My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HPC Administrative Record
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Legislation
>
Upcoming Bills
>
2017
>
11-13-2017
>
2017 Boyd v. HPC
>
HPC Administrative Record
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2017 9:01:48 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 2:54:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Counci - Date
9/5/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
situation. Meridian Street is located in Indianapolis, and is under the authority of Meridian <br /> Street Preservation Commission, a state-created agency which follows the Indiana <br /> Administrative Code. However, even if it applied to this case, under 925 IAC 2-4-3 the <br /> responsibility for notice of an application for a certificate of appropriateness falls on the <br /> applicant, not the Meridian Street Preservation Commission. Regardless, this argument is <br /> spurious and inapplicable to a landmark located within the City of South Bend. <br /> Ind. Code § 5-14-1, the Anti-Secrecy Act, was repealed and so cannot be violated. Ind. <br /> Code § 5-14-3, the Access to Public Records Act, requires a public agency to allow a person to <br /> inspect and copy the public records during the regular business hours of the agency upon request <br /> by that person. Mr. Boyd never requested a copy of the COA Application No. 2017-0602A, or <br /> the corresponding Staff Report, and so no violation of Ind. Code § 5-14-3 could have occurred. <br /> Ind. Code § 5-14-3 does not require that a public agency affirmatively inform anyone of the <br /> existence of a particular record without a request for that record. <br /> Section 21-13.02 of City of South Bend Ordinance 9495-04 lays out the powers and <br /> duties of the HPC. Under this Ordinance Section, some of the items enumerated are powers of <br /> the HPC which are discretionary, and some of the items are duties of the HPC which the HPC is <br /> required to carry out. Whether a subsection refers to a power or duty is a matter of statutory <br /> interpretation. "'The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that if a statute is unambiguous, <br /> then . . . [the court] must apply its plain and clear meaning."' Certain Tell City Annexation Terr. <br /> Landowners v. Tell city, 73 N.E.3d 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). In statutes and ordinances, <br /> mandatory duties are clearly delineated by using the word"shall", "must", or other prescriptive <br /> words. Discretionary powers do not use such words, and might use a word such as"may" or <br /> merely state a power that exists. For instance, Section 21-13.02(d)(1) states, "The Historic <br /> 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.