11/26/84 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

HE REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1984 Ms. Barnard indicated that the ten (10) code violations submitted in her report would have to be repaired before the building could be occupied. Mr. Bert R. Prawat, Inspector with the-Inspection/Pr.evention Bureau of the Fire Department was present and directed the Board to the information contained in his November 20, 1984 letter to Mr. David Collier outlining the Life Safety Code Requirements which must be incorporated into the construction plans in order to receive a favorable recommendation. Mr. Prawat indicated that basically, the applicant must submit plans to the State Fire Marshal's office and City Building Department. Additionally, the building must be sprinkled in conjunction with the heating vents which will assist any firefighting which may become necessary. Mr. Prawat advised that the letter contains twelve (12) violations that must be met. He further stated that a fire hydrant needs to be found on the premises within one -hundred feet (1001) of the Fire Department's connection -to enable better fire fighting capabilities. Mr. Kenneth P. Fedder, Attorney at Law, 300 First Bank Building, South Bend, Indiana, representing Mr. David L. Collier, applicant, along with Mr. David L. Collier, 1429 East Colfax, South Bend, Indiana, were present at the meeting and addressed the Board. Mr. Fedder advised Board members that there is no problem with meeting the requirements of the Department of Code Enforcement and Fire Department and he will continue to cooperate with both departments in correcting violations. He stated that the business proposed by the license is a good viable business to; the community. He further advised that the Board of Zoning Appeals at their meeting held on November 15, 1984, recommended favorable approval of the license. As a point of clarification, Mr. Fedder advised the Board that on the license application where the type of license applied for must be designated, both recycling operation and transfer station were checked. Mr. Fedder stated that inherent in the operation of the recycling station, the product will have to be transported to the user. Therefore, the transfer station category was checked. However, this operation would not be the type of transfer station where materials would be dumped and then taken to the landfill. Mr. Fedder stated that the applicant knows what his responsibilities and duties are and will abide by them. Further, the facility will not open for at least twelve (12) months. In order to clarify Mr. Fedder's concern regarding the facility being a recycling station and transfer station, Mr. Hill stated that essentially he understands Mr. Fedder in saying that the only transport is the product being removed from the facility. He stated that he does not view that as within the definition of a transfer station being required for a license. Mr. Hill stated that he would prefer not to have that type of license granted so that it is clear that an actual transfer station would not be located at the site and that the license application submitted is solely for a recycling operation. Mr. Fedder, in order to clarify the point, described the process to be used at the recycling station. He stated that merchandise will be received from a supplier and then used to produce the finished product. If some of the merchandise received from the supplier is unacceptable, it will be stored until a considerable amount has accumulated and will then be returned to the supplier. In that instance the operation could be construed as a transfer station operation. 1