|
REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27,201
<br />So, when you have a hole in the roof, and you need to undertake'' ome emergency repair to
<br />preserve the rest of the building, and you are permitted to depart from a standard of one (1)
<br />material to another — that's a rather small accommodation —as opposed to with that metal roof
<br />permit, saying, "I'm going to put on an addition, and now I'm going to put on a peaked roof..."
<br />When you buy a historic home or building like this, it's light fixtures, it's window frames, it's
<br />trim pieces, it's things that sometimes might seem} ridiculous, but that's what goes along with
<br />this historic landmark or historic home. A reasonable person knows that. I would say to Mr.
<br />Boyd that it's unfortunate, but a reasonable person, before you put a whole bunch of money into
<br />changing the look and style and structure of this home or building —what made it a historic
<br />landmark in the first place —would have made sure that what he is doing is the right thing to do. I
<br />have not been to many historic preservation hearings in my life, but the couple that I've had, I
<br />felt sorry for a guy because he had to change some porch trim at considerable expense. But those
<br />are the rules of the game and you've got to play by the rules. You can't just take carte blanche
<br />and go and do whatever you want just because you think you had the permit or the opportunity to
<br />do so. So, I'm going to come down on the opposite side of this.
<br />Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated, I'm inclined to rule in favoof Mr. Boyd. I don't think the
<br />procedures required by law were observed, whether or not that 4as the fault of HPC.
<br />Councilmember Karen White stated, I'm reading from page seven (7) of the information that we
<br />received. This states that, first, the HPC did not receive a copy of the building permit application.
<br />That was filed by Mr. Boyd in October, 2015. Clearly, it states tev at the guidelines, the timeframe
<br />was not adhered to and the Building Department admitted that made a mistake and failed to
<br />forward the application. Regardless, whether or not Mr. Boyd N
<br />understanding that that building permit had been approved, the
<br />it was not. There were a lot of procedural issues that I believe r
<br />even before it had been presented at this particular stage of the
<br />any of us would want to say to anyone, any of our citizens, "W
<br />$23,000." I think there could have been a better way, but, regar
<br />what we have before us, and I will be supporting Mr. Boyd.
<br />Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to deny the recoi
<br />Preservation Commission, based on the fact that procedures re
<br />Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which tied
<br />and four (4) nays (Councilmembers Randy Kelly, Jo M. Brod(
<br />Voorde).
<br />As neither the members of the Council nor Interim Council A
<br />operating under the
<br />ord clearly acknowledges that
<br />y should have been addressed
<br />eal process. I don't think that
<br />you just have to eat the
<br />ss, what we have before us is
<br />endation of the Historic
<br />[red by law were not observed.
<br />roll call vote of four (4) ayes
<br />Dr. David Varner, and John
<br />DeRose were familiar with
<br />the interpretation of a tied vote in this particular quasi-judicial format, Ms. DeRose proposed to
<br />notify the Council, the HPC, and Mr. Boyd of the final interpretation of the vote once due
<br />research had been completed. i I
<br />NEW BUSINESS
<br />There was no new business this evening.
<br />PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
<br />Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated that he h,
<br />Department, has submitted multiple FOIA's, has dealt with tlu
<br />and a State Police detective to try and get information regardin
<br />to the City mysteriously in 2015. Mr. Davis stated that the last
<br />Legal Department, on January 14th, 2016, stated that the State
<br />been in contact with the Legal
<br />(3) different City Attorneys,
<br />the equipment that was returned
<br />ice he had with the
<br />on the matter had
<br />closed and that it had been turned over to another entity. He was told that once the investigation
<br />had closed, he would receive the information that he requested. He stated that he wanted to know
<br />why, after two (2) years, he still has not received the information. Mr. Davis stated, If I need to
<br />file a complaint with the State, I will do so, but I think the Cou cil should be able to solve these
<br />problems.
<br />30
<br />
|