|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />it? The ordinance that I am referencing, 9495 -04, requires the l
<br />to issue an Historic Preservation Plan for a historic property an
<br />I don't have one, nor have I been given one in the six (6) years
<br />had that in my possession, or the Building Commissioner, we c
<br />kind of roof, they want this kind of gable, they want this kind c
<br />window, they want this kind of siding."
<br />FEBRUARY 27, 2017
<br />storic Preservation Commission
<br />landmark in St. Joseph County.
<br />have owned the property. Had I
<br />aid say, "Okay, they want this
<br />pitch, they want this kind of
<br />Mr. Boyd stated, Now, they keep referencing a general proced of things that they want, as far
<br />as materials, however that is not what the ordinance calls for. AJ far as their denial, the reasons
<br />for denial: losing architectural integrity; changing from a flat ro f to a pitched roof would cause
<br />historical rating to drop. However, HPC approved the change from a flat roof to a pitched metal
<br />roof on November 10, 2011. According to HPC guidelines, HPC must evaluate the damage or
<br />detriment to public welfare if they approve construction that is permitted, even though it is not
<br />deemed appropriate, and evaluate the potential hardship that a denial would cause. The residents
<br />of Thomas Street are realistic in nature and were more concerned about losing the actual
<br />structure than losing architectural integrity. The building has been vacant and abandoned for
<br />almost seven (7) years with no roof. We've got prostitution, crack addicts in the basement with
<br />needles— that's what we're dealing with in my neighborhood. Removing the building— that's not
<br />what we want. We don't want anymore vacant lots where people are dumping trash, and things
<br />of that nature. As far as the architectural integrity, HPC has failed to evaluate equity capital
<br />investment of between $10,000415,000, and the financial hardship that removing the current
<br />pitched roof or replacing it with a flat one would incur. Now, the second reason for denying my
<br />application was structural soundness. St. Joseph Building Commissioner and City Engineer met
<br />with me on -site, September 19th, 2016, to perform a progress ch�ck. The Building Commissioner
<br />states, "The structural engineer is needed to evaluate and also needs to file a Homeland Security
<br />permit, whose jurisdiction supersedes the local Building Department." Based on the
<br />recommendation of the Building Commissioner, I employed a 1' ensed structural engineer who is
<br />licensed in Texas, Florida, Indiana, and Colorado. He has done o (2) inspections of my
<br />property and says that the roof is perfectly fine at ninety -five percent (95 %), because it is not
<br />complete. So, if the roof is structurally fine, according to a licensed structural engineer in the
<br />State of Indiana, I can't agree with the Historic Preservation Commission because, one (1), they
<br />are not structural engineers, and two (2), obviously they are not !,going to weigh on my side.
<br />Regarding the structural engineer, he has a Master's degree from Notre Dame, he evaluated the
<br />project, he evaluated the roof, and this before the seal by the St 'te of Indiana.
<br />Mr. Boyd stated, The other thing that they denied my applicatioi i based upon is a lack of other
<br />options of flat roof quotes. When I met with them, I gave them irie flat roof quote, which I have
<br />with me here. This flat roof quote is dated from 2012, from Sou h Bend Roofing, Siding and
<br />Roofing Company. It's for $23,600. This is just for the rubber embrane —not for the
<br />application, not for the decking, not for the installation, none of hat. This is from 2013, which
<br />means that I researched the flat roof before I went with the roof that the City permitted me to do.
<br />So that's why the flat roof was taken off the table. They want more quotes for flat roofs, and
<br />that's the only thing that they are saying that they will approve, however, once again, they
<br />approved the gabled roof in 2011. I have that document with me, as well. Now: lack of other
<br />options. The flat roof was never proposed or suggested by HPC. HPC previously approved a
<br />metal pitched roof on November 10th, 2011 and issued the owner a seal weight for the
<br />replacement roof. The HPC guidelines ordinance, which I have referenced before, requires HPC
<br />to develop a Historic Preservation Plan for landmarks and assist in the implementation of such
<br />plans. The owner has no knowledge, nor was given a specific Pi eservation Plan for 1240 West
<br />Thomas Street. Such failures and reversal of previously approved COA's has contributed to the
<br />hardships placed on the owner at 1240 West Thomas Street.
<br />Mr. Boyd stated, Now, the Historic Preservation Commission was given a flat roof quote, which
<br />I have shown you. It's only for the rubber —it's not for the decking or the installation of the
<br />actual joists. The Firehouse burned in 2007, so when you look up, basically, there's no roof. All
<br />of that has to be repaired. Now, again, the quote was for $23,000. HPC's solution for this
<br />problem of a gabled roof, which the City has permitted and allowed, is that we remove this roof
<br />and we put in a flat roof and that I, myself, incur the cost, or that Community Investment foots
<br />the bill. Regarding resources in the City, I have what's called a I'File of Denial." My File of
<br />18
<br />
|