04-23-18 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING April 23, 2018 Center is not the prevailing party, in other words, if the Women's Care Center is found to be at fault, the Women's Care Center is required to pay all the costs of that enforcement. Councilmember Jo M. Broden followed up, Could you please read number seven(7)because I am not understanding that from what is written there. There is a typo and it is pretty significant. I will just read it. `Owner will pay for cost of enforcing compliance of commitments. If owner is not the prevailing party.' There is something wrong there with those two (2) sentences. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated, It should be one (1) sentence. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, Mr. Nussbaum, would you please state how you would like for that to read. Mr. Nussbaum replied, It should indeed state if the owner, which is the Women's Care Center, is not the prevailing party. If a cost of enforcement is brought, and generally, that is brought by the Area Plan Commission,neighbors within three hundred(300) feet, or the City of South Bend, and found to be valid, against the Women's Care Center, we would be responsible for the cost. It is an obligation we are taking on ourselves. The words prevailing party are used because that is a term in the art of the law that is widely defined within many cases so the court will understand who is and who isn't the prevailing party. Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston stated,I'm glad you clarified because I read it as if there were protestors and we had to call the police to enforce the removal,there is a cost to that and you would have to reimburse the City. So that is not what you are saying? Mr. Nussbaum replied, No, that is exactly what I am saying. That is a perfect example. We have committed to you that we will not allow protestors on our property, and if the police are called, and there has to be an enforcement, and there is a cost, we would pay those because that is our obligation. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to remove the wrongly placed period in the middle of the sentence in question and to make the`if lowercased. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight(8)ayes and one(1)nay(Councilmember Oliver Davis). Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked, So just for clarification, you've agreed in writing,to ask anyone protesting in the public right-of-way to leave? Mr.Nussbaum confirmed, Yes. Councilmember Dr. Varner followed up, And that is the extent of what you can do because it is public right-of-way. I want people to understand that is the extent of your responsibility. That is as far as you can go with that and I'm afraid people don't know that. That is clear and I think we are good. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, Were these final changes, these four (4), reviewed by the Area Plan staff? Mr. Nussbaum replied, I spoke to Ms. Smith who was the one (1) who contacted me about the requested changes and she found them to be acceptable. Angela Smith, Deputy Director of the Area Plan Commission with offices on the 111' floor of the County-City Building, South Bend, IN, stated, From an Area Plan Commission staff and Zoning Enforcement staff perspective, I don't believe these would impact us at all. They deal more with their willingness to incur the costs. This would most likely come into play if there was some sort of lawsuit. We do not have any concern over those two (2) items. Councilmember Jo M. Broden followed up,And so all of these written commitments stay with the property, correct? Whether they are there for five (5) or thirty (30) years, any owner of that property would have to come before the Council for changes? Ms. Smith replied, That is correct. The written commitments become a deed restriction on the 11