My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
April 1992
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 1992
>
April 1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:25 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:07:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
asked for an update on the situation, asking <br />particularly whether the owners had yet approached the <br />Common Council. <br />Mr. Holycross said he had heard nothing further from <br />the owners. There had been some feedback, most of it <br />supporting the Commission's decision, from other <br />district residents. The liaison committee, in fact, <br />had recently taken a neighborhood poll on the issue; <br />over half the respondents had favored the decision. <br />VT. New Business <br />A. Proposed Demolition Standards <br />Mr. Oxian stated that this proposal was part of a <br />program to gradually standardize many Commission <br />procedures. He asked Mrs. DeRose for comments. <br />Mrs. DeRose said she had only one suggestion. She had <br />compared two different versions of the proposed <br />standards, and identified a significant difference in <br />wording. One version read "a Certificate of <br />appropriateness shall be granted if. the owner <br />demonstrates by submission of substantial, competent <br />evidence. . ." The other read "a certificate of <br />appropriateness shall be granted on if She <br />favored the second version. <br />Mr. Oxian and Mr. Holycross pointed out that the final <br />version of the standards did, indeed, include the <br />phrase "only if." <br />Mr. Here_ndeEn_mo_v_ed to approve the Demoli <br />Standards as presented. <br />Mrs. Sporleder then asked how the standards might be <br />applied under a certain specific set of <br />circumstances- -i.e., to the case of an owner whose <br />building had been condemned by other agencies, but who <br />had no particular interest in demolition. <br />Mrs. DeRose stated that she was not sure; she then <br />said that condemnation was a state action that would <br />preempt this; this [proposal] deals with a "voluntary <br />owner situation "; the HPC doesn't have much authority <br />over state actions that might supersede their actions. <br />Mr. Oxian mentioned that, under HPC ordinance, owners <br />could ask for condemnation for various reasons, <br />including health, safety etc. Mrs. Sporleder then <br />asked whether this proposal then would not apply. Ms. <br />DeRose resumed, agreeing with Mrs. Sporleder's query, <br />adding that the proposal would apply only if the owner <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.