My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
November 2007
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 2007
>
November 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:17 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:13:10 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.
/
74
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
625 Shawn Peterson: You can entertain a motion to deny if you'd like. Or, there are <br />626 other options as well. You can abstain from taking action and take <br />627 it up at your next meeting, tabling it. You have 60 days to approve. <br />628 As of now, the Commission has not taken action on it. <br />629 Jerry Ujdak: You can refer it to Standards and Maintenance. <br />630 Tim Klusczinski: We have, we've been there a few times. I move to deny on the <br />631 <br />basis that any recommendations by staff have not been met and <br />632 <br />any of the solutions presented here tonight can not be fulfilled if <br />633 <br />this C of A passes. In addition, the double sill character of the <br />634 <br />replacement windows, particularly on this C of A would be in <br />635 <br />place, and when it has been suggested that an alternate come <br />636 <br />forward without that double sill option, this C of A must be <br />637 <br />defeated before that can happen. So, I've made a motion, is there a <br />638 <br />second? <br />639 Lynn Patrick: I'll second. <br />640 Shawn Peterson: Just a reminder, that at roll call, you must state your rationale as far <br />641 <br />as why and to remind you that should be based on whether or not <br />642 <br />something is appropriate based upon the standards; second, what <br />643 <br />detriment would there be to allowing this to the overall public and <br />644 <br />the impact on the structure and its significance; and finally what <br />645 <br />would the impact as far as hardship to the applicant. Those are <br />646 <br />your three factors to decide whether to approve or deny and you <br />647 <br />must make statements as far as why you think those things are the <br />648 <br />case when you make your vote to deny the application. <br />649 <br />Lynn Patrick: <br />To make those more brief, the 1-2-3 is 1. appropriateness, 2. <br />650 <br />damage to the public, and 3. hardship to the petitioner. <br />651 <br />Shawn Peterson: <br />Correct. <br />652 <br />Lynn Patrick: <br />Ok. <br />653 <br />Linda Riley: <br />Would you read the motion again? <br />654 <br />Tim Klusczinski: <br />I'd like to replay you the tape. Shawn could you restate the motion <br />655 <br />for Linda's benefit please? <br />656 <br />Shawn Peterson: <br />The motion on the table is to deny the application in question. It <br />657 <br />has been seconded, so a roll call vote is appropriate at this time. <br />658 Joann Sporleder: Do we have to say our findings again? <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.