My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 02-03-78
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
RM 02-03-78
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 5:07:20 PM
Creation date
9/24/2012 2:18:57 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
6. NEW BUSINESS, Continued- <br />Mr. Wiggins: Well, the original cost of the wall is immaterial in this <br />matter—the only thing that really has any bearing is that both the <br />original parties shared in the cost of the wall and the wall was common <br />to the two. <br />Ms Derbeck: So this is the fourth wall of the building that was torn <br />do n? <br />Mr. Wiggins: Not necessarily, the Odd F <br />before this building was built they had <br />this was part of the original deal that <br />redevelopers wanted their territory but <br />in the cost of it..they apparently were <br />money to build it. <br />sllows had that site for years <br />a Lodge building on that site. <br />got them involved in it - the <br />they wanted them to help share <br />having trouble raising the <br />Ms . Derbeck: Then it was another building than the one the Odd Fellows <br />ha owned—and it was a party wall to their old building? <br />Mr.l Wiggins: Yes, but it was continued with the Odd Fellows Building - <br />the just built on up. <br />Mr. Anderson: What this really means then is that half of that piece of <br />wall belongs to the Odd Fellows and half the Redevelopment, is that right? <br />Mr. <br />Mr. <br />Ms. <br />Wiggins: Basically, I suppose that is right. <br />Brownell: It comes down to the fact that there is joint responsibility. <br />Derbeck: You did remove some bricks from the wall... <br />Mr. Wiggins: Because there was some additional building after the original <br />building, that was built up above and that was not common, it was up <br />against their wall..and we took that out. <br />Mr. Anderson: Isn't this like if you build a fence across your back yard <br />and your neighbor attaches a fence to it, this becomes a common fence <br />acr ss both properties - is that a similar analogy? <br />Chair: No, that is not quite the same thing—as Don says, this was common <br />pra tice downtown in these older buildings, in order to save money the <br />joi t property owners built one wall and both used it. The buildings <br />at ushing and Lincolnway West - Indiana Heating, Blume's Pharmacy, <br />there are party walls in all those buildings. It was common practice <br />dow town and it causes headaches now when you try to tear down a building - <br />whe her it is us or someone else- you only own half the wall so what <br />can you do? <br />Mr. Wiggins: These are not allowable anymore because of fire problems - <br />you must have a firewall inbetween buildings now. <br />It bras pointed out that the old South Shore Station was built up against <br />the NIPSCO building. <br />Mr. <br />Ellison arrived and was recognized by the Chair to report on the <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.