09/17/07 Council Special Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 does know of some locations that cannot safely park vehicles in their front yards because their front yard is possible only 15' feet long and vary narrow, and for that she would like the language added to deny a permit. Section 14-56(g)(3) the filing deadline on Friday before 2:00 p.m. concerns her and wonders if that would be enough time for the Department of Public Works to make a review and return to all the departments by the end of the day. She has reviewed many sites plans over her years with the City and based on the amount of permit applications that might be received, she doesn't believe that will be enough time to review them thoroughly. In Section 14-56(h) displaying the parking permit, she asked for a little guidance with this section. Ms. Toppel asked are they to find people in violation if they don't have it prominently displayed, maybe some language to state exactly where it should be displayed such as front window so it can be easily seen. She stated that she worries about the people who will come after her. Obviously she won't be here forever, and worries about the people who will be enforcing the codes after her and how they would actually read it and is why she is bringing those concerns before the Council tonight. Mayor Stephen Luecke, 14~` Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he rises in support of this ordinance. He stated that the end in mind is the appropriate and proper for the residents, students, and for the community. He thanked the Council for the good dialogue that has taken place and for listening and making changes based on suggestions that have been made. He offered in committee several comments and questions about specific portions of the ordinance in particular his concern for parking of 10 cars or fewer if there is not basis for denial or even perhaps a limitation on the number of times that one can do this. In fact, someone for no reason because they want to park their own car in the front yard could come in and get a permit for 365 days a year to do that and that would undercut what has been spelled out in the other ordinance to prohibit that sort of activity. He stated that he knows that this is not the intention of this ordinance, but just wanted to bring that to the Council attention. There maybe a way again of amending either by putting a limitation on how frequently one can do this. He stated the special events regulations because that is not being implemented immediately they are less pressing and could possible become topic for further discussion by the CCAC as it moves forward. Mayor Luecke stated that he is full support of the ordinance, however he believes that there are still some concerns and questions to the specifics of certain sections if it were the Council will to continue it for an additional week before final vote, he feels that a few of the critical issues could be worked out, or if the Council wishes to pass it tonight, that the ordinance can be brought back to make amendments. There was no one else present wishing to speak in favor of this bill. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Wayne Curry, 1050 Burns, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is running for City Council At-Large. He commends everyone's participation in this ordinance. Mr. Curry stated that he has a few problems with this ordinance. He stated that he lives in the neighborhood along with Ms. Marguerite Taylor. He stated that they are ordinances on the book that if they were enforced properly would solve everyone problems, but everyone is at their wits end, who live next door to the chronic problems houses. Not all Notre Dame Students are disrespectful, most are kind-hearted, good students who bring a lot of good things into the community and it would be great if a lot more of those students would call South Bend home after they graduate. There seems to be a couple of items that need clarification, such as holding a property owner responsible for the behavior of the people he rents his land to. If the City owned a building downtown, (by the way they own 95 buildings or something like that.) If the City was to own one of these buildings and rent it out to someone who was laundering money, would the City then be held liable for money laundering or counterfeiting or whatever kind of illegal activity, is the person who owns the building really responsible for that. So holding the landlords responsible for the behavior of their tenants is not the right way to go. You should hold the person accountable who behavior is wrong not the person that owns the property. Secondly a five-day wait as far as getting all this stuff done, and if you want to go through all this process and as Councilmember Kirsits stated he wanted to have some provisions in place for people to assemble. Our Constitutional Right to a Free and Peaceful Assembly is 10