February 2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

503 I received a letter from Dr. Joan Raymond, the Superintendent, in reply to our 504 letter dated January 3, 2001, regarding potential landmarking of old Nuner School. The - - 505--- -letter stated that on January 8, 2001 the School Board voted to demolish the old Nuner__ 506 School building, convert the site to green space for immediate use by Nuner students and 507 retain the property for future Corporation needs. "The Board had planned to make a 508 decision regarding disposition of the building earlier in the year but decided to wait until 509 the new administration was established. Current budgetary constraints and problems in 510 maintaining the old building were major considerations for the Board in reaching its 511 decision. The South Bend Community School Corporation is sensitive to the work of the 512 Historic Preservation Commission and certainly has no wish to usurp the authority of the 513 Commission. It is our understanding that the action for considering the old school 514 building for landmark status was initiated by one of the proponents for awarding the 515 property to a specific entity for development. It is our further understanding that the 516 request for landmarks status was made to prevent the Board of School Trustees from 517 taking any action on the disposition of the old Nuner School other then releasing it for 518 development." The thing I disagree most with are the paragraphs that state that the 519 Commission is taking action on the school because of developers. This is a false 520 statement, it is not true. I have received numerous calls from River Park residents 521 regarding saving the school and yes I received a call from one developer. However, as I 522 stated before the Commission has been interested in declaring Nuner a landmark for 523 several years, it has nothing to do with developers. I have no idea where this opinion 524 came from. The staff is asking that interim protection be placed on this building and that 525 School City rethink its decision. The Commission was not properly notified of the 526 Schools actions as originally agreed upon between the two government bodies. 527 528 THOMAS BODNAR: Interim Protection does not require a public hearing as set 529 forth in ordinance 21-17.2. If a resolution for interim protection is introduced for this 530 building it should include why it is needed and how the building qualifies for landmark 531 status. 532 533 CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Does anyone from the public wish to speak 534 regarding Nuner school? 535 536 JOHN OXIAN: The reason why the Commission is allowing a public hearing for 537 this issues is because of the letter from the School Corporation, the large amount of 538 public interest and the significance of the matter, all warrant public input. 539 540 THOMAS BODNAR: I am not saying you cannot have a public hearing I am 541 simply saying you do not have to. 542 543 TOM BRADEMAS: I have a long-standing interest in Historic Preservation and 544 have placed numerous buildings on the state register. It would be an outrageous abuse of 545 taxpayer's money to tear down this school. There have been proposals made and well 546 thought out studies supported by myself and architects Troyer and Troyer. The building 547 is in great shape and is historically significant. I have put forth a proposal to convert it 548 into a family investment center. There have been numerous other proposals to turn it into 12