My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
February 1992
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 1992
>
February 1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:25 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:07:37 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.
/
62
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
B. Treasurer's Report <br />The treasurer's report was approved as submitted. <br />C. Correspondence <br />No discussion. <br />D. Committee Reports <br />1. Certificates of Appropriateness (staff approvals) <br />a. 1154 Lincolnway East --Local Historic District <br />Mr. Pastor passed around a report describing <br />the project, which consisted on replacing <br />in-kind a line of molding around the lip of <br />the roof. There was no discussion. <br />la. Certificates of Appropriateness --Enforcement <br />a. 805 Arch Avenue --Local Historic District. <br />Mr. Pastor reported that this case involved <br />the removal of a rear entry canopy without a C <br />of A. The staff approved a replacement <br />proposal by the owner in May 1991, pending a <br />review of plans before construction. At its <br />June meeting, the Commission requested that <br />the staff forward these plans to them for <br />approval as well. No review was ever done, <br />and the C of A has since expired. The owner <br />obtained a building permit at the time of <br />approval, which remains valid for another 4 <br />months. <br />The staff requested that the owner submit an <br />application for a C of A renewal, reminding <br />him that the porch's removal was in violation <br />of district standards and procedures. The <br />owner has since complied, having returned the <br />renewal application with a signature and fee. <br />Mr. Pastor requested an appropriate course of <br />action: should.he issue the owner another <br />approved certificate, or did the Commission <br />wish to review plans before such issuance? <br />Mrs. DeRose advised withholding a renewed <br />certificate until the owner submitted plans to <br />the Commission for review. She added that the <br />current renewal application was valid as an <br />application for Commission review. <br />r'� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.