May 2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wright: Well, what it is is that even though it's part of the right of way, it's still apart of the historic district. Sporleder: That's not the nature of my question. My question is relative to the Commission. Does the owner of the property in question submits the thing, so is this part of their property that's in the right of way or is this public property... ? Wright: It's public property. Sporleder: It's not their lot? Patrick: No. Klusczinski: Do you concur with that? Greene: Based on what I see here, it appears to be public right of way. The question that I would have really is if the city has agreed to allow this to be placed there? Wright: Yes, we had Carl Littrell on the day that we had the meeting, and he agreed to it all too. Greene: Often times, in a Public Works type project when you have a utility relocation issue, if there are private property owners or businesses that might be affected by such a move, its not unusual to enter into discussions. And, it sounds to me like what has been recommended by the City, or agreed to by the City, AT&T and the property owners most affected. And you have nothing though from Mr. Littrell stating this? Wright: No. Greene: I can also state on the record that I am also the attorney for the Board of Public Works, and so they will come to me at another point in time obviously. Again, that type of thing would be done by way of an agreement, usually very simple. Riley: Can I just give you a little history on this? Last summer, the LaPierre's spoke to me and I think Catherine in the office, because I'm a neighbor and involved in the neighborhood association, they were very unhappy with what was happening. We all disliked it, even the office disliked it, but it was put in without permits. Wright: No, we did have a permit, we had a permit to excavate in the City of South Bend and we had to have an occupancy permit, but our legal department has told the City that's not true either, but we did have a permit. Riley: But they didn't have a C ofA from Klusczinski: Us. Riley: From Historic Preservation. We've been trying since last summer to get this resolved and it's taken a long time. We still don't like is going to happen, but it is better than what is there now. It's ugly, the box... but this will make an improvement. Patrick: I have a question if I may for Ms. Wright. What technical/telecom reason is therefor it at that particular location? Is that a junction of connectivity that requires that it be in that position? Wright: Yes. It's for what we call uverse. AT&T uverse. Patrick: I'm sorry. Can you spell that? Wright: Uverse. U -V -E -R -S -E. It will be a technology that will come into your house. You'll have your television, and computer and everything will come in over the internet. And in order for that to work it has to be right there next to that box, and we have to bring fiber to it. It's the latest technology. Patrick: Great. So that's not fiber optics? Wright: Yes, it is. Patrick: Am Ito understand that points 1,2,3,4,5,6... Wright: Of Mr. LaPierre's? Patrick: On the letter, I'm assuming that you have a copy? Wright: Yes. Patrick: You wish to enact 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 per his suggestion? Wright: I don't have a problem with that. We've already discussed it, so I don't have a problem with it. The only thing that I don't know is what appropriate shrubbery is, so whatever you guys suggest is fine. Riley: We can help you with that. Wright: All the other neighborhoods around there are going to have this technology and if we don't put this box there and we don't give them this technology... that's a price point too for the resale of houses. Klusczinski: So legally we would be seeking an amendment to the current C ofA with the other stipulations? 0