Laserfiche WebLink
for where there may be deficiencies, offer suggestions, then you said you would route that <br />through where? <br />Tim Klusczinski: Well one suggestion would be that after we establish a preliminary committee <br />to do this fact finding then for the purpose of legal suggestions we may take our <br />recommendations through the legal committee but that's only a suggestion. Once that happens, <br />then you would make their recommendations and this commission body together with <br />representatives the South Bend Common Council and St. Joseph County Council would then <br />make formal recommendations to each of those bodies of any changes that we'd like to make <br />referring to the ordinance. <br />Joann Sporleder: Were you fcnished Todd, I'm sorry. What exactly is the objective of doing what <br />you are proposing? <br />Tim Klusczinski: I'm not sure that the ordinance is completely with respect to enforcement <br />procedures. And, also it makes references to a "Section X" that I could not find. A few other <br />things like that. <br />Joann Sporleder: In that sense it sounds like perhaps its more of a concern that needs to go to <br />legal counsel first to clarify where the inconsistencies of the language is. Unless what you had in <br />mind really is to change some of the intent of what's there. <br />Tim Klusczinski: To clarify some of the intent of what's there. <br />Joann Sporleder: I guess I would have thought that it would go to counsel first, to clarify the <br />language, and then go to a committee to see if with clearer legal language it then represents what <br />we think it does, or what we thought it meant. <br />Tim Klusczinski: Since a lot of the content is applicable to either the Districts committee or the <br />Landmarks committee, I thought that it might be in our best interest to have representatives from <br />those panels sit in to understand what we're really reading here. Then, for the purpose of making <br />a legal suggestion from that instead of doing it the other way, its certainly a method, but I would <br />like to know what should be there first instead of what is there, or what we think we're reading. <br />Joann Sporleder: I guess I would have thought as I said before that we should understand what <br />is there, and see if that represents what we want it to represent. Then make changes as <br />appropriate... <br />Tim Klusczinski: And I think that those points are obvious in the document. I think that it's <br />what's missing that the respective committees either Landmarks or Districts need to address. <br />Lynn Patrick: Can I make a comment? It strikes me that this is growing out of two sources, one <br />was our visioning meeting, the retreat that we had back in December, and two its coming out our <br />goal to streamline and clarify the massive compilation of ordinances etc that we were working on <br />clarifying. <br />Catherine Hostetler: Also in the codified ordinances there are references to sections that don't <br />exist. Which causes confusion. <br />Todd Zeiger: Sounds like it also works with what you were just talking about the revamping the <br />CoA procedures, it all works together. <br />Lynn Patrick: Its all part and parcel of the whole. And I think that the reason that we're <br />suggesting that Tim and Todd for instance start on this... <br />Todd Zeiger: Wait a minute, how did 1 get involved? (laughter) <br />Lynn Patrick: 1 just threw you in there just as an example, as a result of the Preservation Plan <br />analysis that you worked on, because the alternative is to just dump all this on Scott (Shawn) <br />And go... 'here,read this, analyze this then tell us what's up ; I don't think that we're taking <br />anything away from Todd, if we start looking at this in a preliminary way ... I think Shawn has a <br />comment. <br />Shawn Peterson: I think it is appropriate for legal to review the ordinance but our review should <br />be in context. It appears that you have some specific issues with the ordinance. If not, then it <br />may be best if a few people are selected to review the ordinance and their issues could then be <br />brought to my attention and I can review the ordinance to see if it needs to be amended to resolve <br />those issues. <br />Tim Klusczinski: Getting back to Joann's question, I think that's probably how my brain works <br />on this. <br />16 <br />