July 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fundamental substantive changes made by the Standards Committee to the Proposed Draft that were rejected by the HPC. Chief among these were: 1. Defining the impact of the LHD to make it clear it did not apply to changes which were not significant enough to require a building permit; 2. Defining the impact of the LHD restrictions to include only those changes and/or improvements visible from the street and trees in front yards, parks and tree lawns; 3. Making it clear that those items labeled "Recommended" and "Not Recommended" were truly recommendations, rather than a second tier of requirements and prohibitions, less strictly enforced. The first two of the above items were both efforts to make the document truly say what those in the district were specifically told it said. In its original draft, and now in its current draft, it does not. The representations made in promoting the passage of the Ordinance creating the LHD are now shown to have been gross misrepresentations that, despite being challenged at the time, have never been acknowledged or corrected. Early in the last meeting between the HPC Committee as a Whole and the Standards Committee, we were told that now was not the time to make substantive changes in the guidelines, as this would create an inconsistency with those in other districts. We were told that it would be more appropriate to address these changes during our two year review, when the changes could be made to all districts together. Later in that same meeting, when pressed to explain this process further, the HPC staff admitted that all of the districts' documents would NOT be up for amendment in two years, and that review of them is intentionally staggered. This means that contrary to the efforts by the HPC staff to make living with the status quo for two years sound reasonable, there really WAS no reason for us to wait to make substantive changes: we would always be in the position of being the first to make the change. I cite this as only one example to show how intentionally misleading the process has been at times, and to illustrate the resistance faced by the Standards Committee that has had such a negative impact on the level of trust between some of its members and the HPC. I submit these comments and concerns in good faith, as a property owner in the district. Daniel J. Slattery 754 Leland Ave. South Bend, IN 46616 (574)234-3310