|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />APRIL 23, 2007
<br />problem throughout the City all year long. Day after day, vehicles are parked on
<br />sidewalks, which is a public hazard.
<br />Mr. James A. Masters, 211 W. Washington, Suite 1800, South Bend, Indiana, advised
<br />that he appreciates the Council time and energy that they have put towards this bill.
<br />Looking back through his notes, he stated that he has been writing letters to the Mayor
<br />and Councilmember Varner, since May, 2004, since it came to his attention that the
<br />revisions to the zoning ordinance back then deleted a provision that had been in the City
<br />Code for decades that prohibited parking in front and side yards. He has been writing to
<br />encourage the Council to enact a new set of regulations. He was not aware nor able to
<br />attend any of the Council's Committee Meetings concerning this, but he did call to the
<br />Council's attention some suggestions, that he feels the Council should consider,
<br />especially after the City loses a few court cases. Section 14-42 a says that it is unlawful
<br />to park a motor vehicle in the front yard, side yard, rear yard, which abuts a street of a lot
<br />which is zoned for residential use, the term residential use is not defined in the ordinance.
<br />The term dwelling is defined and interest ling enough it says that a dwelling is a single
<br />family dwelling a two family dwelling multiple family dwelling, but not including hotels,
<br />motels, boarding houses, lodging houses and a bed and breakfast. Mr. Master stated that
<br />it he was in front of a judge, he would argue that that is exactly what residential uses are.
<br />There is a problem with the definitions in this ordinance. On that same section in the last
<br />line it talks about permitted parking on a hard surface driveway, or approved parking
<br />space. What is an approved parking space? There is no definition of that in this
<br />ordinance either. If there is a reference to the pocket parking lot, that Councihnember
<br />Puzzello spoke about, and it is defined in the ordinance, and then say it. But don't put a
<br />term in this section that cannot be defined and just creates confusion. In Section 14-43 a,
<br />it shall be unlawful to park a motor vehicle over any part of a sidewalk, now we all know
<br />what that means, but maybe it should say on or over a sidewalk. In Section 14-44, after
<br />the listing of the fines, it says the City Attorney's Office is further authorized to seek
<br />fines not to exceed $2,500.00, for chronic violation of this article by repeat offenders.
<br />What does that all mean? Why don't you just say for repeat violations of this article
<br />period, instead of putting terms in the ordinance that a Judge is going to have to interpret?
<br />In Section 14-44 b, about separate violations the very last line says the fine shall be
<br />double the original amount. What is the original amount? Don't you mean the amount
<br />stated above. The reason that he calls these questions to the attention of the Council is
<br />not because he enjoys nit-picking these things, but we have been working on this thing
<br />for two (2) years, lets get an ordinance that can be enforced, lets get an ordinance that's
<br />got some teeth in it, lets get an ordinance that doesn't allow for some judge and some
<br />court to tie this thing up in knots. There is some provision in this ordinance that states
<br />that a property owner had a right to appeal to the City Attorney's Office, if a ticket was
<br />issued. Since when do you get to appeal you ticket to the City Attorney's Office? That
<br />would be like getting a ticket for driving down S.R. 23 and you get to appeal it to the
<br />prosecutor. Hopefully, that is not part of this code, because if you as Councihnember's
<br />have dealt with Code Enforcement, you know one of the hundred of excuses you get
<br />about something, it the fact that it is tied up in the legal system. Don't create more
<br />bureaucracy here that stands in the way of effective enforcement of this ordinance.
<br />There was no one else present wishing to speak in favor of this bill.
<br />The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill.
<br />Mr. Steven J. Szabo, 1355 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition
<br />to this bill. Mr. Szabo advised that this bill might as well be called the Anti-Car, Anti-
<br />Property Rights transportation bill, since it clearly discriminates against those who do not
<br />have the luxury of living in spacious suburban tract homes on big lots with two and three
<br />car garages and broad long driveways, on quiet crime free streets. The problem is that
<br />what began as a laudable idea, to spiff up certain main thoroughfares to bolster the City's
<br />image, has morphed into a large scale, calculated insensitive and fascist attempt to force
<br />people in older neighborhoods, most of whom are not counted as middle class to conform
<br />to some privileged suburbanite vision of what our City should look like. All it will cause
<br />is the hap-hazard citizens rights of enjoyment of their property. The theme seems to
<br />
|