|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />FEBRUARY 27, 2017
<br />consider the financial aspect of this, the potential financial detrinient to Mr. Boyd. It says, "There
<br />is only one quotation obtained by the applicant for in -kind work. So, the commissioner was
<br />curious as to what financial impact this might have on Mr. Boyd. He obtained one (1), like he
<br />said, for twenty- three -and -some thousand dollars ($23,000). The Fornmission asked him there,
<br />"Well, isn't there another roofing company that could maybe loo' at this? It's a very expensive
<br />project." So, they were looking at that with him at the time of the meeting. Mr. Klusczinski also
<br />said, "There is insufficient documentation to consider alternative proposals at this time." That's
<br />getting at the potential financial hardship in that there was one (1) quotation presented, so HPC
<br />could not really collaborate with Mr. Boyd at that time, even if they wanted to, to work through
<br />some potential resolution. Commissioner Voll also hearkened to the potential hardship about
<br />this, and he said it's "a tough decision because of all the work the owner has put into it. The
<br />building, if it were restored in that neighborhood, would be a classic piece. That is a difficult
<br />option here, but there is hope that there may be ways to achieve that." Commissioner Buccellato:
<br />"Project does not meet standards and guidelines, in particular additions to Landmarks should not
<br />detract from the original form." So that's going directly at those �roup B standards that I
<br />mentioned earlier. He also said, "This roof, as proposed, will detract from the original form.
<br />Would like to see the building saved, and recommended that if a sloped roof is necessary
<br />financially, the owner would come back with a proposal that do not detract from the form of
<br />the structure."
<br />Mr. Hummer stated, So, again, the proper process here would be for Mr. Boyd to come back with
<br />a new application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. One (1), that would be in keeping in -kind
<br />with the landmark status, and we would go about it again. But, Mr. Buccellato was keeping in
<br />mind the ordinance factors and the Group B standards when he cast his vote, as well. And then
<br />Commissioner Gelfman —the last one —she cited "architectural integrity, lack of other quotes on
<br />a flat roof, ..." Again, that kind of gets into their consideration 6f the potential financial
<br />hardship. "...changing from a flat roof to gabled roof, losing the structural integrity of the
<br />building as -is historically, and materials being used." I think, taping it straight from the horse's
<br />mouth, if you will— listening to the commissioners —their mindset at the time that they cast this
<br />vote was to deny Mr. Boyd's application. I think it's clear that, at least from the Council's
<br />perspective, there was no arbitrary capriciousness here. There was no throwing out the statutes.
<br />This was not decided on a whim. They went through the procesE like they always do, and they
<br />consider what they can consider: the ordinance's parameters and, also, the Group B standards
<br />applicable to historic landmarks. So, with that being said, I will rid. there. As I said, I have Mr.
<br />Klusczinski and Ms. Feasel here if any questions would like to lie asked. We would ask that the
<br />Council sustain and affirm the HPC's decision to deny Mr. Boy 's application.
<br />I
<br />Mr. Boyd rebutted, I will respond to some of Mr. Hummer's comments. First off, regarding the
<br />roof not being properly permitted, I will show you right here, the. City of South Bend, on October
<br />13th, 2015 —this right here is a blueprint that shows the roof at t ie elevation of ten (10) feet. This
<br />was given to the Building Commissioner on that date and he was told of the elevation and what
<br />the roof would consist of, as far as materials. This is the back side of that document, which was
<br />also given to the Building Commissioner. This is a layout of the building showing which side of
<br />the building was going to be roofed. Regarding his memo stating that the roof was not properly
<br />permitted, this is the permit which he actually issued me, and these are the receipts which you
<br />are free to check, and I do have a copy of bank statements if yo would like to see those. And
<br />this is the cost of those permits, and that is his signature. So, thi is what is deemed a proper
<br />permit for that roof. Regarding the meeting on —I think it was S eptember. The hearing was
<br />called based on the Building Commissioner's, I guess, convers ion with the Historic
<br />Preservation Commission. He suggested that I talk with them and try to resolve the issue, in light
<br />of the mistake that he made. What Mr. Hummer will tell you aboout is the document, as far as the
<br />denial is concerned —what he won't tell you is what was discus d after I left the room. After I
<br />left the room, Commissioner Gelfman asked the attorney —Mr. Mummer, sitting right here —
<br />"Well, how do we fine people or give violations to people who don't do what we tell them to
<br />do ?" He said, "Well, you don't have the authority to do that. Th Common Council hasn't given
<br />that to you." His response was, "Well, how do we get that ?" " ell, you have to go to the
<br />Common Council and ask for that." So, Mr. Hummer suggested. that they lean on the other parts
<br />of the City, such as Code Enforcement or the Building Commissioner, who can give violations.
<br />22
<br />
|