My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/10/07 Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2007
>
12/10/07 Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2008 8:25:35 AM
Creation date
1/28/2008 8:24:52 AM
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.
/
27
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 DECEMBER 10, 2007 <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that she respectfully disagrees with <br />Mr. Leone. The other section of State Law which is referenced in her memorandum but <br />did not reference verbally is again the section that deals specifically with Historic <br />Preservation statutorily authority and again the second body that was involved in this <br />situation was the Historic Preservation Commission locally and she also pointed out on <br />page four (4) of her memorandum, there is also a specific provision with respect to St. <br />Joseph County with regard to buildings and structures that maybe classified by a <br />commission as historic. Again the language in this particular section states specifically <br />those that are approved by the legislative body of the unit that has established the Historic <br />Preservation Commission and the Commission may itself remove the historic <br />classification. There is absolutely no reference to the City Executive or the Mayor <br />Office. So again, when you read Title 36 in its entirety, again specifically the chapter <br />that applies to Historic Preservation, the Council has to be cognoscente of that language. <br />Ms. Cekanski-Farrand reiterated that she disagrees with Mr. Leone. <br />Mayor Stephen Luecke, 14th Floor County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, stated <br />that he is not a lawyer or pretending to be one and with not having seen the opinion of the <br />Council Attorney, he stated that he obviously issued the veto believing that he had the <br />authority to do that, and in fact the language at the bottom of the ordinance reads that this <br />ordinance shall become effect after passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. <br />He stated that this reinforces the idea that if in fact the Mayor does have authority within <br />this ordinance as presented to the Council and passed by the Mayor. <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the bill originated from the <br />Historic Preservation Commission. She stated that she does not know the author of it <br />specifically. Again in the memorandum that Councilmember Kirsits requested back in <br />October, it set forth the procedures so that the entire Council had the guidelines as far as <br />what is historic and the criteria that the Council was to be looking at. She did a summary <br />of the last six historic preservation some prior and some after and for whatever reasons <br />the drafters of it never changed the last section. Again, she reiterated that she cannot <br />speak for the drafters of that document. <br />Ms. Catherine Hostetler, Director, Historic Preservation Commission, 125 S. Lafayette <br />Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, stated that Historic Preservation is an overlay of the zoning <br />laws for Ordinances in the City of South Bend. It doesn't change anything, it just puts <br />and extra layer of protection on the property. When the Council made the changes to <br />regulations and veto power because of the fact that the overlays don't substantially <br />change what happens with the property, but how they use the property, what goes on the <br />property was felt that this for some reason was not included in the Council's legislation <br />for the Mayor to have veto power. Ms. Hostetler advised that non the landmarks have <br />every originated in Area Plan, non of the landmarks have ever been challenged by the <br />Mayor, they have always been signed off by the City Council if they were landmarks in <br />the City of South Bend or the County Council if they were landmarks in the <br />unincorporated county of South Bend, they never went back up to the Commissioners to <br />be signed or vetoed and the ordinance have never gone to the Mayor's Office until this <br />time. Ms. Hostetler stated that if the Council does not take the advice of their attorney, <br />basically what is being done is allowing the executive branch to corrupt the Council's <br />authority to act in these matters, pure and simple. Ms. Hostetler stated that the Historic <br />Preservation Commission in not veto proof, the Council is the veto authority. <br />Councilmember Dieter made a motion to accept the advisory opinion of the Council <br />Attorney. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of <br />six (6) ayes (Councilmember's Dieter, Pfeifer, Kelly, Varner, Kuspa, Rouse) and three <br />(3) nays (Councilmember's Puzzello, White, Kirsits) <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />Councilmember White stated that she and Councilmember Kelly attended the Urban <br />Enterprise Association meeting and received an up date of the Kroc Center and the <br />Sample St. Business Complex. <br />25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.