HPC Administrative Record - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0602A would alter and modify the structure, fagade, architectural integrity, and style, by adding the slanted roof; did not meet the existing character of the structure; and was generally not in keeping with the historical character or look of the building. The HPC also found that the application lacked information on the material to be used for completion of the roof or how it would be covered. The HPC generally found that the roof proposal was not in keeping with the Standards and Guidelines for review of COAs. II. Standard of Review When the Common Council is called upon to review an appeal of an HPC decision, the Common Council is required to determine only whether the action taken by HPC was: (1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law; (2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or statutory rights; (4) Without observance of procedures required by applicable law or ordinance; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence. Mr. Boyd's position statement does not argue that HPC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, or that the decision to deny his application was contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity. He also does not contend that HPC was without the authority to deny his application or that they lacked substantial evidence to do so. Mr. Boyd instead makes the following arguments, presented in a somewhat difficult-to-follow fashion, for the Common Council to overturn HPC's denial of COA Application No. 2017-0602A: (1)the failure to send notification of a municipal administrative hearing via U.S. mail to Mr. Boyd violated Robert's Rules of Order, which had not been suspended; (2)that the HPC did not follow the municipal codes for"The Preservation of Meridian Street Area", which is located in Indianapolis; (3) that 5