|
REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017
<br /> to Mr. Boyd due to the denial of the COA. Mr. Boyd, in the previous appeal meeting before the
<br /> Common Council, had asked the HPC for a preservation plan for the property and,to this day,
<br /> has not received one (1).
<br /> In the first appeal submitted to the HPC, Mr. Boyd sought, in addition to the rear, a partial roof.
<br /> In this meeting,the appeal in question is one (1) asking for a mono roof. Mr. Boyd stated, The
<br /> City issued the permit, we executed the permit,the City stopped the permit. That is the
<br /> difference between the two (2) appeals. We are also asking for an open courtyard. The structural
<br /> engineer has reviewed the plans. There are no issues with the courtyard.
<br /> Mr. Boyd concluded, stating that he was present as a resident of the west side, asking for the City
<br /> to help complete the renovation of the building they built; asking not for vacancies but for
<br /> development in the west side.
<br /> II.a—Testimony, Ms. Kirstin Champer:
<br /> Kirstin Champer, spouse of Mr. Eric Boyd, 1240 West Thomas Street, South Bend, IN,
<br /> approached the podium, as a witness,to speak on the topic of the aforementioned economic
<br /> hardships brought on by the denial of the COA by the HPC. Ms. Champer stated that the police
<br /> reports included in the packet given to the Council include reports of BB guns used to vandalize
<br /> the dump truck present on the property, as well as windows of the facility proper. It had to be
<br /> cleaned up and a dumping fee had to be paid. A security system had to be installed, as well. Ms.
<br /> Champer explained that when it was obvious to the neighborhood that the facility was being
<br /> restored,there were few problems. On the other hand, once restoration stopped and the building
<br /> had the air of vacancy, it started to attract unwanted attention again.
<br /> II.b—Testimony, Mr. Michael Clark:
<br /> Michael Clark, 1222 West Western Avenue, South Bend, IN, approached the podium, as a
<br /> witness. Mr. Clark stated that he has known Mr. Boyd since he began the project of restoring the
<br /> old firehouse. He stated that he has not seen anyone else put money into that part of town like
<br /> Mr. Boyd has. He stated that Mr. Boyd sought out a permit,put in the money and put in the
<br /> work, and that if the HPC wants a flat roof, they should pay for it themselves.
<br /> lI.c—Opening Statement,the Historic Preservation Commission:
<br /> Brandie Ecker, Attorney at Thorne Grodnik, LLP, 420 Lincoln Way West, South Bend, IN,
<br /> approached the podium to present the case on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission.
<br /> Ms. Ecker stated that Mr. Boyd originally applied for and received, on or about November 10th
<br /> 2011, a routine maintenance exemption to "replace metal roofing to secure the burned out
<br /> landmark and protect from the elements."The RME was only for repairs to the current roof and
<br /> not for the construction of a different roof style, and it was originally for one (1) year and was
<br /> extended, upon request, until November 10th, 2013. Mr. Boyd, instead of repairing the roof as per
<br /> the RME began construction of a gabled, asymmetrical roof sometime after the RME expired in
<br /> 2013. Sometime between 2015 and 2016, Mr. Boyd applied for a building permit,then sometime
<br /> later applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness. That application was for modifications to the
<br /> building. The COA was unanimously denied by members of the HPC present at the meeting of
<br /> September 19th, 2016. The denial was appealed to the Common Council where it was upheld by
<br /> a tied vote. Mr. Boyd then appealed the denial to the St. Joseph County Superior Court, where
<br /> the appeal was dismissed—first, against the HPC, the St. Joseph County Council, and the St.
<br /> Joseph County Building Department, then,two (2) months later, against the City of South Bend.
<br /> Ms. Ecker stated that Mr. Boyd applied for another COA on June 2nd, 2017. The COA was,
<br /> again, unanimously denied by the HPC on June 19th, 2017. The HPC mailed a copy of its
<br /> findings on June 23`d, 2017, setting forth the reasons for their denial of the COA—in summary,
<br /> that the roof would not meet the existing or historical character of the building, that the materials
<br /> that would be used to construct the roof were omitted from the application, and that the proposed
<br /> modification did not satisfy the criteria for a COA. Ms. Ecker stated that Mr. Boyd's first COA
<br /> application and second application are identical. The HPC denied the first application, and so, on
<br /> the grounds that this application is no different than the previous one (1), Ms. Ecker argued,the
<br /> denial should be upheld. She stated that even if the Council votes in favor of Mr. Boyd, Mr.
<br /> Boyd's proposed basis for reversing the HPC's denial are inappropriate. She stated that the
<br /> 12
<br />
|