11-13-17 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 Council may only reverse the HPC's decision for the reasons enumerated by Councilmember Scott, and that most of Mr. Boyd's contentions are irrelevant to those considerations. According to Ms. Ecker, the HPC did send their meeting notice in the mail, meeting their administrative policy requirement. Ms. Ecker explained that the onus is placed on the applicant to receive any notices that have been sent by the HPC. Additionally, the HPC is empowered to draw up a preservation plan but is not required to do so. She stated that the HPC is required to consider three (3) factors in requests for COA's: appropriateness of the proposed action,the detriment to the public welfare if the action is permitted even if it is not deemed appropriate, and the potential hardship of the denial. Though Mr. Boyd stated that the HPC did not consider his hardship in their evaluation, Ms. Ecker stated that the HPC considered it several times in the June 19th, 2017 meeting, even suggesting ways in which Mr. Boyd could reuse the materials he spent money on to construct the roof, among other things. Ms. Ecker stated, It was Mr. Boyd's decision to go ahead and have the Commission vote on the application as it stood, which they then did. IIA—Testimony, Ms. Elicia Feasel: Alicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, approached the podium as a witness. Ms. Feasel stated that she agrees with everything stated by the HPC's counsel. Ms. Feasel stated that she wanted to impressed upon the Council the fact that this is a repeat of the previous appeal that was brought before them. She stated that the Commission is only concerned with the exterior aesthetics of a historic property, adding that she was not privy to any request to observe the interior of the property in question. Ms. Feasel explained that the only power commissioners have is to issue a routine maintenance exemption, which they did for Mr. Boyd,which was to fix and finished the flat roof. The previous director gave Mr. Boyd leeway in allowing him to use metal in the construction of the roof. The current design—an asymmetrical, gabled roof that drops off exposing an open courtyard—is what the HPC deems inappropriate. Ms. Feasel stated that Mr. Boyd had several times in his statement made the point that the HPC thinks that other departments or agencies should pay for the roof. She stated that she surmises that the origin of this statement is the fact that certain commissioners have recommended to Mr. Boyd agencies and the like for funding. The HPC, according to Ms. Feasel, has been in support of Mr. Boyd, even writing letters of support for tax abatements, et cetera. The HPC, Ms. Feasel stated, is doing its duty and upholding City ordinance by declaring the proposed roof inappropriate. A proposition made by the HPC was for Mr. Boyd to provide quotes that show that a flat roof would be beyond his fiscal capacity. Another proposition made by the architect on the board was to provide a quote of how much it would cost to reuse the materials—donated to him for the current roof—to reformat the roof into a hipped roof that could cover the entire property. Mr. Boyd has not provided the HPC with quotes for either. Ms. Feasel concluded stating that she is eager to hear the Council's vote, but explained that this should not be a matter for the HPC but should have been turned over safety agencies. II.e—Conclusion of Opening Statement, the Historic Preservation Commission: In conclusion, Ms. Ecker reiterated the bases upon which the Council could reverse the HPC's decision: That its actions are found to be arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with ethical law; contrary to constitutional rights of power,privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority limitations, or statutory rights; without observation of the procedures required by ethical law and/or ordinance, and/or supported by substantial evidence. She stated that the proposed roof would destroy the historical value of the landmark, and asked the Council uphold the HPC's denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. III—Rebuttal, Mr. Eric Boyd: 13