My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
May 2001
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes and Recordings
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 2001
>
May 2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:22 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:10:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001402
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
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
184 DAVID ECKRICH: One of the reasons we did not go straight across from the <br />185 neighboring property was because we wanted to make sure that the woodland was owned <br />186 by the neighborhood and would be part of their back yard. When people take ownership <br />187 of the various lots, they would also take ownership of parts of the woodland. If the line <br />188 went straight across to include the woods, it would go through the back yards of various <br />189 lots. By retaining landmark designation on the wooded area, it would protect the woods <br />190 for both the neighborhood and the future owner of the historic property. I can kind of see <br />191 how that would work for both sides, is that something that could happen, could portions <br />192 of the woods be owned by several different people, would it be like an easement? <br />193 <br />194 CATHERINE HOSTETLER: As long as the new homeowners understood that <br />195 when they purchased the lots. <br />196 <br />197 DAVID ECKRICH: They would, it would be on the title and on the legal description of <br />198 the lot. <br />199 <br />200 MARY JANE CHASE: So what your saying is the actual lots have not been plotted <br />201 yet. <br />202 <br />203 DAVID ECKRICH: No, they have not. We wanted to know what land we had to work <br />204 with first. We do not want an entrance onto S.R. 23 because it would have a negative <br />205 affect on the house and on the subdivision. <br />206 <br />207 RICHARD MORRISON: The petition that we have received, does it describe what is <br />208 being said? <br />209 <br />210 THOMAS BODNAR: No, we are asking for two acres, the petition is requesting <br />211 one, in the discussion we just had I guess the petitioner is orally amending the petition to <br />212 two acres with the understanding it will be split among several buyers. <br />213 <br />214 RICHARD MORRISON: We have a hypothetical line with no written legal <br />215 description. Whose responsibility is it to draw that line? <br />216 <br />217 RHONDA SAUNDERS: It will be the petitioners responsibility to have the area <br />218 surveyed and submit a correct legal description to the Commission. <br />219 <br />220 RICHARD MORRISON: The petitioner is in agreement with the staff as to where <br />221 that hypothetical line goes? <br />222 <br />223 RHONDA SAUNDERS: I believe the petitioner would like some time to discuss the <br />224 matter with all involved parties. I will request something in writing stating their <br />225 agreement or disagreement with the staffs recommendation. <br />226 <br />227 DAVID ECKRICH: Our attorney is not present today so we would like to find out what <br />228 the Commissions recommendation is tonight so I can have a discussion with the attorney <br />229 and then we will go from there. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.