Laserfiche WebLink
the loud noise ordinance decibel limit with it to end by 11:00 p.m." With that language <br /> specifically, one could see how it might be thought that the City was condoning that action. <br /> Subsequently though, a letter was sent to Robert Burg following the remediation agreement and <br /> expressly informed him that it was not the City's intention to condone the use of the deck. <br /> Specifically, a letter that was sent by myself that states, "Please be advised the chronic problem <br /> property remediation agreement that you entered with the South Bend Police Department on or <br /> about May 19th, 2016 for nuisance related matters does not authorize you to provide outdoor <br /> entertainment in violation of the City Zoning Ordinance. Rather, should you be authorized to <br /> provide outdoor entertainment after following the proper procedure under local law, your <br /> remediation agreement will govern your use in accordance with the relevant noise and chronic <br /> problem property ordinances." <br /> Committee Chair Davis stated, Did you and the tavern have any conversation before this point? <br /> Mr. Anderson replied, We on several occasions made efforts to interact with Mr. Burg regarding <br /> this issue and to deal with it administratively. I know that at one (1)point Mr. Bulot had spoken <br /> with Mr. Burg over the phone and he also spoke with Mike Danch about preparing a special <br /> exception use application last year or two (2) years ago. But we found Mr. Burg to be generally <br /> unresponsive to the City's request to take action. Essentially,we were guiding him in this <br /> direction a couple years ago to legalize the use because we didn't believe that he could legally <br /> use the backyard area. So we made contact with him, issued citations, sent letters notifying him <br /> what it was he needed to do and he took no action, which afforded us no other alternative than to <br /> file an injunction and seek preliminary relief. <br /> Committee Chair Davis asked, So there was an agreement entered into and two (2) months later <br /> there was a lawsuit? <br /> Mr. Masters replied, What we did was when this was coming up for trial in early June 2016, we <br /> concurred to postpone the trial and instead petition for the special use, with the conditions that <br /> there would be no outside music and use of the deck past 11:00 p.m. That would resolve both the <br /> neighborhood complaints and would allow the use of the deck and make the lawsuit moot and <br /> avoid the need for the trial. <br /> Mr. Anderson stated, I think your question is also relating to why the remediation agreement <br /> occurred. Specifically, the temporal aspect of why the remediation agreement occurred. It does <br /> seem like not long after there was a suit filed. At that point there had been about ten(10) <br /> citations issued and the situation had been going on for several months with the Department of <br /> Code Enforcement, the Building Department and the Police Department all making contact with <br /> Mr. Burg. So it wasn't as if the issue suddenly arose after the remediation agreement was entered <br /> into. This is something that had been enduring for some time before that remediation agreement <br /> was entered into. The citations Mr. Masters are referring to are specifically for the noise. There <br /> were other citations issued relating to the unlawful expansion of the legal non-conforming use <br /> and the outdoor use of that area. The Building Department issued a number of citations,to my <br /> recollection, it was ten(10) in two (2) five (5) day periods. <br /> Committee Chair Davis asked, Were they found to be invalid? <br /> 6 <br />