01-28-04 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Contittittu Iteport Zoning atO linntxation tontittititt The January 28, 2004 meeting of the Zoning and Annexation Committee was called to order by its Chairperson, Council Member Ervin Kuspa at 4:03 p.m. p.m. in the Council Informal Meeting Room. Persons in attendance included Council Members Kelly, Dieter, Coleman, Kirsits, Puzzello, and Kuspa; Executive Director of Area Plan Robert Sante, Assistant Director of Area Plan John Byorni, Jeff Myers, Brent Bajdek, Assistant City Attorney Ann-Carol Nash, Neighborhood Code Enforcement Director Catherine Bruecker,and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand,Council Attorney. Council Member Kuspa noted that the Committee is composed of himself as Chairperson, Council Member Ann Puzzello as Vice-Chairperson,and Council Members Kelly and Coleman. Council Member Kuspa noted that this Committee meeting was called to continue to review and discuss 2nd Substitute Bill No. 81-03 which would amend Chapter 21 of the South Bend Municipal Code by incorporating a new zoning ordinance. Council Member Kuspa noted that the draft bill received a favorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission, In light of two(2) new Council Members beginning their service on the Common Council he suggested that the Bill be continued until the February 9th Council meeting to permit as much review and input as possible by the Council and the public. He noted that many terms and been changed and a new zoning map would ultimately be reviewed. Council Member Kuspa suggested that the final version of the zoning ordinance must be neighborhood friendly, contractor & developer friendly, and people friendly. He noted that the long review is necessary so that the final version of the ordinance will be worthwhile. He then called upon Ann-Carol Nash from the City Attorney's Office he wrote a memo late last Fall expressing concerns with regard to several items addressing enforcement in the proposed draft. Ms. Nash noted that City Attorney Charles Leone assigned her to review the enforcement provisions of the proposed ordinance in light of her close dealings with the Department of Code Enforcement. She noted that she met earlier this week with the Building Commissioner and the Director of Code Enforcement to discuss several of her concerns. She stated that several of those items have been resolved however still expressed concern with regard to notice, discretion with regard to the timing of enforcement through the counts, and the definition of oversize vehicles. She and Catherine Bruecker cited § 21-10(g)(1)(A) on page 5 and also on page 10. They cited concerns on page 6 with regard to enforcement procedures, noting that it appears that a"Traffic& Misdemeanor" procedure is set forth rather than dealing with ordinance violations which have a two (2) year period to be pursued. Ms. Nash stressed the need for flexibility and options for the City Attorney's Office with regard to when and where they would file suit. She noted that the City Attorney's Office need room to negotiate with violators, noting that often times they would void a citation after a six(6) month period if the individual had no additional violations within that period of time. She noted that city ordinance violations are pursued in Small Claims Court and not through Traffic and Misdemeanor Court,as proposed in the draft ordinance. Council Member Kelly noted that the ordinance must be very clear, and if there is confusion that amendatory language should be proposed to address these concerns. Catherine Bruecker then gave an example of some of the negotiations that take place with violators, noting that zoning is one area of the law which is extremely hard to prove in court since an "enormous amount of evidence is required of a violation". Citations are aimed at giving a person an immediate document so that action can then take place in perfecting the zoning violation.