My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WestminsterHoldingsLLCPositionStatement11102021
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Legislation
>
Upcoming Bills
>
2021
>
11-22-2021
>
WestminsterHoldingsLLCPositionStatement11102021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/21/2022 2:24:22 PM
Creation date
11/22/2021 1:01:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Petitioner's arguments and contentions are based upon the law and facts. Fundamentally, the facts and <br />law cited in this document, and in the October 18" Appeal demonstrate that the HPC's September 20' <br />ruling was arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with the State or Federal Constitution. <br />That is the key argument. The question does not revolve around the HPC's right to exercise it's <br />authority within its published Guidelines as adopted by the Common Council <br />The crux of the matter is that the HPC had no authority to deny the Petitioner's COA application <br />because it was a) Sitting illegally because it included an unconstitutional member b) Not applying its <br />Guidelines equally, and thus violating the Equal Protection Clause and c) Colluding in a Warrantless <br />and unconstitutional search and seizure of property. <br />The HPC exceeded its statutory authority by alleging a prohibition on property that does not exist in its <br />mandate. Specifically, there is no law against vinyl windows in South Bend, Indiana, Portage <br />Township, or in Chapin Historic District. <br />As such, the HPC had no right to allege Petitioner violated the District's Guidelines, because he did not. <br />Finally no member of the the HPC, during the hearing, offered any evidence to support their <br />contentions that the Petitioner violated District guidelines. Specifically, no member of the HPC pointed <br />out a specific violation, and therefore they had no cause to deny Petitioner's COA application. <br />EXHIBITS <br />Petitioner already included Exhibit 1, Mr. Toering's September 23, 2021 letter to Westminster Holdings <br />LLC denying the COA Application.and Exhibit 2, the first two pages of Mr. Tiffany's Mortgage to buy <br />a new house in Edwardsburg, MI, dated April 28 2021. <br />In addition to those Exhibits, and the 17 glossy photographs submitted to the City Clerk on October 18. <br />2021, the Petitioner includes an excerpt from the Guidelines for the Chapin Local Historic District. We <br />ask that the Common Council voting members be given access to each of these exhibits which will be <br />addressed by Petitioner in oral arguments. <br />CONCLUSION AND POSITION STATEMENT <br />For the reasons outlined above, Petitioner asks the Common Council to uphold State and Federal <br />Constitutions and to OVERRULE the HPC's capricious and arbitrary denial of his application for a <br />Certificate of Appropriateness. <br />We ask the Application be immediately APPROVED. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.