05-12-08 Common Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING MAY 12, 2008 the exterior features of historic landmarks and of buildings or structures within Historic Preservation Districts” The Municipal Code of the City of South Bend, Indiana, Section 21-13.02(f). Mr. Meteiver stated that in 2000, the Park Avenue Neighborhood Association Board submitted an application for designation as the Chapin Park Local Historic District. They worked with the HPC to establish guidelines for the district. The HPC, through staff distributed proposed rules and an ordinance for the District. The “Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, Indiana to Create the Chapin Park Historic Preservation District” was enacted in March of 2005. Numerous public hearing were held on the standards, with the public submitting a significant amount of comments. In June of 2005, after a public hearing, the proposed changes to the standards were adopted as “A Guidebook for South Bend Indiana’s Chapin Park Local Historic District.” On July 1, 2005 those guidelines were posted on line with links of such postings provided. The ordinance adopted by the Council makes specific provisions for the HPC’s authority to decide the Owner’s Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness: “The Historic Preservation Commission shall issue a certificate of appropriateness before any one of the following actions is taken: the construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving of any exterior feature of any building, structure, or use. In making such determination, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the follows: appropriateness of the proposed construction, reconstruction alteration, demolition or moving to the preservation of the historic landmark, specifically, and/or the Historic Preservation District, generally; the detriment to the public welfare if the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving is permitted even though it is not deemed appropriate; and the potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would cause the applicant. Mr. Meteiver stated that the HPC clearly has the jurisdiction to act with regard to the Owner’s Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Meteiver advised that the petitioners allege that three bases to find that the HPC has acted contrary to law. The denial of this application is inconsistent with Section 21-13.02(f)(1) of the Municipal Code. The powers of the Commission should be interpreted in the light of I.C. 36-7-11. The denial of this application would cause hardship to applicants. Mr. Meteiver stated that the requirements of Section 21-13.02(f) were set forth above. Succinctly, the HPC has authority to adopt such standards as are reasonably necessary to preserve exterior features of structures within historic districts and of historic structures. The Chapin Park Local Historic District sets forth specific requirements with respect to Windows and Doors: “Original windows and doors shall be retained including sashes, lintels, sills, shutters, decorative glass, pediments, hoods and hardware. When deteriorated beyond repair, they shall be replaced with units and trim resembling the original.” (A Guidebook for South Bend Indiana’s Chapin Park Local Historic District, Section II. Existing Structures, C. Windows and Doors.) Similar looking units may be substituted only when the original unit is deteriorated beyond repair. The evidence presented at the hearing on the petitioners application of a Certificate of Appropriateness overwhelmingly demonstrates that the windows involved in the Application are not deteriorated beyond repair. No less than three “Witnesses” stated that the windows can be and should be restored rather than replaced as the owners wish to do. There is not one shred of evidence to the contrary. The owners acknowledge that the windows can be reused as they offered to store them for future use. Mr. Meteiver stated that the owners argue that the HPC has misapplied the “Hardship Exception.” This argument also fails. Simple additional financial burdens do not rise to the level of a hardship. It is going to be more expensive to repair and maintain architecturally historic structures. The added expense of securing historically accurate materials in the repair of these homes is not, in and of itself, a hardship. These types of financial burdens exist for all such structures. Mr. Meteiver stated that the HPC urges the members of the Council to focus on the issues in this appeal. Mr. Meteiver stated that the Council should find that the HPC had full authority to take the action that it took and that its action was entirely consistent with the law. Councilmember Dieter stated that the owners were given an “A Guidebook for South Bend Indiana’s Chapin Park Local Historic District,” outlining the rules and regulations and were fully aware and admit that what they want to do is inconsistent with those regulations. Councilmember Dieter stated that he would be voting to sustain the action of the HPC. 23