October 1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LEGALDEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE.MEMORANDUK TO: JOHN OXIAN DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1998 ED TALLEY FROM: ALADEAN M. DEROSE' DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEO RE: ORDINANCES AMENDING 'ARTICLE 6:5 OF CHAPTER 2,1.OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL,CODE I am attaching a revised ordinance concerning the City's adoption of.County landmarks where the City has annexed real estate. This ordinance has been revised to add a standard Section II.that sets forth the effective date. Also attached is- ' a proposed ordinance concerning interim protection of a proposed landmark based on the Model Ordinance on Historic Preservation, a copy of which I received from Adrian Fine. The proposed South Bend ordinance modifies the Model Ordinance slightly because the South Bend procedures are somewhat different. The one problem that I,see, and I think the.Common council will,perc6ive, is that the "temporary" nature of the interim protection might.be abused where an ordinance creating a landmark is tabled indefinitely by the Common Council. Presumably,the "temporary protection" provision continues while. the ordinance is being tabled. Thus, -a proposed landmark could conceivably be under temporary protection for -a year or more. Certainly a landmark owner:would argue vigorously that'this is not "temporary" interim protection and that his/her'rights are substantially affected. I believe the..Common Council might wish to insert a specific, maximum'..time limit -on. -such "temporary" interim protection. As an overall comment, I have no idea whether the Common Council will be receptive to this interim protection concept at all. However, it is worth exploring with the appropriate Common Council committee 6n,an informal,'discussion basis. If the Common Cou*nci1- is generally suppor.tive,'.then we can fine-tune according to their needs and desires.