My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-21-06 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
07-21-06 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/13/2007 1:19:54 PM
Creation date
12/11/2007 4:47:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Date
7/21/2006
Document Relationships
07-21-06 Agenda
(Superseded by)
Path:
\Public\Redevelopment Commission\Agendas & Packets\2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting -July 21, 2006 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />C. South Bend Central Development Area <br />continue ... <br />the control of the Commission, because it <br />really is a prohibition against the ABC's <br />ability to issue a liquor license based upon <br />uses that are in the area. I bring it to your <br />attention based upon the discussions and <br />letter we've had with the Reverend and Mr. <br />Masters. <br />Mr. King: You're saying that the covenants <br />in the Deed go with the property and they <br />would cover this. Suppose that three years <br />from now the new purchaser begins to <br />undertake activities that might fit the <br />definition of operating as a church or a <br />school. The ABC decides it's a church or <br />school. Therefore, it will not issue a liquor <br />license to a new restaurant that wants to <br />locate downtown. Other than waiving the <br />Deed in front of the ABC, what would we be <br />able to do so as to not have our plan for an <br />entertainment district be disrupted? What <br />remedies would be available to us? <br />Ms. Greene: First of all, let's assume that <br />there is no change in the law. Absent any <br />change in the law, you'd do as anybody who <br />sets up a subdivision would do. You'd seek <br />to enforce your restrictive covenants. That <br />may result in going to court and asking the <br />court to enforce those covenants. Covenants <br />are "of record." Any subsequent purchaser <br />of that property would take title of that <br />property subject to those restrictions of <br />record. There's nothing to stop anyone from <br />going to court, but it would require you to go <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.