Laserfiche WebLink
As described above, the HPC has already considered and denied COA Application No. <br /> 2016-0809, which requested alterations to the roof of the same kind as that requested in COA <br /> Application No. 2017 -0602A. In the Staff Report for Application No. 2016-0809, the work <br /> pertaining to the roof was described as: <br /> Owner proposes a 4/12 shed roof be constructed over part of the <br /> main building, from the west exterior wall 30' east to a 10'H wall <br /> built on existing brick interior wall, with a 1' overhang at west <br /> wall. <br /> See Exhibit "H", the Staff Report for Application No. 2016-0809. In the Staff Report for <br /> Application No. 2017-0602A, the work pertaining to the roof was described as: <br /> Owner has constructed a 4/12 single sloping roof surface over part <br /> of, roughly one half, of the main building, from the west exterior <br /> wall 30' east to a 10'H wall built on existing brick interior wall, <br /> with a F over hang at west wall. <br /> See Exhibit "E". The similarity of the proposed roof projects is supported by the inclusion in <br /> both COA Application No. 2016-0809 and No. 2017-0602A of two identical plan drawings. No <br /> description of changed circumstances was included in Application No. 2017-0602A, which <br /> would have explained to HPC why Mr. Boyd believed that a roof alteration which was not <br /> deemed appropriate before would have become appropriate in the interim. <br /> As described above, the principle of res judicata applies in the context of zoning <br /> decisions and HPC decisions. Res judicata is divided into two types, claim preclusion and issue <br /> preclusion. The current COA Application No. 2017-0602A presents a case of claim preclusion. <br /> "'Claim preclusion applies where a final judgment on the merits has been rendered which acts as <br /> a complete bar to a subsequent action on the same issue or claim between those parties and their <br /> privies."' First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 65 N.E.3d 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Where <br /> this doctrine applies, "'all matters that were or might have been litigated are deemed <br /> 7 <br />