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(Superseded by)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 />Ms. Greene: My reading of the Alcoholic <br />Beverage statute, at least the way it's <br />currently drafted, there's an absolute <br />prohibition against the ABC issuing that <br />license, irrespective of remonstrances, <br />agreements, or things like that. No matter <br />how agreeable anyone would be, it appears <br />the language of the statute would keep the <br />ABC from issuing a liquor license if that <br />were a church or a school. <br />Ms. Jones: What I heard Mr. Masters say is <br />that in the area of remonstrance, they would <br />never be called a church, (would never) <br />fulfill that definition that the state defines a <br />church. Not that they are waiving their right <br />to remonstrate, but that they will never <br />become a church. <br />Mr. Downes: But the concern is that the <br />ABC at some point says they are a church or <br />they are a school. <br />Ms. Greene: That's correct. Basically, what <br />you look to in the interpretation is whether or <br />not it is being used regularly for that <br />particular purpose. What you have here from <br />Mr. Masters and from the Reverend is that <br />the property is not going to be used such that <br />it would be considered a church. Irrespective <br />of occasional religious services, or <br />occasional classes that would meet there, <br />would not be considered by legal definition <br />to be a church or a school. <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.