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