07-10-17 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Anderson replied,No they weren't invalidated. The City didn't pursue collection of the penalties because by that time we had sought injunctive relief through court action and we saw the citations as a preliminary step getting us toward that court action, should it be necessary. The citations were issued in hope that we could come to some informal resolution with Mr. Burg before we had to step foot in a courtroom. So after the remediation agreement was entered into, that letter I just read to you regarding my clarification of the purpose of the remediation agreement had another paragraph which states, "Unless you take appropriate action prior to the next Area Board of Zoning Appeals filing deadline of June 14, 2016, the City will seek to enjoin you from further use of the outdoor area at 1502 and 1504 Dunham. The pursuit of injunctive relief in accord of confident jurisdiction is an action authorized under Municipal Code Section 21-10 g(3)." So we advised him expressly through correspondence that if he doesn't do this thing,which he is now doing,then we will pursue an injunction against him. And he didn't file, so we did that. It wasn't a surprise, it was an issue that has been enduring for some time. Mr. Masters stated, The difference is that we've had a full year that has passed. Everyone has had an opportunity to step back. They've seen the operation of the bar. They've seen that in fact, even under this agreement with the South Bend Police there were no violations of the noise ordinance. You'll hear other people testifying about the operation of the bar but it's been going on for a full other year and things have all calmed down pretty much. It seems to me that this is the best way of getting a resolution that services everyone by agreeing to something that you can't get in court even if you win, which is not having music outside. By the way I'm not sure what more you need. This says "No music will be played on the outside deck or anywhere outside of the building premises." Councilmember Ferlic stated, Vague language is never ideal. `No music will be played' can be interpreted different ways. It might be good to get this airtight. Mr. Masters replied, If we start doing that stuff, then you are creating bigger problems. Just make it straight forward, there is not going to be any music outside,period. Here is the difference; I write it, I have to live with it. You write it, you have to live with it. If you start tinkering around with it, you may not end up with what was intended. The idea is that we're not going to put any music outside. Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to comments from the Committee or Councilmembers. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, Is Mr. Bulot okay with the statements that have been made? Do you have conflict with regard to the issuance of the permit? Mr. Bulot replied, My only involvement in this is making sure the zoning ordinance is complied with. The issuance of the permit to build the deck was a mistake out of the Building Department office. That is a mistake with the physical deck. Along with that, what you have is a use violation because that is considered an expansion of the use. So when you do that,you are not allowed in a legal non-conforming condition to increase the degree of non-conformity, which the deck would be because there is evidence that it was being used in conjunction with the bar. 7