Laserfiche WebLink
} pY �4g''��. ^i 4 �,. .1' o q ...'(v�'YF•rin-%"+'��"r�'}x.-��+ y j��iY a ��8�!.R- '.�T2Y � .�, ,,,,_ x�P� <br />y <br />y-+.�.tf- :: :` < -,.x t ]'jy ��6R'�+�'S.:'s .as'Gk �� �.",i„� ^ud.� s< "a,� f rrr .hd�Ta• rst <br />s <br />r s <br />MEETING REPORT: - <br />• Legal Committee <br />Historic Preservation Commission of <br />South Bend and St. Joseph County <br />is <br />September 3, 1986 <br />RE: Options for _t•_.r_eola to rime under the jurisdiction of <br />the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) . <br />Attending: Joann Spor l eder <br />F. Jay Nimtz <br />Kevin Butler <br />Karen hiemnec <br />Brian Poland <br />The 'Legal Committee filet to discuss options for Osceola.: <br />Options discussed included: <br />1? Representation on the Commission through the addition <br />of a member. <br />2; Contractural arrangement with Osceoia. to provide <br />preservation services. <br />Concerns of Option rn 1 <br />a. Increased membership on the Commission could lead to <br />an unmanageable size if other communities exercised <br />the same option. <br />b. Time and effort expected from a full-time Osceola <br />Commission member would be disproportionate with the <br />small number of historic properties in Osceola. The <br />staff t i,me required to monitor these properties would <br />be minimal after the initial set-up time under such an <br />arrangement. <br />C. Precedent Jor other communities to come under HPC . <br />jurisdiction. <br />Concerns of Option 2 <br />a. Term, form, and compensation provisions of a contact. <br />b. Requirement that Osceola have representation. <br />Other Concerns <br />a AnY changes require amendment to curreint ordinances <br />t a k: <br />}...w...u. „s, <br />