Laserfiche WebLink
.' -- A- <br />\ <br />LEGAL DEPARTMENT \ <br />INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br />FROM: DAVID C. CHAPLEAU <br />RE: <br />HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE; MANDATORY MAINTENANCE <br />IN HP DISTRICTS <br />Under Section 21.117.2(e)(7) of the South Bend Municipal Code <br />(SBMC), the Historic Preservation Commission may petition the <br />build <br />ing commissioner to cause the maintenance and/or i <br />historic landmark. No similar power with respect to repa r of any <br />n <br />buildings within historic districts exists This non -landmark <br />the power to compel the owner of private property memowilladdress <br />repair his premises. This memorandum addresses' �u maznrain or <br />issues of taking, exemplified be case l the constitutional <br />law, and a review of I.C. 36-7-11-2, 5, <br />Local preservation ordinances entail two key questions. First, <br />enforcing these ordinances,maze use o+ police power? Second, in <br />property for public ndo local governments "take" private <br />C��t��l T�����g�t�tiuse' Iresponse to the first question, in Penn <br />the Supreme - gn-Cgmpany-y�-Ng� Ygnk_Cit�, 438 U S 104 (1q78) e Court held that due to the <br />- legitimate legislative aims t' <br />preserve historic districts and thereby enhance the = � ms o <br />New York City's Preservation La ~ value of an area, <br />Power. Consistent with th w was a valid exercise of police <br />. e assertion that aesthetic controls produce economic benefits, historic ordinances have been upheld againspr uce <br />constitutional challenges as long as the ordinances r <br />public purpose and are not vague or arbitrary. Mah serve a valid <br />Orleans, 371 F.Supp. 653, aff'd 516 F 2d 1051^(5---���-��-Cit�-gf-N�� <br />��-Citl�-gf SR��i[lgfi��ld, 11 Ill App. ^d 430 (1q6cn �zr^ 1975>; R�b��[l <br />vG��bl� ��k - - ^ ^ � �); Citl� gf S��t� F� <br />�_ _ _� ggg�g�_In9�, 73 N.M. 410 (1964). - - - <br />Local ordinances in other cities have empowered preservati commissions to require property owners to maintain b ildi on <br />u <br />these provisions, the commission identifies buildingsi ngs^ Under <br />repair and notifies the owner. If the owner fail n need of <br />city may make repairs at its own expense and l s to repair' the <br />pace <br />property. The enforcement of affirmative maintenance <br />lien on the <br />second question to debate: Do the provisions// ce opens the <br />property in violation of the Fifth Amendment affect a taking of <br />Constitution? of the United States <br />