a minor development-plan review to permit a 6-foot chain-link fence with privacy slats along part of the west side of the property at 3900 East Market Street.

The petition (case 26-06) was read by the recording secretary and the petitioner explained the fence is intended to prevent people from crossing adjacent business parking areas onto his parcel and to reduce the petitioner’s liability exposure. The petitioner said previous attempts at agreements with neighboring businesses produced mixed results after ownership and management changes.

Committee members and nearby property representatives pressed for alternatives to a permanent six-foot privacy fence, citing the area’s PUD aesthetic and the possibility of less-permanent solutions: planting, freestanding planters, concrete or Jersey barriers, and negotiated shared-parking agreements (REA). One committee member said the board would prefer to explore options before approving a visibly permanent fence.

The petitioner said liability is a chief concern. "If something happens on that property and lawyers get involved... I don't wanna be exposed to that," he said, and added that he would decline to install a fence if the city or other parties agreed to share legal costs — comments the committee treated as expressions of the petitioner’s motivation for the fence.

Speakers discussed specific operational issues: past expenditures on common-area maintenance and asphalt repair were cited by a property representative (a figure near $1,000,000 was mentioned in discussion); possible recurring REA fees for small tenants were described in one example as about $150 per month. Those figures were offered by participants and were not verified by staff during the meeting.

Committee members agreed to a 60-day continuation to allow staff and interested members to try to broker negotiated solutions with neighbors, landlords and new property managers. A motion to continue was made and seconded; the committee voted in favor and the case was tabled for follow-up discussions. No permit or fence installation was approved during the meeting.

The committee will revisit case 26-06 at a future meeting after the 60-day exploration period or sooner if parties notify staff that an agreement has been reached.