My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
February 2006
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 2006
>
February 2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:17 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:12:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001361
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
Shawn Peterson: Well, again there is the three-part test, and you have to meet all three. One is: the <br />property in is current condition is uneconomical or in a substantial state of disrepair, deterioration or <br />structural instability not created by the owner. And, again , this is the preservation plan, which <br />provides guidance. It's not the one that I consider is the binding one on this, but the one he is <br />referring to. Historically, well, the one of which you look to, which I believe is the other one. <br />Historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is either technically or economically impractical, <br />and'the owner has invested [sic] or considered all reasonable alternatives to demolition, not simply <br />the least expensive alternatives and that all such alternatives such as sale, rental or lease of the <br />property, have failed or with reasonable likelihood will fail or will not earn a fair economic return on <br />value. So in other.words, if they are required to put money into it, then there is return on that, <br />although not all situations or alternatives require that they put money into it depending upon how they <br />want to sell or lease it. <br />John Peddycord: If I may comment on your 1992 standards that you were just reading from, I would <br />submit to you that those standards are better than your original standards that you adopted back, what <br />year were these adopted? <br />Shawn Peterson: These were by that... <br />John Peddycord: 1982 [1992], but what was the prior one. I'm reading from Section D. Demolition. <br />Shawn Peterson: They predate me. <br />John Peddycord: They are very dangerous and I think they are ambiguous, vague and unconstitutional <br />because it says historic landmarks shall not be demolished, and the only exception to that is for public <br />safety, and I don't think this could be enforced at all. The only ones that I think may have some <br />viability is your 1992 standards, which I don't know if you were on the Commission then or not, but <br />these track the state standards, the state's statutory standards that other Commissions since 1977 <br />follow. There's not much difference from that. <br />Shawn Peterson: It is though consistence with the ordinance that we have which says that it must get <br />a Certificate of Appropriateness through this Commission unless a Building Commissioner or other <br />person in such authority certifies the demolition as required, so, and you have the opportunity or the <br />power to promulgate rules within, that not inconsistent with, that ordinance. As far as the <br />Constitutionality of it, it has just never been challenged. <br />Joann Sporleder: Ok, you more or less answered my question that I had whether the term economic <br />viability is in fact a legal term. It's not a legal term. It's descriptive. <br />Shawn Peterson: It may be a term of art as far as how the courts have interpreted the state statute. It <br />is not a term that was incorporated into the standards promulgated by the.... <br />John Peddycord: They instead use the term "a fair economic return on value." I would interpret that <br />as being economic viability. <br />Shawn Peterson: Are there any other Commissioners with questions for the witnesses? <br />Lynn Patrick: I have one very brief question to which I demand a very brief answer because it's nine <br />o'clock and because I think we have done a lot of very, very good discovery and I appreciate the . <br />patience of all. How many adaptive reuse projects have you worked on?. <br />23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.