|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />FEBRUARY 27, 2017
<br />Denial is any opportunity or resource in the City that I have reached out to and basically have
<br />been turned down by. Regarding the Vacant to Value grant program, I spoke to Elizabeth in
<br />Community Investment. She says my property is not vacant or abandoned enough. Once again,
<br />we've got prostitution, drug addiction, and vandalism going on. I've got copies of Police reports
<br />where people have literally driven their car, backed into my garage door, picked it up, put it on
<br />their truck, and I found it at the scrapyard. I think this is vacant and abandoned, ladies and
<br />gentlemen. I've got letters to Scott Ford, who I have learned no longer works with Community
<br />Investment. Still waiting for a reply. I've got a letter to the ReStore of St. Joseph County asking
<br />for donations or possibly discounts —this is from 2014. No reply. I have the Southeast Berrien
<br />County Landfill Authority, dated February 20th, 2014, asking for discounts or some type of help
<br />with dumpsters to clear some of the debris. Still waiting on a reply from 2014.
<br />Mr. Boyd stated, What I am trying to tell you is: you want development in the City of South
<br />Bend; you want change to the City of South Bend; I especially want it in my neighborhood, and
<br />I'm trying to do that. My wife and I have moved over 30,000 pounds of debris out of that
<br />building by hand, and I've got the receipts to prove it. What I am asking for today is pretty
<br />simple: I'm asking for a Preservation Plan for my property so that you can tell me exactly what
<br />you want me to do so I can do it right the first time. The other thing I'm asking for is that you
<br />accept the roof the way it is. You gave a permit for the roof. The structural engineer says the roof
<br />is fine. If the City made a mistake and you want the roof changed, I'm asking you to foot the bill.
<br />Community Investment —I've met with them twice within the past couple of months, based on
<br />the suggestion of the Historic Preservation Commission —they are finally reaching back to me,
<br />after I sent them the emails from 2015 asking for a response. If they want to foot the bill, I'm
<br />perfectly fine and happy with you guys changing the roof as long as you are paying for it. I can't
<br />get on that roof again. I just can't, I'm sorry. I've done it once, I can't do it again. So, those are
<br />the two (2) things I'm requesting. A Preservation Plan for my property, which I've been denied.
<br />According to the South Bend ordinance, I'm required to have one (1). The Historic Preservation
<br />Commission was supposed to prepare one —it's been seven (7) years. There isn't one (1). The
<br />other thing is, simply put: if the roof is going to change, I would prefer that Community
<br />Investment pays for that and that, if that is not going to happen, I would prefer that we keep the
<br />roof the way it is. It is structurally sound, it is correct, it is built to standards. I'm a licensed
<br />building contractor —I've done this before. Based on the information that you have in front of
<br />you, it gives a little transparency regarding what's happening across the street. Thank you for
<br />your time.
<br />Brett Hummer, Deputy County Attorney of St. Joseph County, representing the Historic
<br />Preservation Commission, approached the podium. Councilmember Dr. David Varner disclosed
<br />that he has had a relationship with Mr. Hummer and his family for numerous years.
<br />Mr. Hummer stated, My name is Brett Hummer. I am an attorney in town, and I am also
<br />privileged to serve as a Deputy County Attorney for St. Joseph County, and, in that capacity, I
<br />get to help the Historic Preservation Commission, both —since it is a creature of a City ordinance
<br />and a County ordinance. Thank you for your time, tonight. I suppose I will kind of work
<br />backwards, in regards to a couple of the things that Mr. Boyd pointed out, and then I will get
<br />back to why I think this is really a fairly straightforward decision. First of all, Mr. Boyd has
<br />referenced that the City had approved this gabled roof idea. That is incorrect. What should be
<br />made known tonight, as well, is that regardless of what you, as a Council, do in terms of saying
<br />whether HPC's decision was proper or not, this property is entangled with other issues at the
<br />Building Department. This is not going to end the issue, regardless of what you say HPC does.
<br />There is a letter in the materials that you have from Building Commissioner Bulot, August 10th,
<br />2016, and this does speak to this roof. This certainly does not support the idea that the City has
<br />previously approved this idea of a gabled roof on this historic landmark. This was to the Historic
<br />Preservation Commission from Mr. Bulot, August 10th, 2016: "Dear Elicia, on October 15th,
<br />2015, this Office issued a Building permit for commercial roofing at the above referenced
<br />address." But this is the important part: "What was to be a structural repair and reroofing job has
<br />now morphed into a partial roof on the main building and a new second story addition on the rear
<br />of the building. None of this has been properly permitted." That is very important to understand.
<br />In addition to that, the prior approval Mr. Boyd speaks of was not in regards to approving a
<br />newfangled gabled roof on this historic landmark. Mr. Boyd was granted, back in 2011, an RME.
<br />19
<br />
|