My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-16
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
08-22-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 10:48:01 AM
Creation date
9/29/2016 12:26:46 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.
/
18
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
REGULAR MEETING <br />AUGUST 22, 2016 <br />Velvet Canada, 106 S. Niles Avenue, stated she agrees with the previous speakers. It makes <br />sense for the Northeast Neighborhood to want to take this exception out but in the CBD it <br />doesn't makes sense. We shouldn't have to go through a forty -five (45) day process just to have <br />three (3) people who are unrelated live together. <br />Adam McMillen, 215 East Colfax Ave., stated he agrees with what the other people have said in <br />opposition. This process is a long period of time especially in terms of people living together. <br />The current proposal is not the most effective for making this momentum keep moving forward. <br />Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205 South Bend IN, stated the forty -five (45) day period is ridiculous <br />because you can close on a house in less than thirty (30) days and be moved in. The Council <br />should not have the right to make these judgment calls on other people's properties. Any <br />bureaucratic red tape will slow growth in the City and that is not what South Bend needs. <br />Meghan Curwin, 223 East Colfax Ave., echoed the other sentiments in opposition. She stated she <br />has always had a minimal of two (2) roommates and she can understand the concern people have <br />who are in favor of this. She used to live over by Notre Dame and the students across the street <br />were crazy and that's what we seem to want to have a check on. This does seem like a very long <br />process just to have a house have three (3) roommates. Ms. Curwin asked who's responsibility <br />does this fall upon, the homeowner or the renters. Two (2) is such a small number for people <br />who are unrelated and that should be raised. <br />Jack Jacobs, 223 East Colfax, stated he respects everyone's views expressed tonight. He stated <br />he is the exact person who benefits from the current language and it allows him to handle his <br />student debt and establish himself in South Bend. <br />Councilmember Jo M. Broden, sponsor of the bill, gave a rebuttal. We are looking to affirm <br />these creative and organic uses. It is asking for a process and if you want to be in the business of <br />opening up your house to two (2) or more individuals it would certainly require a bit of legwork <br />on your behalf. We ,have expanded the definition to exceed what was on the books before. We <br />have also added the group residents within a district that before did not exist. In terms of the <br />concerns with shift work by healthcare providers, for the most part it would not preclude that. <br />Yes three - hundred dollars ($300) is a decent amount of money and the burden would be on the <br />property owner. Many of the issues brought up in the process like contacting the neighbors is <br />actually provided as a service through the Area Plan Commission staff. <br />Chairperson Ferlic allowed each Councilmember to ask questions and give their comments. <br />Councilmember Williams- Preston stated this brought up a lot of questions for her. She asked <br />what the repercussions for not following this process would be. <br />Ms. Smith responded if there was a situation where a household was not meeting the definition <br />of family it would be a code violation and they would proceed to the code violation process. Ms. <br />Smith stated she does not work for Code Enforcement but it would be along the lines of a letter <br />and a chance to appeal and correct the violation. Then a fine would most likely be instituted. <br />Councilmember Williams- Preston stated her concern is for the folks who are currently residents <br />who may not have the ability to pay the three - hundred dollars ($300) or have a language barrier <br />in terms understanding what the process is. She stated she is interested in understanding more <br />about that Code Enforcement process. She stated she thinks a lot of people are living in these <br />arrangements now and hopefully we don't see tons of people coming and doing this process. <br />Ms. Smith stated she doesn't know how many people currently are in this situation but you can <br />apply for more than one (1) address at the same time. The Building Department also spends a <br />large amount of their time trying to help people through the various processes. <br />Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated it looks like we are primarily talking about the Central <br />Business District. If this goes ahead, there will be some sort of guidelines established by the <br />Council so that we do not have people continuously stretching this ordinance. He stated he is not <br />a big fan of rules but if it happens there does need to be guidelines. He stated he would prefer to <br />have a later effective date to establish some guidelines and rules on our side. <br />H. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.