WestminsterHoldingsLLCPositionStatement11102021

Home Browse Search

Turning to the Equal Protection Clause cause of action, Petitioner provided seventeen, 8 x 10 glossy photos to the HPC to support the contention that vinyl clad windows are common in the District. Of the sample of homes in a one block area of 768 Portage Avenue, the site address, the majority had vinyl windows. Jeffrey Flathers and his wife walked around Leland and Ashland Streets to sample homes in the area. The photos indicate that most of the homes enjoy tasteful, modern vinyl windows in all of some of their facades. The Petitioner made written notations on the back of these photos to provide a subjective grade from 1 to 10 on the curb appeal and desirability of these structures. Clearly, owners of these homes have already voted with their pocketbooks, purchasing and installing modern vinyl windows to replace energy inefficient, single pane, lead -paint encrusted originals. In his October 18' filing, the Appellant asserted that nowhere in the Chapin Historic District guidelines are vinyl windows proscribed. They are not prohibited by the HPC's own guidelines, or in actual fact in homes throughout Chapin. The HPC's ruling that the Petitioner must remove his vinyl windows, instead of administratively approving the COA application to ratify the installation was arbitrary because those same standards are not applied to other District homeowners. Cause of Action #2, as laid out in Petitioner's Appeal discusses how HPC member Downs-Krostenko claimed that all the vinyl windows in the District had been "grandfathered in" and were already in place in 2005 when the Chapin Historic District was formalized. Petitioner cited the Guidelines that mentioned only existing wood and aluminum clad windows which evidently represented the entire stockpile of existing windows as of 2005. As such vinyl windows in the District, must have been installed post -2005. They are now numerous and omnipresent throughout the neighborhoods. Several of the HPC's voting members alleged that their denial of the COA application was based in part on the fact that the application was asking for ratification rather than pre -authorization. Prior to installing the vinyl windows in question, Petitioner was unaware of any potential restrictions therein. The third Cause of Action relates to the seizure of wooden window sashes from 768 Portage Avenue In his September 23, 2021 letter to the Petitioner, Mr. Toering wrote "Staff retained the removed window sashes were you to want to reinstall them in the window openings." At no time did Mr. Toering, or any other South Bend employee, obtain a legal warrant to seize the window sashes and to present such a warrant to Mr. Flathers. Mr. Toering provided a photograph from a city inspector which indicated the presence of windows on the grounds of 768 Portage. In order to seize those sashes, one or more South Bend officials entered Petitioner's real property without a warrant and seized his property, again without a warrant. This is illegal and unconstitutional. ARGUMENTS AND CON'T'ENTIONS