My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
November 1991
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 1991
>
November 1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:15 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:07:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001359
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
enough funding to operate. <br />He stated that the National Register Extension <br />project will be completed, despite the loss of <br />funding. The State Office had advised restarting <br />the application procedure; this, however, would <br />cost a lot of money, and would therefore be better <br />avoided. He said the third technical review would <br />instead be resubmitted after Jan. 1, 1992, and <br />would probably be acceptable. <br />Mrs. Choitz asked about the status of the survey. <br />Mr. Holycross assured her that it would be finished <br />by June 1992. On further questioning, he said that <br />a book, to be compiled from the results of the <br />city survey, was still only a proposal for which <br />a grant had been applied. No work had yet begun <br />on the book. Only one volume was planned; a multi - <br />volume summary report/inventory catalog had <br />been compiled from the previous city survey. <br />3. Legal. <br />Ms. DeRose reported that, yet again, the Legal <br />Department had failed to agree on the proposed <br />maintenance standards. The disagreement concerned <br />enforcement procedures. She described two <br />options; to pass the standards and try to get <br />the Building Department to enforce them, or to <br />adopt standards such as she had set up, which <br />had their own mode of enforcement. In either <br />case, she foresaw enforcement problems. <br />Mr. Oxian said some decision must be reached <br />and an ordinance need not be passed for the HPC <br />to adopt maintenance standards. He asked Mrs. DeRose <br />to bring the standards with her to the next meeting, <br />for adoption. She agreed to do so. <br />Mr. Oxian went on to say that having the maintenance <br />standards written and passed was the most important <br />thing; enforcement problems could be addressed <br />later. Further, these standards must be <br />extended to the historic districts, because <br />they all have a section on maintenance. <br />Ms. DeRose passed on some ideas she'd heard at <br />a recent historic preservation law conference <br />in Indianapolis. Chief Justice Randall <br />T. Shepard (Indian Supreme Court) had spoken; <br />he had said that the present Supreme Court was <br />conservative, anti-government, and potentially <br />anti -preservation. She therefore advised strict <br />adherence to standards and procedures in all cases. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.