02-27-17 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27.2017 Councilmember Dr. David Varner made a motion to take a ten (10) minute recess. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County -City building at 10:47 p.m. Council Vice President Oliver Davis presided with eight (8) members present. Councilmember Karen White made a motion to suspend the rules of the Common Council Meeting to allow those citizens wishing to have Privilege of the Floor to do so before the allotted time. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. (The words shared by citizens who had the Privilege of the Floor may be found under the section header, "Privilege of the Floor.') APPEAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 1240 W. THOMAS STREET -BOYD VS. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Interim Council Attorney Aladean DeRose explained the rules for the proceedings. The petitioner will have a maximum of twenty (20) minutes to present his or her case, which should also address the specific issue under review, the petitioner's statement of his or her position, relevant witnesses, if any, and requested action which the petitioner is seeking. The Historic Preservation Commission will then go next with the maximum of twenty (20) minutes including its statement of position, its relevant witness statements, if any, and its requested action, which the Historic Preservation Commission seeks. The petitioner then will have five (5) minutes, maximum, for rebuttal. After that, the Council may ask questions of all the parties up to a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes for that public portion of the hearing. The action of the HPC shall be reviewed by members of the Council, as a quasi-judicial body, to determine whether the HPC's action in denying a Certificate of Appropriateness was arbitrary and capricious and abusive discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law; whether it is contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; whether it is an excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitation, or statutory rights, or without observational procedures required by applicable law and ordinance, or if it is unsupported by substantial evidence. Each member of Council shall have the opportunity to comment before a motion on this position of this appeal is accepted by the Chair. The certification of documents received from the Historic Preservation Commission consisting of. minutes from the public meeting, dated September 19th 2016; the Letter of Denial of Mr. Boyd's application, dated September 27th 2016; Mr. Boyd's application for Certificate of Appropriateness; the staff report concerning the Certificate of Appropriateness; and a correspondence from the Building Commissioner. All those materials are in evidence and for the review of the Council. Also, as part of the process: the submission by the petitioner in support of review, as well as the attorney for the HPC's submission, and all attachments as evidence to that submission. Those pieces of evidence are before the Council. Eric Boyd stated, According to Ordinance 9495 -04 HPC Guidelines, a building application is deemed an application for a COA. The ordinance requires the Building Department to forward the application to the Historic Preservation Commission within five (5) business days, not three - hundred and sixty (360) days. I applied for a building permit through the Business Office of the Building Department. According to the ordinance it is their responsibility to get my application and get it to the Historic Preservation Commission. They did not do that for almost a year. I am not held liable for that, because, according to the ordinance, that is the responsibility of the Building Commissioner. I filed this application on October, 2015. The St. Joseph County Building Commissioner failed to forward my application until August, 2016. I have a sworn affidavit from the Building Commissioner that states he has made that mistake. Someone in his office did not do the proper procedures of the ordinance. He acknowledges the department in not forwarding the application for a pitched roof. If the City accidentally authorized and permitted a gabled roof rather than a flat roof, the HPC failed to prepare and issue an individual Historic Preservation Plan, as required by the same ordinance. The question is: why do I have to pay for 17