Laserfiche WebLink
conclusively decided by the judgment in the prior action."' Id. The HPC had already rendered <br /> its decision on the merits of the roof alterations for COA Application No. 2016-0809. In <br /> addition, by its dismissal of Mr. Boyd's appeal of HPC's denial of Application No. 2016-0809, <br /> the St. Joseph Superior Court had also entered a final decision on the merits pertaining to the <br /> issue of denial of a COA Application on the roof alterations to the Firehouse. Therefore, the <br /> only issue left which would prevent the application of res judicata on COA Application No. <br /> 2017-0602A is whether the COA applications were substantially similar. <br /> Although the short verbal descriptions in each COA Application themselves are not <br /> identical, the inclusion of the identical drawings, as well as photographs with both COA <br /> Applications which show similar views of the Firehouse and the changes to the roof which were <br /> requested in both COA Applications, show that the proposed roof alterations for each COA <br /> Application(2016-0809 and 2017-0602A) were the same. In addition, Mr. Boyd during the June <br /> 19, 2017 public meeting agreed that the staff description of his proposed project was correct, <br /> meaning he admitted the proposed roof project in COA Application 2017-0602A was the same <br /> as the project proposed in COA 2016-0809. See Exhibit "I", an electronic recording of the June <br /> 19, 2017 HPC meeting at 2:16:15. The HPC entered specific findings in both COA denials <br /> justifying their denial of the roof alteration. See Exhibit "J", the Denial Letter for COA <br /> Application No. 2016-0809. Mr. Boyd states in his Position Statement that the difference <br /> between the appeals involving the roof is that the 2016 COA requested roofing the entire <br /> building, while the 2017 COA requested to roof only half of the building. The identical <br /> drawings included in the two Applications make it clear that this assertion is inaccurate, and that <br /> the Applications were both for the same (previously denied)roof design. <br /> B. Mr. Boyd's arguments supporting his contention that the Common Council should <br /> overturn the HPC's denial of COA Application 2017-0602A are spurious and irrelevant, and <br /> 8 <br />