- I would like to call the July 10th, 2025 meeting of the Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission to order. Would you call the roll, please, Tom? Certainly. Duncan Campbell? Karen Duffy? Here. Jack Baker? Here. Jeremy Hackard? Here. Renard Cross? Here. Sam DeSolar? Here. Melanie Dusner? Daniel Schlegel? Here. We have quorum. All right. We do not have minutes at the moment, so we'll
- The minutes are complete. They're just going to be coming out in the next packet. OK. OK, certificates of appropriateness. Yes. I'm sorry. It's not in the minutes, but I noticed that an omission in the list of commissioners at the beginning. Elizabeth Mitchell should be on that list. Yeah. OK, I will add Liz. So that's all.
- Is that on the new agenda? Yeah. This is a new state law that we have to include, you know, commissioners, their terms, and who are appointed and ordered by them. That's interesting. Yes. Our days are numbered. It's put in the commissioners who they're appointed by and what their terms are in a minute. Thank you, Karen. You're very welcome. Good catch. OK. Yeah.
- I mean, should you keep flying under the radar? Okay, okay. Are we ready to move on to the first COA? Yes, please. Okay. This is COA 1115 East Wiley Street, Nelham Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Betsy Steeritt. Is the petitioner or anybody representing the petitioner here today? It was a staff approval, so they don't... It is a staff approval. I just wanted to check. Okay.
- Built in 1926, 1115 East Wiley is an English cottage style house, sharing some characteristics like massing with a more elaborate Tudor revival style. The building is currently clad in vinyl siding request. We are proposing to remove the existing siding from the house and replace it with LP lap siding in quarry gray in 5.84 inch width. The siding will be brushed smooth finish.
- The work will be done by Steve Percy and should start September 1st, 2025. Betsy Stewart and Blaise Cronin. Staff approved COA 2539. The house is currently sited with vinyl, which is not a recommended material due to its conspicuous visual distinction from the original wood. Smooth LP siding with a 5.84 inch reveal would more closely match the appearance of the wood clabboard siding found on historic buildings in the district.
- C.O.A. Yes. Oh, right. Thank you. Thank you for catching me. Let me get this in.
- I've got that too. Thank you. Here we go. For each item, the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report. Then here, if the petitioner has any additional information, followed by a round of questions from each commissioner, ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the chair unless a question is directly addressed to them. If a member of the public or petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand.
- until recognized by the chair. Once a motion is made, we'll then open up a discussion of the item for members of the commission only. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. Certificate of Appropriateness, COA 2524. This is for 818 East 3rd Street, the Tri-Delta House.
- which is an individually listed historic district? 2540. 2540, right. And then Betsy Stewart just joined online. She did. And she just got approval. Who did? Betsy Stewart. Betsy Stewart just joined online. Betsy, if you were online, we just want to let you know you got approved and you do not have to stay.
- We're just moving quickly today. Is there anybody here to represent 818 East 3rd? There is no one here. Anybody online who can raise their hand?
- like a seance. We bump this to the end and see if anyone shows up. Okay this next item I believe nobody is going to be attending tonight but I want to make sure. Is anybody here for COA 2537?
- Let's move on to demolition delays.
- This is. The packet is correct. Slide show is not. OK. Apologies. The slide show is not up to date, but your packets, which are available online, by the way, do have the current information about
- the two demolition delays for tonight. So apologies for that. The first one this evening is DD 2514, located at 314 East 11th Street. The petitioner is North College Partners. Is the petitioner here? Is the petitioner here? I am, yes. OK. Thank you. 314 East 11th Street is a pyramidal roofed cottage with a gabled L
- built in the 1900s or early 1910s. In the 1910s, the house was owned by the family of Rufus B. Skerven, a plasterer. Members of the extended family lived in the Cottage Grove area. From 1922 through 1935, the house was owned by Matilda Harris, a retired and widowed farmer. For the first six years, her son Morton, a truck driver and IU janitor, and his wife, Muriel, lived with her. After her son moved out,
- Matilda occasionally rented to Showers Brothers employees. Over the next decade, no residents stayed longer than a couple of years. This number included quarrymen, laborers, and widows. In 1948, the house was bought by Maddie Isom, a 50-year-old widow who lived with another widow, Wanda Buskirk, who worked as a maid. Wanda moved out in 1956.
- and Maddie died in 1975, passing ownership of her house to her son, who lived in Florida. The request is for full demolition. Staff recommends release of DD2514. Do you have anything to add? I don't believe so. I'm happy to answer any questions. Do you mind saying your name for the record, if possible? Yes, Sable Byers. Thank you so much. You're welcome. All right, questions?
- Let me start with you, Renard, do you have questions? Is this one the buskirk in your relation to the buskerks of the buskerks? Chamblis? Yes. She married a buskirk, but he was not close with the Chamblis buskerks. OK. That's it. I believe he was a truck driver. You've been into some interesting stories in these things. Dan, any more questions?
- Um, I try to go by these places. What zone is this? Like, what is it zoned for? I don't know how to find that otherwise. The only reason I'm asking is the, the houses that were torn down in green acres, the ones that went up, when I biked by, they felt like these huge monstrosities compared to like those smaller houses.
- So I just didn't know if this was also multi-family housing like that was. But the new ones just dwarf everything that's around them. So I figured if it went by city zoning, planning, whatever, that's within their means. But I was just curious since I don't know how to find what the city zoning is for this area. I mean, you can find your zoning that's coming right now. If you don't mind, that's awesome. What was the address you get on this? 314 East 11th.
- 30 seconds. You're gonna beat everybody. Don't hold me to it, it's taking longer. RM. What's that? Residential Multifamily. RM, gotcha. Okay. Yeah, I thought RM. Is that Registered Nurses? Yeah, sorry, M.
- And this isn't any sort of district that. Any other questions? Well, I noticed the retaining wall there. What do you have a plan for that? I am unsure. I don't know. I mean, is a retaining wall of any significance to a house?
- I'm assuming if there's a retaining wall there, that will need to remain there. But I don't know if they would plan to leave it, upgrade it. I mean, right. I know oftentimes old retaining walls need repaired. They're often leaning in, but I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. Just here on behalf. I guess it has to be repaired or replaced.
- Otherwise, you'd have to grade the whole of it. Right. I don't think eliminating it would be a possibility. Thousands of lives and millions of dollars, you can guess. Any other questions? Questions? Questions? I have no questions. I will entertain a motion. Do I have a second?
- All right, let's talk about it. Anybody have anything to say? It's kind of one of those. Yeah, not the district. Doesn't have a story. Significant unto itself. All right, at this point, I think we can probably call a vote. All right, so there's a motion on the table for demolition delay 2514 at 314 8th to 11th Street.
- Yes would be to release the demolition delay. Karen Duffy. I'm so sorry. I apologize as a non-voting member. Jack Baker. Yes. Jeremy Hacker. Yes. Renard Cross. Yes. Sam DeSolar. Yes. Daniel Schlegel.
- Unfortunately, yes. OK, so that motion does pass 5-0-0. Today regarding the property located at 314 East 11th Street, the Historic Preservation Commission declares that it got notice of proposed demolition. And after today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. The HPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the common council.
- things on the agenda. I thought we had one. There's one more thing to do. 111 South Jefferson. Yeah. Okay. 25 15. Uh, this is for again, North College partners. Um, 111 South Jefferson Street is your senior packet. Um, built in 1948 111 South Jefferson is a minimal ranch with rounded front facing corners.
- The building has had a number of substantial alterations, including the installation of a rectangular corrugated metal roof and a rear addition. The house was first occupied from 1948 through 1949 by Walter Prosser and his wife June, a nurse. Walter served as a bomber pilot in World War II and spent most of his career as an engineer for FH Langson Camp, a manufacturer of food processing equipment.
- finishing his career as vice president. He was a longtime member of Indiana Landmarks, Indiana's primary historic preservation umbrella organization. In the 1980s, the couple bought and restored an 1870 house on the National Road in Putnam County, which they subsequently opened as a B&B and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Walter also built and piloted airplanes on the side.
- From 1950 through 1953, the house was occupied by medical student Jack Lennox. During the year of 1954 through 1955, the house was occupied by John Boyd, a graduate student and another Air Force veteran who would go on to teach journalism at University of Alabama, University of Evansville, Michigan State University, University of Missouri, and Indiana State University. From 1956 through 1958, the house was
- occupied by telephone operator Agnes Carter. Car salesman Ira Smith and his wife Patricia lived here from 1959 through 1967. Following the Smith's departure, renters cycled out on an annual basis. The application is for full demolition. Anything additional about this property? It's zoned R3. What's that one for? Smaller than RM.
- So it's a single family zoning district? Yes. Thank you. Okay. But not an RN? Correct. Yes. That's like small lot, single family residential, right? Small lot. Any other questions? Questions? Jack? No questions. Karen? Karen? Any other questions? No questions.
- I will entertain a motion. I'll move to release DD 2515. Right here, second? Second. All right, any comments? There's the irony that he was history or Indiana landmarks. Well, they got one landmark. There's not this one. And those curvy, did you see the photograph, those curvy front walls? Those are weird. Very interesting. Yeah, I looked at this on the aerials and it looks like
- back in like the 50s, this would have been a very interesting looking house. I mean, it's interesting now, but for other reasons. Right, okay. We haven't asked if there's any commentary from the public. I don't see anybody online. We have one person online that hasn't responded to any inquiries. Okay, well, I think we can call and vote.
- So this is a motion and it has been seconded for DD2515. To release a demolition delay, we'll take a vote. Jack Baker? Overlooked it, yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSole? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Another heavy hearted, yes. And that motion passes 5-0-0. Thanks for coming in. Thank you. I believe we have something about Cottage Grove. Yes.
- So today regarding the property located at 111 South Jefferson the Historic Preservation Commission declares that it got notice of proposed demolition and after today's discussion sees no need to review the plans any further
- and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. HBC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the common council. Thank you. For the nomination 2502, I would like Noah to sort of summarize very quickly what you found for people who were not here last time around. So in the May 20, sorry, June.
- was a June 12th meeting. This came up as a demolition delay. Somebody from the neighborhood came and pointed out that there was a connection here to a significant local family. I subsequently looked into that, which I can summarize again if you all need that. But by and large, it looks like that connection doesn't really raise its property to the threshold
- eligibility for listing by virtue of its connections with significant individuals or events. So there was discussion at the last meeting of voting to rescind this nomination and possibly end the demolition delay period. So would the commission like for me to go through the research again? Or would we just open this up for discussion? I'm familiar with it. If anybody would like to go through the research again,
- Happy to do that otherwise. I think we can look for a motion. We can have questions. Any questions? Jack? No, I don't know what to ask at this point. I mean, Lua has done research. I just have to decide if that's enough and it's time to move on. I'm doubting.
- I hate to have him waste his time, but unless there's something that I thought might turn up, at this point I don't see what that might be. It's not really a question, I'm sorry, but. I do not have a question. You have questions? No questions. Any no questions? No. No questions. So we can entertain a motion at this point.
- I would move to resend the vote to recommend this property for designation of the common council. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you. Discussion, I think. Well, I think we found out two things we found out. One, we have an option to, this is for future reference, to have Noah look into things before we afford that, which is actually the one
- we want to use next time around. So if I start straying down the wrong path, I appreciate anyone who wants to correct me. That would be lovely. But I think this turned out to be a rental house owned by some famous people. But it doesn't have merits, either architectural or cultural, on its own. Any other comments, Jack? Just thanking Noah for the extradition.
- So I think we're on a dead end on this. Jeremy? Yeah, I agree. Thank you, Noah, for doing the due diligence on this. It's always good to make sure we have full information available to us. And like Sam said, I think next time where maybe when questions are raised about something from the public in one of these meetings, we can ask for a formal review at a time and have Noah do some work.
- without it having to necessarily then go to the council, advise us a little bit of time, get some research, get everything right, and then move forward. I agree. And was this just for a single designation or to be part of Cottage Grove? A single designation for the single house. Okay. I wasn't sure. Yeah. Any other comments? No comments. I want to thank you for the petitioner for being
- Patient with us, we appreciate that. We appreciate your guys' work. Thank you. So I think we can call the roll, call for a vote. Okay, this would be a vote on the motion to rescind the nomination, 2502. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Raynard Frost? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. And that motion passes 500. At this point,
- We've rescinded the nomination, but we still have to go through demolition delay and make a motion to release. And if I, there's no further discussion. Are there any comments from the public? I've seen none. I will open it up for a motion in that regard. As a reminder, this is DD2510.
- I move to release the D2510. Do I hear a second? Second. Discussion? I think we kind of talked about it. If anybody has anything else they'd like to say. Do you call the roll call? Yeah. There's a motion on the floor to release the demolition delay of 2510. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Daniel Schlegel?
- And that motion passes 5-0-0. OK. Today, regarding the property located at 711 East Cottage Grove Avenue, the Historic Preservation Commission declares that it got noticed of proposed demolition and, after today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. HBC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the common council. Thank you for coming in. Thank you.
- Good night. I just want to I don't want to use the phrase circle back because I don't like saying circle back but Well, here we are on the tried out house. Yes Coa 2540 I want to double check and see If there's anybody here for that item if you're online, please raise your hand. I
- All right. Seeing none, I think we have we're going to continue this one to the next meeting. Which will bring us if there are no objections to outstanding violations under. That should be under old business. OK. So getting started with a few items here 702
- I'm going to start with the one on the left, 906 West 6th Street. And we have the petitioner or the new owner who bought this from the person who committed the violations in the last meeting who applied to substantially undo a lot of the damage. Those owners are going to be coming back with a follow-up petition for doing some adjustments to the windows on the west elevation of the garage.
- Which I think Karen has seen that application because it went out to the Westside neighborhood. Um, so, you know, put a finger on that, but it's on its way to getting resolved. Um, next one, 924 West Kirkwood. Um, the petitioner for this item was not here today. Um, which they had communicated with me by email. They were not going to be because.
- There were some materials that they hadn't submitted yet, which were asked for at the last meeting, including a revised design for the porch railing and columns, as well as some more information about what the plans are for the front door transom light and the footer, which it sounds like the original limestone footer is going to be put back in in some fashion. But there were some questions about
- the wood post that it's subsequently been added and how that's going to be incorporated. So hopefully we can expect them at the next meeting. 702 West Kirkwood. This is one that we have been discussing how we're going to move forward with this. Yeah, that's one on the right. Windows have been removed. Some other windows with the different dimensions with transom windows above have been added in.
- And so we need to establish along with director of hand, a timeline for getting the petitioner to come back with a more appropriate application. Well, also for that one, there's like a gutter that's hanging down in front too. It's not in good shape. It's exposed to weather and it's been months like that was in the spring at some point when they first came in.
- if I remember correctly. And so at least I'm concerned about them moving forward and we need to get some kind of plan for them in order to just move forward so the house isn't damaged in the meantime. So it's just what can we do in order to help encourage that to happen. I'm open to suggestions. Also, so in the future, when we have these situations where people submit retroactive COAs,
- This is something that I was discussing with Anna is getting, you know, if something is not approved on the first go around to establish a deadline for submitting appropriate application, you know. Could we end the motion where we deny the COA amended to say, and we expect to see a amended application by next date?
- or something along those lines. Could it be part of that? Possibly. I would like to hear. I think, Anna, there's been a discussion, and if you would bring everybody up to date as to where that is. I mean, this is basically come up as a suggestion where because a lot of enforcement relies on establishing deadlines and
- It's important to be consistent about when we establish these deadlines. So I think after a retroactive COA application is denied, it is as good a time as any. So let me ask a question. So in most of the cases where we've had retroactive COAs, it's a substantial amount of work. It's not just a railing or something like that that needs to be replaced.
- just trying to think through the process of whether this becomes a standard. And so all retroactive COAs then have to return within 60 days, or if it's dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and how we could possibly do that, that would be a clear. There's the COA, and then there's doing the work. And the COA, I don't think, is going to take significantly more time getting the materials, lining up the workers. That's a different question. I think that can be case-by-case.
- an approved COA in front of us after a notice of violation, I don't, I mean, I'm listening, I'd listen to any rebuttal, but I don't think there's a reason that that can't have a set deadline. I would agree with that. And then that, of course, gives the two years in which to complete the work. Right. Or a five-week period. But like a 30-day or 30-day turnaround or something. Something like that. But then, but also on the COA,
- depending on the scope of work, I think we can also amend that two years to be something appropriate to the situation on a case-by-case basis. So I think that the COA, in response to a notice of violation, should not necessarily automatically get a two-year timeline. I'm thinking of Willow Terrace. You may. I have two questions.
- You give a timeline for a tract of COAs, nothing happens. Then what? What is the penalty? Well, if nothing is done in that time period, then a fine would be issued. So we're certain that this is now the procedure that we will enjoy? That is what we are establishing in the process of establishing. This is what I would like the procedure to be.
- I'd like to hear more on that. I'm excited now because, ooh, we're getting some movement. OK. I mean, this is going to have to be a conversation with the two of us and with Anna. But if this is something that the commissioners think would be fair and consistent, then I think it could be a good way to handle these things. I think so. Establish a certain number of days that turn that around. And if not, there would be a limelight.
- Again, this consequence is to be disaggregated from any consequences for making the breach in the first place, correct? I don't understand the question. Meaning, you did something to a house that you shouldn't have done. That should have its own consequences. Then you apply for a COA within a certain period of time.
- get it before the commission. If that's not done within a certain amount of time, then that has its own consequences also. Or the consequence to that would be the fine for the violation? I think the purpose of the HPC is not to levy fines or dole out penalties. I think the purpose of the HPC is to preserve historic structures. And if we can get people to remediate
- bad things they've done to a house or a building or whatever, and, you know, make the campsite cleaner than they found it, I am not necessarily one, I don't know that it is the mission of the HPC to punish people. And I have no issues necessarily with that, but the HPC is a cog within a city bureaucracy, and where I,
- I'm not saying we should apply it fine. If it's not the HPC, then that's fine. We cannot. My call. I get that. OK. For those who have an audience elsewhere in city government, then perhaps that point should be made in the relevant forum to that relevant department. I would also suggest that even while the work is continuing, if we give them two years, 18 months, or whatever,
- there should be periodic attendance to update the HBC on the progress. Every 60 days, every 90 days, every 30 days, every other meeting, they have to come back here and say, this is the progress. If no progress, explain why. So there needs to be. And if they don't show up, and if they don't explain progress, what is the consequence?
- similar to what would happen, I suspect, if the COA doesn't come in. I mean, it's a series of benchmarks that you need to meet. If you get 60 days for COA, and that doesn't happen, and you don't meet that deadline, then something happens. You have to report 60 days hence. If you don't turn up, then something happens. I think that is going to generate a lot of check-ins and tape and problems. And I think the only thing
- It's like if they cross a line, then you can start to impose fines. I think that's really the only thing you need to do. And then you start to collect those fines or put liens on the property because having people come to check in actually I think takes away from them having time to do the other thing. I think you need to get their attention. I think you need to light a fire under them. And I don't know that a check in is actually going to be helpful.
- This is the problem that I'm trying to avoid, where you give somebody a year, and then nothing happens, and you only find that nothing happens when the year is up. Or when night comes. And then they get a fine. Well, you can tailor case by case, though, too, to where it's like, oh, if it's a replacing of a railing, they don't need a year, right? Like, it would be, we can shorten up that period a little bit. We'll have to see where the, I'm embarrassed to say I don't know if the,
- two year comes from our city. Or if it comes from the enabling legislation. Yeah, I'm not sure that that is something that we can change. So we do need to look at the jitters. I want to be sure we're working with the tools that we have without having to amend things. And then the other question I had related to that is, is there a response time built into a notice of violation? Yes, there is. There is. Which is what?
- Shoot, I think it's... It's a secret. It's in the letter. So I have that letter and I'll be like, I'm kidding, I'm bad. I'm trying to remember if it's two weeks or 30 days. But is that your response time or is that a standard that we use to tell notices of violation across the city? Where does that come from? Yeah. Where it comes from? I think that one comes from city code, Title 8.
- So if they do not respond within the set period of time, that's when you can start levying fines, question mark? Hypothetically, yes. Okay. So I think at this point, it would be best practice to say in that letter, if you don't already, that if you do not respond and submit by this deadline, the city will be able to levy your fines.
- And you should expect that. And then you actually have to do it. And then you actually have to do it. So my question would be, are you all going to go back and draft something that kind of lays all this out and then be like, hey, here's what we came up with. And we'd be able to take a look at that. Yeah, here's what we can do. Here's what we can't do. Yeah, it'd be nice to have that in writing so we can have a look at it and have a discussion over, we double checked this is
- state law, this is city code or whatever, these are the parameters. Yes, but I think I would like us to run our traps before we bring it back to you all, because what I don't want to do is bring you guys back something that sounds great and there's no interest in actually pursuing fines or doing that for some reason. Try to figure out all that kind of stuff. It would just be nice to have some kind of mechanism to help.
- Move this along. That's reasonable. Yeah. And that, I mean, that's that, that like there's most violations. And I think the other piece of this, uh, that we have been neglecting and still are is, uh, uh, maintenance. So maintenance violations, I think we need to be keeping an eye out for those. I talked to, uh, hand to see if the city would be willing to update their you report and they are not willing to do that.
- at this point, uh, not too much going on, I think. Um, and I think they're trying to get through a backlog of you report stuff. So that's, yeah, that's what I hear too. Um, I also see some of my cases from two years ago, getting, I complained a lot, uh, getting cleared. So, uh, I, I would appreciate people thinking about other mechanisms we can use to,
- Uh, let the community know and keep an eye on important structures, keep an eye on rental houses. And maybe this is something you can incorporate into your postcard that you send out every year to homeowners. A note on maintenance. Yeah. That would be good. Yeah. I mean, if anybody's got other thoughts, I'm wide open. I don't think that's. Yeah.
- It's always in there every year. Yeah. And I don't think you need to send out more than one thing a year, but I don't want to be killing too many trees. And remind me again, do they get the postcard when you buy the house? Or is it just every, like, year? It's every year. I need to get back with GIS system, because I've been speaking with, or I've set it up with the city GIS department to,
- receive regular updates on property transfers in historic districts. And I haven't been getting those emails since the test email, which was a couple months ago. So. Yeah. It's not working too well. Or nobody's selling any houses, which I know is not true. So do you have any idea how long it might take for you all to draft something? Like, I doubt it would be the next meeting, but I'm just kind of curious in general timeline when we might
- be able to see something of what could be feasible. You mean in terms of procedures? Something of what the procedures could be. I mean, I would like to be able to discuss this in the next couple weeks. Yeah. If you want me to drop by for a meeting at some point, just give me a shout. Or we can even do it at our Wednesday thing. That works. OK.
- Why don't we aim for the first meeting of the month, which is when Noah usually gives his update on violations. And if we miss that date, then we'll do the second meeting if we can't get it done. But we'll put it on for the first meeting. So probably August. It will be during August, yes. But our goal will be to get it at the first meeting. That makes sense. Yes. Also, I wanted to bring up Sidewalk, another outstanding violation. I've started getting some quotes from Mason on that.
- So I have one so far, and when I've collected a few, I'm gonna see if I can meet up with the planning and engineering department to come up with some sort of reasonable plan for resetting it. Thank you. All right. We still don't have any Tri-Delta reps, do we? Nobody online.
- Do we have anything else on the agenda? That's it. Comments? Questions? Thank you all for coming.