03-28-05 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETINGMARCH 14, 2005 my house, have been divided up, added onto, and renovated numerous times since they were built. I did not buy my house as investment rental property but rather as my home and with the intention of fixing it up. However, I am neither interested in, nor can I afford, doing so with expensive “restoration” techniques and materials “in character” with the way the house was when it was built in 1898, renovated in 1945 and 1979 or whenever. This is 2005 and I live across the street from a heliport. Whatever “historic character” my house my have had at one time, is long gone. I won’t object if the good people who live of the tree-lined cobblestone streets in the beautiful truly-historic neighborhood behind my house want to create a “local historic district” for their benefit but I do not want them to diminish my property rights by imposing restrictions on my use of my property just so they can use my street as a buffer zone without any other rationale for its inclusion in the proposed district. I urge you to table the proposed ordinance until such time as the Chapin Park Board is able to distribute the revised Guidelines, to answer the questions regarding the boundaries, and to demonstrate significant support from a majority of the property owners affected. Moreover, since I have noticed that many of those opposed to the LHD, like myself, live on the periphery of the proposed district, I encourage you to recommend that such support be measured street by street rather than across the entire area. If you do go forward with the proposed ordinance at this time, I urge you to exclude all of Lafayette Boulevard (and perhaps other peripheral streets) from the LHD, not just the property on Lafayette Boulevard owned by Temple Beth-El that was previously excluded. Charles Rosenberg, 410 Manitou Place, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a 25 year resident of the neighborhood and opposes to such guidelines and rules. Mr. Rosenberg urged the Council to table discussion until the residents can see the modified guidelines. Carol Rosenberg, 410 Manitou Place, South Bend, Indiana stated that she is opposed to guidelines and covenants. The word covenant is not a nice word and does not belong in this neighborhood. Dan Slattery, 754 Lelan Avenue, South Bend, Indiana Anne Hayner, 754 Leland Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, advised that she loves the Chapin Park Neighborhood. She encourages preserving its uniqueness, however, the proposal before you tonight is destroying neighbor against neighbor. Laurence & Margaret Porter, 917 Leland Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, read their letter into the record. We are writing to register our opposition to the Chapin Park Local Historic District. Our opposition centers primarily on the lack of due process, the arbitrary boundaries for the proposed district and some implications for the future of our street and the neighborhood. The Chapin Park Board of Directors (10 people from an area of over 300 households) in conjunction with the South Bend – Saint Joseph County HPC have put forth a proposal on behalf of residents without any canvassing, questionnaires, or other type of vote of referendum. The Board has taken the position that lack of opposition during the process indicated agreement. Many of us assumed that before a proposal became guidelines mailed out to the households in the area there would have been some effort made to contact property owners (as was done by the Mishawaka HPC recently) to let them have an opportunity to voice opposition or support. In its own 1993 publication City of South Bend Summary Report: Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory the HPC states that in the case of potential local historic districts “Designation of these neighborhoods, would necessitate support from a majority of property owners in the area” (p. 235 of the Inventory). At not time from the inception of this plan by the Chapin Park board members has support been measured or actively sought. Communications have come through a listserv, to which fewer that 1/3 of the residents subscribe and through a newsletter, which is delivered by volunteers rather than U.S. mail. Since the Guidelines were sent out last fall there have been repeated requests for a referendum on this proposal, but the objection by the board is that it would be “too messy” and too much work. Many of us are troubled by the fact that board members use the legitimacy of their election to the board as a mandate to impose the historical designation on all the property owners, but are unwilling to pursue a process that would insure the right of all of us to be hard and counted. As far as we know there has been no effort to follow up to make sure that the guidelines and the concept of a local historic 11