February 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Y- 2. At the scheduled meeting of the Council, the matter would be heard de novo. This means that no findings of the Commission would be binding on the Council and all matters would be subject for examination at the hearing. 3. At the hearing, the Petitioner would be permitted to present her case as to why the decision of the Commission is either: (a) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with applicable law; (b) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; (c) in excess of statutory jurisdiction; (d) without observance of procedure required by applicable law or (e) unsupported by substantial evidence. 4. The Commission would be represented at the hearing either by the staff or members of the Commission who would present the Commission's case stating the reasons in support the Commission's actions, i.e. the Commission's decision not to revoke landmark designation. A more detailed description of the hearing procedure of the Common Council is attached for your review. I am not aware of any formal procedures set by the County Council, but I would presume that the procedure would be comparable to that of the Common Council. Either party may appeal an adverse decision of the Council. Indiana Code § 34-13-6-1, et seq. applies to appeals from action of municipalities. I do not find a comparable provision in the Code for appealing the action of counties; however, I would presume that the procedures are similar. The appeal is commenced by filing a complaint in the circuit of superior court of the county in which the property is located within thirty (30) days of the action or decision complained of. The contents of the complaint and other procedural matters are set forth in the statute. In the event that the Commission is the appellant, a city attorney would be prevented from representing the Commission in an action against the Common Council. Therefore, the Commission would have to determine whether to employ outside counsel to represent it in the event that the Commission lost the appeal to the Common Council. It is questionable whether a city attorney should represent the Commission in an action against the County. After you have had the opportunity to review this memorandum, please contact me with any questions or concerns. cc: Members of the Historic Preservation Commission Thomas Bodnar Aladean DeRose 3