Laserfiche WebLink
Rodes: My contention is that the grandfathering of this Commission is unconstitutional. <br />I have advocates from the Indiana Count of Appeals which will so hold .... that is... <br />Zeiger: You are going to be mounting a constitutional challenge to the Commission in <br />addition to challenging this COA? <br />Rodes: I am. <br />Zeiger: Interesting. I don't think that is germane to our discussion here this evening. <br />Rodes: I have a case ...your attorney will... speak... <br />DeRose: I will, in fact let me speak. Aladean DeRose, Legal Department. What the <br />petitioner is claiming is that both, there is not authority to do what the Commission has <br />proposed to do by the last motion, denying the COA and secondly, and separately, that <br />Commission has been improperly delegated responsibility under State law because it has <br />a code that is different from the rest of the State and there is a Constitutional provision <br />that provides ... a Constitutional provision that requires that all laws be uniformly and <br />generally enforced throughout the State. Those are legal issues that would be addressed <br />to a different forum. They would be addressed to a judicial forum; so that in the event <br />that this case goes further those issues may be determined. But for your purposes, at this <br />time, I don't think you have the power or the authority to determine whether you're <br />acting unconstitutionally or in violation... <br />Rodes: Could I, could I elaborate on that..... <br />DeRose: Well, we could argue about that, I am sure Mr. Rodes wants to make... <br />Zeiger: It is not germane to the COA. <br />Rodes: It's not, it's not.... That ... you can, certainly, follow the state guidelines if you <br />were so minded, there is nothing to stop you from doing so. That counsel has pointed out <br />whether you are obliged to follow them is not a question for this tribunal, but you are <br />certainly at liberty to follow them; it might be wise to do so. <br />Klusczinski: Professor Rodes, did you look at the diagrams for the proposed installation <br />of the replacement option that the petitioner chose? <br />Rodes: I didn't. Ilooked at them but I did not follow them completely because I... <br />Klusczinski: Do you read blueprints? <br />Rodes: Uh... I....ah prob... <br />Klusczinski: Fair enough. I understand. <br />Rodes: Basically, I am making this argument from the practicalities...of my client <br />Klusczinski: And I understand. But what I was trying to draw a correlation to is if you <br />don't know exactly what he proposes to install into the opening how can you assess that it <br />wouldn't detract from the current visual appearance of the building or structure which <br />would lend itself to the historic credibility of a significant local landmark in the Chapin <br />Park historic district? <br />Rodes: Not that, I think that I will, I will defer to my client there. My understanding <br />from, my understanding from him was that it was not plain that there would be a <br />noticeable change in the appearance of the building. Now, if there is such a claim... <br />Klusczinski: We believe there is and I think that that has been a point of contention all <br />the way along. There is a secondary sill that was proposed. Also, as per the guidelines as <br />per all the requirements where we have a precedent set in the local community since 1973 <br />what we have to remain sensitive to, also, is that typically our position has generally been <br />to further artifacts and amenities to historic structures that also lend themselves to the <br />character and preservation of those structures. We believe, I believe, and when I say"we" <br />7 <br />