Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING <br />FEBRUARY 27, 2017 <br />Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, It seems to me that, clearly, the ball was dropped with <br />regards to communication between the Building Department and the HPC with regards to the <br />five (5) day issue. That, however, doesn't change the fact that the HPC, I believe, acted <br />appropriately by issuing a maintenance -only agreement. It's not their fault that they weren't <br />given a notice appropriately, and when time elapsed and it did come back —the request for a <br />Certificate of Appropriateness —it's virtually impossible to give a Certificate of Appropriateness <br />when it's inappropriate what was done. Not that it was illegal —and that's a whole other issue; <br />not that it wasn't a nice design for a person who wants it that way. But the request was for a <br />Certificate of Appropriateness. If the flat roof is where it began and it morphed, I don't know <br />how the HPC could issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. There may be some other mechanism <br />to arrive there. I don't know what it is, but I find that their actions would have been —given the <br />record that we have — appropriate and in the appropriate manner, and they were doing what was <br />appropriate, given their statutory responsibilities, as far as preservation. I feel like Mr. Boyd <br />finds himself in a very difficult situation. Requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness is not the <br />way to fix it. That does not make it right. <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis stated, I had a question regarding the process. They shared it over <br />there — there's two (2) different ways. At first, they were denying that it was their process, but it <br />is their process. If you have two (2) routes with which you get into your home and one (1) was <br />messed up, then that's your fault, and you have a responsibility to take care of that. I think that <br />process —when you start off wrong, it's a big problem. I was teaching a class over at IUSB. I got <br />into the class and, to and behold, when I got there, not one (1) student had a book. Their syllabus <br />was there. Not one (1). 1 check with the department. They had done everything. Somehow, <br />somewhere in the bookstore, somebody dropped the ball and didn't order the books. It was a <br />summer course, so we were going fast. By the time the books got in, half my class was going to <br />be over. Now, what if they have already paid for their course, they've already done everything <br />else? What are we going to do? So, I had to sit there and adjust every single thing in order to <br />make sure that academics and the core courses were done. It was a crazy summer, that summer. <br />But I had to adjust to make sure. Could I have fought the department? The department did theirs. <br />I did mine. I was prepared. The students were prepared. Somebody down at the bookstore <br />messed that up. I had to take ownership of that situation, because they did it. They were an <br />employee of IUSB; I was an employee of IUSB. So, I had to adjust my issues so that everything <br />could be done. I could sit there and fuss with the students all day long and the only thing they are <br />going to do is mess up my evaluations. So, therefore, I adjusted my time because the process <br />started off day one (1) wrong, and there was no way it was going to end right, unless I made <br />some modifications that were unusual. I taught for a long time in my life. Never had that <br />situation happen. But, in that situation, I had to make tremendous adjustments. And I learned <br />from there, every single time, to make sure weeks in advance. I learned a lot from that. So, yeah, <br />it was my situation. I had to take ownership of it. And I think that the combination should have <br />been made when it comes down to these situations here; with our procedures. The procedures <br />went wrong and the wrong things started off from that standpoint. So, I cannot support that. <br />When it comes to the Building Commissioner, if that's not right and there was something there, <br />that's a serious situation. There needs to be more clarity when it comes down to that document, <br />for six (6) years. That has to be done from that standpoint. In the words of my mother, I'm going <br />to call this "sloppy." This shouldn't have gotten here tonight. I will say, Mr. Boyd, some of the <br />movementI reckon that you were under a lot of pressure— probably should not have gone as <br />far as you did. I will say that. Part of that got to the point where, "If these folk are not telling me <br />right, who cares about it ?" I feel that coming across. So, you moved ahead with all that, which <br />didn't make everything right. It probably made more people say that they would vote against <br />you. But the bottom line is that the process started off wrong. I do believe that the ends do not <br />justify the means. If the means are wrong, then the end, nine (9) out of ten (10) times is wrong, <br />too. You can't justify that. Therefore, I will be in favor of Mr. Boyd. <br />Councilmember John Voorde stated, The regulations here are beyond my ability to say what's <br />right and wrong. I think there just ought to be a standard of reasonableness applied to this, and I <br />come down on the opposite side of Mr. Davis and Ms. Preston, because I think that a reasonable <br />person, when they buy be it a historic landmark or a home or building in a historic district, has <br />got to know that there are probably all sorts of regulations and limitations to what can be done. <br />29 <br />