As with every fence, there are two sides to every story. Charles L. Smith wants his to be heard.
Smith is the Norman Road neighbor accused by Kathy Paul of building an unsightly and allegedly dangerous fence next to her property. Paul has launched a campaign to revise township ordinances to prevent such structures in the future, and she wants the current fence to be removed.
Unavailable for comment when The Clarkston News ran Paul’s story, Smith now admits to some anger-motivated actions, but defends the fence as being for his own protection.
‘I put this up because I had constant harassment from her,? Smith said. ‘It’s a privacy fence.?
Paul had claimed Smith made no efforts to resolve issues before he started his property work.
‘Had this been addressed properly from the start, it wouldn’t have escalated to this point,? she said earlier.
Smith, however, said he tried to be a good neighbor when he bought the neighboring property in 2001. He is in the process of adding an addition to the existing home and, because he desires access to Susan Lake, wanted to make it possible to drive a boat to the lakeshore on his property.
The problem, according to Smith, is Paul’s encroachment onto the property he purchased. A boundary survey, recommended by his mortgage company, says Paul’s porch overlaps onto his property and violates the existing township setback ordinance. Further, bushes toward the front of the property extended between eight and 10 feet onto his property.
Smith’s action in cutting down the bushes was mild compared to what he could have done, he said.
‘As a neighbor, I didn’t want to hire an attorney and have the porch removed. I don’t have to get the law changed. This is already an enforceable restriction,? Smith said. Nonetheless, ‘I wasn’t looking to have her remove her porch. I was just trying to utilize my piece of property.?
Smith claims an attempt by Paul’s insurance company to collect more than $4,000 for reimbursement for the bushes. He said the agent quickly dropped that claim after sharing the boundary survey.
Paul’s fence was erected after Smith cut down the bushes. Since the porch already violates what his boundary survey shows, Smith believes the fence was a deliberate act of rebellion, as was Paul’s placement of lawn furniture several feet into his property.
‘She installed the fence on my property,? he said.
The continuing friction led Smith to erect his own fence, but the second story of the fence did not come until after Paul’s videotaping from her second story of her house (which she admits).
‘He’s upset with me because he thinks I watch everything he does,? Paul said previously. ‘Well, after you cut down bushes I do tend to watch what’s going on with my property.?
The extension of the fence toward the lakeshore (which Paul says ruins her ‘panoramic? view of the lake) came only after Paul threw yard debris on his property, Smith said.
Smith denies the ‘danger? of the second story fence, noting 6-inch by 6-inch support beams. Township officials have already indicated there is no ordinance violation, but Smith has all the building permits and letters from township officials in his files.
‘This isn’t a Kathy Paul issue; it’s a Susan Lake issue,? Paul said in the earlier story, claiming lower property values would be the result of Smith’s work.
Smith, however, said his property has increased in value by $100,000 with the improvements he has made.
A construction worker himself, Smith said he has to do a lot of his home construction during evenings and weekends. Paul took some of those actions as being unneighborly, but Smith said it has been a necessity.
He admits to putting the ‘bad side? of the fence toward Paul’s property, but he said he made the offer to do a ‘shadowbox? effect if she would pay for part of it. She declined, he said.
‘After three years of repeated harassment, I was angry,? he said. ‘I can’t deny my anger. Why should I eat the bad side??
Smith estimated a cost of about $8,000 for a fence he did not want to build. He said he told Paul he would be willing to take it down if a subsequent buyer of Paul’s property is willing to pay for the demolition.
Both Paul and Smith claim a desire to resolve the issue, but Smith said he is not very hopeful.
‘Anything I do or say is misrepresented. There’s nothing I do that’s right,? he said.