May 2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Common Council for consideration. Counsel was asked to review the vacation request process and a synopsis of that information follows: Beginning with the homeowners initial request, a vacate request then goes through contacts that are made with various city agencies, i.e. Fire, Police Department, Redevelopment, etc. The purpose of that contact is to solicit opinion and any objection(s) to the request.. Common Council has the jurisdiction under state statutes to allow or disallow the vacation request. There are allowable objections to such a request. At present, the HPC doesn't have a prescribed role in the consideration of alley vacates, but that any private citizen is allowed and encouraged to speak either for or against such a request if they perceive that it effects them. The first foreseeable insertion of HPC input may not come until or unless the alley is vacated by Council, and then the homeowners wish to build upon it or alter it in a way that would require a C of A. Thus, it is Counsel's opinion that the HPC does not, at this point in the process, have purview, but any individual member affected by the petition may be heard and considered. President Klusczinski clarified that the current petition is being heard pursuant to IC 36.7-3-12 Alleyway Vacation procedures, and the HPC has no place in that particular process, also Zoning Chapter 21, Sect 21-13.02 Powers and Duties of the Historic Preservation Commission. Because the alley doesn't qualify as a "structure" and because the use of the alley is not changing (as far as is known at this time), the Zoning code cited also does not provide for HPC input in this matter. President Klusczinski expressed concern that because the HPC doesn't have a currently have a place in the vacation petition process, homeowners might pursue vacation with a plan to build or alter the alleyway, leading to confusion or frustration after the vacation is secured without understanding that a C of A would then be needed to further pursue their plans. Aside from that consideration, the conclusion is that the HPC does not have any obligation to take any action, unless individual members wish to be heard due to their personal reservations about the request. President Klusczinski polled Commissioners to determine if any Commissioners held the opinion that to allow an alley vacation was a compromise of the "historic viability" of the District. Commissioner consensus was that no Commissioner wished to pursue this petition formally. Commissioner Chase relayed that petitioners must state the reason for their vacation request, so their prospective plans should be known at the outset of the process; although it's possible that homeowners could be duplicitous in their filing. President Klusczinski relayed the details of the petition, per the petitioner, without specific knowledge of the truth or untruths of the contents. Commissioner Zeiger suggested that possibly the extent of HPC involvement should be to ensure that homeowners know that any subsequent building or altering of a vacated alley within a historic district must come before the HPC, but until a C of A is received, then its just conjecture to discuss what a homeowners plans might be. President Klusczinski closed the matter, and thanked Commissioners for their participation. Moved: Zeiger Second: Ujdak For adjournment Passes Unanimously