March 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

marking and using that space as an entry way/utility room or mud room/bathroom. This type of addition would be feasible with the roof line structure and it would not take as many two story structural walls; whereas, the previous addition recommendation or proposal would have done so. JOANN SPORLEDER: As Julie stated, what we were trying to specifically do was to avoid the unnecessary large intrusion of the original structure; particularly in the north gable where it was proposed to remove a barring wall in order to gain another three feet in the bathroom; which they really didn't want there anyway. I thought the meeting was really quite nice; but, she was very much in a hurry to make another appointment so that we could pursue anything else she might have wanted to talk about. JULIE SCHUTTE: She did mention that she would speak with her architect/contractor about the proposal. LYNN PATRICK: This is the first reading of the landmark revocation petition. This letter was received by fax and by mail from Philip E. Hesch, Attorney At Law, who operates at 201 East Plymouth Street, Bremen, Indiana. This letter was sent to Mrs. Catherine Hostetler, director of Historic Preservation Commission. The letter is in reference to a petition to revoke landmark status for 68286 Miami Road, Bremen, Indiana. Lynn Patrick then verbally read the letter sent by Mr. Philip E. Hesch to commission members. (See copy of letter in meeting packet). I would also like to remind the petitioners and the commissioners that we only need to accept the petition into the record by motion. This course regarding this petition will appear at the March meeting. I would also like to remind the Roeders and their attorney that first reading is a formality, an announcement of petition; public comments will be heard during second reading of said petition at the March 2151 meeting. They will certainly be allowed to speak during the hearing of visitors; but, no action will be taken until March. Further, I spoke with the attorney prior to this meeting and he expressed concern that even though he considers this a formal petition and we are noting it as such; we feel that this is an incomplete petition in that no reasons are given and attorney, Mr. Hesch, has advised us that he plans to submit further documentation prior to our next meeting. Furthermore, he has questions regarding the process by which this property became a land mark status. He is going to get with our director, Catherine Hostetler, over the next few days and she shall provide him with documentation so he can decide how he wishes to proceed. CHERYL GREENE: I just wanted to also remind the commission that they have dealt with similar issues in the past and the procedure for the revocation of a land mark is comparable to the same procedure that you follow when you designate something as a landmark; it is essential in reverse. You would make a recommendation one way or another to revoke or alter or amend the landmark designation based upon the petition that is presented to you. Your recommendation then gets sent to the county council in this particular case and then the council would then take an action to either amend the original land mark designation, or revoke it, or alter it in some manner by their passage of an ordinance. Those factors must be considered when you are making your recommendation, which are not in the record at this point, and the petitioner has requested the opportunity to come back at a later point to present information to you; however, you are limited to the following factors: 2