All right, I'm calling to order this meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission for
Thursday, June 25, 2026. Would the staff please call the roll? Commissioner Cross? Yes. Commissioner
Baker? Yes. Commissioner Butler? Here. Commissioner Castaneda? Commissioner Duesner? Commissioner Duffy?
Here. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Here.
Commissioner Schlegel. We have one. Excellent. Next up on the agenda is approval of the minutes. Does
anybody have any changes to the minutes? Is there a motion on the minutes? All right, Commissioner Golden
has moved to approve. Is there a second? I'll second that. Commissioner Butler has seconded. Go ahead
and call the roll. Certainly. Co-chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes.
Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Sorry,
he's not here. The minutes are approved. All right. Next up, we have a staff review of two COAs. Mr.
Stanwyce, take it away. All right. There is an error on this first COA report for COA 2636. The survey
description is not correct here.
Limestone veneered Gabledale house in the Mabel Heights Historic District. Address is 907 North Jackson.
Property owner is, sorry, petitioner is Liberty Flora. 907 North Jackson Street is a limestone faced,
pure middle-roofed cottage with a front corner porch and a later rear addition corner porch slash carport.
There's a 1950s garage at the rear of the property. This request
as I received it. The proposed project consists of the installation of a new decorative black metal
fence along the property line. The fence will be approximately four feet in height and will include
a pedestrian access gate near the front entry. The existing mailbox will be relocated as necessary to
accommodate the gate location and maintain accessibility. I propose the mailbox be moved outside of
the fence next to the gate.
Continuing the proposed fencing will consist of brown finished wood fence posts with fence panels between
them. Fence posts will be installed in concrete footings in accordance with the manufacturer specifications.
Gates will utilize matching materials finishes and decorative details to maintain a consistent appearance
throughout the project. The gate will be over the existing sidewalk. There's a private sidewalk as you
see here in the rear of the property.
and will be of similar material. Staff approve COA 2636. The proposed fence meets district guidelines
for new fences. Next, staff approve certificate of appropriateness COA 2637 for 918 West House Street
in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. Petitioner is Bonnie Estelle.
In 2025, the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission approved an application for new construction
of a primary residence at 918 West Half Street. While the former residence has been demolished,
a non-contributing alley adjacent garage remains. This request is for the installation of rooftop solar
panels on that garage and staff approves COA 2637. The proposed alterations to this non-contributing
backyard structure
would not have a significant impact on the historic streetscape of Greater Prospect Hill. All right.
Next up are COAs for commission review for each item on the agenda. The historic preservation program
manager will first present a staff report. We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information
about the request, followed by public comment. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be
able to ask questions to staff, the petitioner, and the public.
We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the
chair unless a question is directly addressed to them. Following commissioner questions, the chair will
entertain a motion from a commissioner regarding the petition. Once a motion is made, we will then open
up a discussion of the item for members of the commission only. Finally, once the commissioners have
all had a chance to speak, the commissioners will vote on the petition. We encourage all commissioners,
petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful.
at all times. First up we have COA 2635 is the petitioner present. Are they online? They're not online.
Okay we will move that to the end of the agenda then. Next up we have demolition delays. Demolition
delay 2608 is
Mr. Sanlis, take that away. All right. Demolition delay 2608. This is for 422 slash 424 South College
Avenue. The petitioner is Bill Rigert. And this request is for full demolition. 422 slash 424 South
College is a commercial slash residential building.
with modernist features, including metal corner windows on the second story, large first floor picture
windows, glass block windows, and limestone piers that tilt outward supporting an awning. The front
portion of the building is three stories tall with a two-story warehouse portion in the rear and a large
one-story garage attachment in the back. The front facade is clad with rough cut ashlar limestone, while
most of the building is cement block.
This commercial residential building was completed in 1955 by Ralph O. Deckard. In 1943, after graduating
from Indiana University, Deckard and his partner, Woody Stogsdale, acquired the Full of Pep Auto Part
Company located at 220 South College. Under the management of Ralph Deckard and his wife Alma, Full
of Pep's business continued to expand to include furniture, appliances, and prefabricated structures
for sale and rent.
This new building is served as a furniture store for virtually its entire history, hosting apartments
as well as additional businesses. When Folopeps sold the original location, this address absorbed the
auto supply inventory. A charter member of the Southern Indiana Soil and Water Conservation District,
Deckard was awarded the title of Sangamore of the Wabash by Governor Robert Orr.
Several apartments at 422 South College have historically served workers and young families.
In the 1950s, many worked for the nearby electronics factories and Johnson's Creamery. And a few during
this time stayed for longer than several years. Staff recommends the release of demolition delay 2608.
All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuels. The petitioner here, Bill Rigger, would you like to say
a few words?
answer any questions you may have this I'm here with John White Cart and Doug Bruce from the CIB and
this is part of the Convention Center expansion project so anybody has any questions I'll try to answer
those and if not John White Carter Doug might help me out okay thank you are there any members of the
public who wish to comment on this demolition delay in the room
Are there members of the public who wish to comment on this demolition delay? Yes. All right. Would
you please state your name for the record? And you have three minutes. Hello. My name is Sarah St. John
Wilford. And we are making the request. I represent Bloomington Homes for All. And I'm also the Housing
Solutions Director at Habitat for Humanity. We're making the request that you please do not release
these delays.
Instead, do what produced the Cottage Grove District in March. One, initiate Seminary Point as a conservation
district. Two, impose interim protection. And three, send it to common council. You can do this on your
own motion. Owner consent isn't required. You have done so previously with North Morton Street. Both
buildings meet your criteria.
Ralph Deckard built them in 1954 and 1955 as full of pet business with worker apartments above. The
limestone and glass block storefronts may be an intact piece of post-war commercial architecture that
could be added to Bloomington's historical designations. In the 1950s, these apartments housed the workers
who built this city and worked at the RCA electronics plant and Johnson Creamery. 70 years later, they
still hold 21 units
of incredibly affordable housing. That historical continuation is what your social and economic heritage
criterion protects. Your demolition criteria asks you to weigh alternatives. Under Bloomington Homes
for All Plan, Avalon Community Land Trust holds the land. Seminary Point Cooperative owns and operates
the building. We have a feasible $1.6 million rehabilitation plan, setting rents at $700 per month and
serving households around 45% area median income.
This plan to conserve the character of downtown Bloomington and this incredibly affordable housing for
our residents, workers, and artists was unanimously endorsed by the City Council on June 3rd. We ask
that you consider our conservation district proposal and allow for the full demolition delay extension.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Very good on time. Anybody else from the public wish to comment on this
demolition delay in the room?
So you know, is there anyone online who would like to comment? There is not. There's not, okay. I think
we will turn to Commissioner questions. We'll start with Commissioner Baker. Do you have any questions
about this demolition delay? No questions at the moment. Commissioner Cross. Would it be fair to say
that at least one
aspect of your petition sent us around this gentleman, Deckard, and his association with these buildings.
Yes, he also won what I recall to be an award that is a distinction from the state or for, I believe
it's called the Wabash. Sagamore the Wabash. Sagamore the Wabash, thank you. Yes. Tell me more.
I don't know what this award is, why he was awarded, you know, what we do, what's his claim to fame,
so that his association with these buildings would meet the criteria. I mean, I could fill you in a
little bit on that. So I believe he was awarded, I was saying more to the Wabash for his work in establishing the
It's the Southern Indiana Soil and Water Conservation District. So in addition to his regular businesses,
he was also a gentleman farmer with sort of an interest in conservation. OK. And about the award, that's
the highest award that the governor can bestow upon an individual in the state. OK. Any other questions?
Yeah, so I just want to make it clear. What criteria are you hoping to satisfy with regards to awarding
historic protection? Perhaps, Amber, can you answer the question of what exact statute we're trying
to apply? I have the proposals right here.
If I can pull them out really quickly, sorry. Do you guys need extra chairs here? Do you mind if I pass
out proposals? Is there a particular part, like section, for historic or architectural significance
that you are advocating for? That's part of what we can consider. I mean, I have several codes.
I'm advocating for, so. He has the question. Yeah, my question is, there are certain criteria that have
to be met to support your petition for not releasing the demolition delay in order to apply for protections.
And I'm just trying to figure out which specific criteria. So 808010E1.
is the first and major one. It's the economic and social heritage code. Okay. It's exemplifies the cultural,
political, economic, social, or historic heritage of the community. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And
if you'd like, I can make my full comment to whenever
Yeah, sure. I mean, in answer to my question, if you could just explain to us how it is that you believe
these buildings satisfy the requirements under these sections that you are. Yeah. So we're wanting to
do the conservation district to save the block.
designating it under IC 36711. And it's for both the buildings, the 2022 West Second and 424. They were
both built in 1954-55. The person in particular is Ralph O. Decker. The business is Full O. PEP.
He is a IU graduate and started the first business that was bringing electric generators to the rural
community. He has many awards. He got the Sagamore Wabash Award, which is the highest honor that the
governor awards in Indiana.
There is a couple of architectural significance as well under 808-010-E2. The buildings exemplify a
distinctive era of post-war commercial design, rough cut ashler limestone storefronts, metal corner
and glass block windows, outward candid limestone piers. But mostly,
I'm wanting to argue under the cultural social significance, specifically that the buildings were originally
built for worker housing and that today we are still trying to save it for affordable housing. And let's
see what else particularly that you may want to hear in this moment. Can I help speak to this a little bit?
So my name is William Morris and I'm an attorney in town and I've helped Amber with this and
The economic socio part of this building and these buildings is very interesting. I don't have all of
the history behind me, but I do know that there's worker housing there, there's inventor housing there,
there's musical studio that was there at one time in the 1950s, and there are two or three other things
that give these buildings really historical importance in Bloomington. And you know, I lived in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina
And there's a community right next to Chapel Hill that's called Carrboro. And Carrboro is a lot of older
houses like Westside here. But it's also this idea that there was a large part of how Chapel Hill was
set up with workers and the organic history of the town that is a big part of that. Now, this is not
as big as Carrboro, clearly. But it does have the same kind of history. It is a part of the history
of bringing Bloomington into
manufacturing age when when the buildings like it showers were important and rca were important and
the other buildings that used to be here the people that worked there lived there and it does have that
importance and i don't know about any of you all i don't know any of you all really personally i don't think
But you know, when you're going back to look into the history of things, I happen to be very fascinated
by the history of things, because I like to know how were we layered. Every place you go, I tell students,
because I used to give students tours, international students of these areas, is there's a layering
of one thing on another that creates a neighborhood. And this neighborhood has been layered a couple
times. And the history is really fantastic. And it is legitimate. And I really wouldn't stand here for one.
But there's a legitimate history there. And if you gave us, gave me, gave Amber a couple days, we could
really, she has it in her papers. And I don't know it exactly, but I know it's there. This brother,
Decker, he was given this high award, which relates to the Wabash River. Back in the time when people
in Bloomington
related to the Wabash River. We don't talk about the Wabash anymore. If you live in Terre Haute, they
talk about it. But we don't really talk about it anymore. But that guy won this award, which is very
high and prestigious, the Sagamond of the Wabash. There was a prominent recording studio that was there
at that time as a part of the Bloomington musical history, which I think is quite substantial. And I
think it's something that all of us here celebrate. It was also worker housing on the second stories.
Um, that was very significant, like I say, related to the showers building, et cetera. And there are
some other things that my mind's not getting to right now, but I do think that there are substantial,
um, economic socio history there that is really worth preserving. All right. Thank you. Yeah.
Thank you. Any follow up questions? Yeah. Um, I find this part intriguing. The commission's demolition
criteria, BMC eight,
And I'm going to ask Noah just to explain that to me. Require a weighing of alternatives to demolition
in the public interest, against public interest in preserving these buildings. It's on... Right. Last
paragraph.
Oh, this is referring to demolition in public safety. Okay, let's see. Oh yes, this is where for where
this generally
This actually generally refers to, um, buildings that are located, um, in a historic district. Um, demolition
delay for the most part is hiddled handled under, uh, which title is, uh, I'm sorry, I'm blanking on
it. Um, the unified development ordinance. Um, so I mean,
When demolition delay comes up, the things that the commission is allowed to consider are about the
significance of the existing buildings, but not the future use of the site. OK, any other? Well, I'm
a bit puzzled.
Puzzle is probably the wrong word, but could you explain why it is, on what basis did you include this
in your submission? Because of the current political situation around the property, and that we are
trying to save it from demolition. And that we have an alternative plan, Homes for All has an alternative
plan for the property, and that
would entrust it to the Avalon Community Land Trust and the Seminary Point Cooperative would own and
operate the buildings. We have a $1.6 million rehabilitation plan that has been looked over and signed
off from four major CFI lenders. And we set the rents at $700 a month.
which is reaching households at 45% AMI. May I add to that, please? Do you want him to? Sure. I think
after this one, we'll need to move on to other components. Also, the idea is that demolition, once it's
demolished, it's irreversible.
So we're not asking you to make a permanent decision. We're just asking you to put a delay on it while
other things get sorted out. And there is a very high possibility, I say likelihood, that things will
be sorted out. We're in the process of trying to do that. But if it's demolished, you can't reverse
it. It's like chopping down trees and you're trying to save the trees. So while you're making a decision,
you leave the trees there because it's not harming anybody to have it there.
We made a point about the economic socio-history of it, and we can add more to that. So those two pieces
are in place. And I work with Ethan all the time. I thought that was Ethan. I was like, oh, jeez, that's
not Ethan. That's not Ethan. Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner Duffy, do you have any questions? I don't
have any questions. Commissioner Butler, do you have any questions? Yeah, I do.
And I kind of need to frame my question so that it makes sense. Normally, we deal with the vast majority
of cases are houses that are being demolished. And houses, we have a huge inventory of houses and of
house types. So there's lots of California bungalows. There's lots of gabled elves. This is different.
This is commercial building in a public space.
And so I don't know what our inventory is of this type of building. And Noah, if you could find that
out, I would like to know of, you know, built in roughly the same time period, 1950s, commercial, two-story
buildings, because it strikes me that this might be a rather rare type for Bloomington.
And it also strikes me that this may be one of the best examples of this rare type, because it has the
corner windows, it has those wonderful front projections on the diagonal. This building really speaks
to me for this moment in time, sort of this mid-century history. And so I would be hesitant to vote
to demolish it.
Yeah, you're right. So anyway, I want to know about the inventory. That's my question. Sorry. That's
something that I could run a search for. Off the top of my head, there's not a whole lot of these mid-century
commercial buildings in Bloomington. I know that there's a few on this block and then mostly up and
down Walnut, which was sort of the big commercial corridor. Any other questions?
So he needs to look it up. Commissioner Golden, do you have any questions? I have just a couple.
One for Noah. So the process of making this a conservation district, can that be initiated by this body
or does it have to be initiated from the outside? I'm going to pull up Title 8 again.
Because essentially, they're asking us to. Right, because it's a conservation district. Yeah, that could
be recommended by the commission. And then I'd like the gentleman back here to respond to what's been
said so far. That's my question. Do you have a response? Yeah, Doug Bruce, I could certainly respond
to a couple of things here.
I was trying to take some notes. First, I'd say the Sagamore, the Womash is not all that rare. It's
also a political award that depending on who your governor is, and I think if you look up the number
of people that have it, there's quite a few people. So I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to Jeff.
So it isn't as rare. If you want to frame it around that, and I'll also say,
I worked here at one time when it was Fulipep. Arco Motors was where Jim Register's office is now. And
Fulipep was the other big auto parts store. So I know the building pretty well. A couple of things.
I'd say that some of the buildings right now, there are spaces that are uninhabitable because I believe
it's demolition by neglect. I think there are parts of these buildings that have needed repairs that
it hasn't happened. So there's a lot of work to be done there.
I'll also add that in my 20 years of serving on this board up until eight years ago or so, if a building
wasn't in a district and it was only contributing, it meant that it didn't have enough historic fabric
to be designated. So that's what you would be asked to do and designate the building. Does it have that
historic fabric? And then the third thing I would say is that I think
you would be surprised. I like the question on the commercial. And I started thinking right off the
bat of some of the buildings. I think where Atlas Bar is, is this type of structure. I renovated that
building. Stalls, furniture around the corner. So I think you'd find there's a lot more of this type
of structure. So it's about one story, though. Sure, sure. But the same era and the same kind of commercial
use. Actually, Stalls has a second story. It's in the back.
because I've recently been in the building. So again, that's answering some of the questions that have
been brought up. I'm trying to think if there's anything else to address it. I don't really have any
more other than that right now, but. All right, let's go back to Commissioner questions. Do you have
any other questions, Commissioner Golden? Can I ask him to respond to Mr White Carton? Yeah, thank thank you.
First let me say, and I've said this publicly and I've said it to advocates, I respect the advocates
and I respect their position. What I believe you've heard tonight, and I believe some of these words
were even mentioned, is that they are working towards a political solution to solve an affordable housing
issue in our community.
They are not addressing the historical significance. I mean, I've heard evidence presented about why
they want you to consider it historic, but I've heard talk about how there is a solution afoot to save
all this in some momentum that's building in our political environment. As president of the Capital
Improvement Board, I find no evidence of that. I am standing here tonight having made five requests
the Mayor and the Redevelopment Commission to exchange land for affordable housing development. And
I've been denied on all five occasions. So the idea that, I began to use the metaphor with Bryce Green,
that I'm beginning to feel like Lucy in the football and Charlie Brown.
I'm asked to come back again and again and ask about land exchanges for these properties. I've made
five attempts to kick this football and all five times it's been pulled out from under me. I respect
the advocacy to try to save these properties for affordable housing. The Capital Improvement Board,
as the owner of these properties, is not going to use them for affordable housing. We are not a property
manager. We've made that clear.
It seems to me, and I don't want to tell you your business, that the question at hand is, are these
buildings historically significant? And not whether you should be asked to help solve a political problem
about affordable housing in our community. I don't believe it's your role. It's certainly not my role.
It's the role of the mayor and the city council and the county council and the county commissioners
and the redevelopment commission. And I don't believe this is the appropriate form for that political
argument to be made.
I'm here to simply with Mr. Rickards as the petitioner to say, are these structures historic by your
definitions of historic structures? Not, will you help be part of the political solution to affordable
housing in our community? So thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Schlegel,
do you have any questions? Yeah, I think I have two right now. I think you just, I just wanted to confirm.
You said currently CIB
owns the property? Yes, these properties, the Capital Improvement Board is the owner of this land and
these parcels and these properties. So it owns the building and the land? Yes. Okay, I just wanted to
check. I just wanted to make sure I understood because I was... Yes, they were transferred to the Capital
Improvement Board, but these properties were owned by the county. They were purchased in 2010 by the
Convention of Visitors Commission.
with innkeepers' tax money solely for the purpose of being used for the convention center expansion.
So we are the owners of the property. Okay, I just wanted to check. I'm sorry, I did not catch your
name. Amber. Amber. I was trying to read, but I was trying to also pay attention to what everyone's
saying. I just had a question. You had mentioned about the common council letter, and I saw something
in here about the vote. Could you just explain? Because I'm not going to try to read that while everyone's talking.
It's a little bit complicated. Yeah, so the council wrote a letter a couple years back stating that
they wanted a full return on investment for what they paid on the North College property, which at this
time is considered by most of the community where the host hotel should go instead of Seminary Point.
So that's across from Atlas.
empty building, empty lot, you're not gonna displace anyone, either residents nor commercial tenants,
right? So, homes for all, requested from common council, can we please review our proposal and write
a letter saying that if the land was going to a mission-based entity looking to
save the land and the buildings for affordable housing, would you essentially retroactively say we now
support that land going for less than the $7.5 million? And they did so, and it was unanimously voted
for approval, and it was sent to the RDC on June 3rd. Thank you. I just wanted clarification on that.
That's all I had. I don't have any questions before we go into Commissioner. Oh, sorry, Commissioner
Duffy. I did come up with the question. Actually, I thought of this just before Mr. Bruce also mentioned
the issue. I would like to confirm with Noah that these buildings, how are they rated? They're both
rated as contributing. Thank you. I don't have any questions. I do want to remind everyone
For the consideration of the demolition delay, we are considering the historical and architectural
significance of these buildings only. Just want to remind everybody of our purview here. We need to
stay in our lane. All right, so I guess at this moment, I will entertain a motion on demolition delay
2608. All right, Commissioner Golden has moved to release demolition delay 2608.
Commissioner Baker has seconded. We'll go into discussion since you made the motion. Commissioner Golden,
you can speak first. I appreciate the discussion that's happening here today, but as you just stated,
it's kind of out of our purview. And I just don't think that they're worth saving as far as architecturally
and historically. OK. Thank you very much. Commissioner Baker.
Yes, I also appreciate what you're saying and what you're going through. I've been on that side of the
fence before, too, in terms of neighborhood fighting for conservation districts and historic districts.
I know some of what you're up against. You make some good arguments. But again, I think we have to be
very strict in what we do. We're a historic preservation commission.
We can only evaluate these on their significance and historic value and apply certain criteria to them.
And in my reading, all I know about them at the moment is that they just don't meet the threshold. That
would give them enough significance to go through and be designated.
I just don't think that they have that historic value that would carry them through. So I will be voting
to release. OK. Thank you very much. Commissioner Schlegel, comments? Can we come back around? Sure.
Commissioner Butler. I absolutely disagree with both of those characterizations. I think this building
is architecturally worth
looking into at least and I think we would be wise to delay this at least until the next meeting when
we can get the survey that I asked for. It is exactly our job to
think very carefully about these structures in a historic way. And I think if we do that, then we have
to wonder if they might meet the cultural criteria and if they might meet the architectural criteria.
And I, for one, think they absolutely do meet the architectural, especially this building, the architectural
criteria. And also, I think the building's design is such that it is
unique for the time period. I think it really nails the time period. Before this, it's brick front commercial
buildings. After this, it's strip malls. This is a moment in time, and this building exemplifies it.
And so I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask for a delay to look into this more fully, because
as some of these people have pointed out, when a building is torn down, it's lost forever.
So two weeks, I would hope, is not asking too much. Thank you very much. Commissioner Cross. I am intrigued
by this one. There are two issues which are giving me pause.
is the opinion of our commissioner, who is an expert and who has had experience in matters like these,
and also the presentation given by persons who are hoping to delay or
certainly stop the demolition of these buildings. And again, thirdly, by the gentleman who made the
point that you can't undemolish a building. And I would be willing to give this some time
and deliberate further on the matter. How are we for time, Noah? On this one? The demolition.
Let's see. Start date. Got a while, I think. I believe so. Oh, shit. I don't want to hold everyone up.
Okay, yeah, the demolition delay date started 15 days ago.
So it's 90 days or 75. I'm not sure they have two and a half months. I would advise, as is my role,
that we take some time and look into this matter. I will say that in full appreciation of what our role
here is to make a decision on the historic nature of the building,
based on criteria, the fact that there are so many other issues surrounding this matter where in another
month this whole process could be moot because I'm hearing that organization and the city and RDC and
all these people have going back and forth trying to find other solutions
that may render this whole issue, as I said before, I think we should take some time, look into this,
and make sure that when we make a decision, there is research that can back it up. Because the credibility
of this commission would also be brought into question if we seem to be making a decision
ill-informed. And with two and a half months left, I don't see any reason to not allow for
that investigation, interrogation of the issues to take place. And all stakeholders be given for time
and opportunity to present their case fully. Thank you. Commissioner Duffy.
Like everyone, I appreciate the intentions of the position of the people who are wanting to deny this
request rather than release the properties. And week after week,
so to speak, meeting after meeting, we sit here and have our hearts broken because we're constrained
under the demolition law to not consider other uses for perfectly good houses, for example, that have
to get torn down. But we are bound by law not to consider other uses.
there has to be historical value and there has to be architectural value. I'm not convinced by the historical
connection with Mr. Deckard personally. I'm not and I'm not sure that there'd be any more that the staff
hasn't already found on that.
And as far as architectural significance, there are other examples in town. And I don't see
it as outstanding. So I feel compelled to vote to release this demolition delay.
I think this is one of the tough ones, but I think after what Commissioner or Treasurer Butler had mentioned,
let me make sure I address it properly since he has the title, but just that request to find out more
about the quantity of structures and what Advisor Cross said. I would be in favor of at least postponing
two weeks just to gather more information.
from that and have that, I feel like I can go either way, but I think just a postponement of two weeks
or so I think would be fair, and I'd be in favor of that, but I know that would be, yeah, there'd be
a couple more steps on that to get there. As I mentioned earlier, what we are here to consider is the
architectural and historical significance of the building
It is rated as contributing. So the architecture has not been found to be anything of particular note.
Other people have noted there are similar buildings or buildings of that area still around. We have
the staff report that has recommended release of the demolition delay. The information that they have
there I don't think is necessarily
rising to the level of significance to where I think we need to hold up demolition. So I would be voting
in favor of release. Any secondary comments? Hearing none, I think we're ready to vote. Hey, there's
a motion on the floor that's been seconded regarding DD 2608 on a motion to release the demolition delay.
We'll take a roll call vote. Voting members only. Co-chair Baker.
Yes. Treasurer Butler? No. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Baker? I'm sorry,
Chair Hackard, my apologies. Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? No. That is a 4-2 vote in favor to release
the delay. All right. Thank you everybody for your comments.
Next up, we have Demolition Delay 2609. Mr. Sandweiss, please take it away with your report. Same petitioner.
Oh, I forgot. I'm sorry. Yes, please read the statement for release. Today regarding a property.
At 422 slash 424 South College Avenue, Historic Preservation Commission, HPC declares that it got notice
of proposed demolition slash partial demolition and requests that staff prepare a formal report. Am
I in the wrong paragraph? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right. Take that back.
Today, regarding the property located at 422 slash 424, the Historic Preservation Commission, HPC declares
that it got notice of proposed demolition slash partial 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.
All right, Mr. Sandweiss, your staff report. DD-2609. 222 West 2nd Street is a two-story cement masonry
commercial building with rough cut ashlar limestone storefront, five days wide, facing 2nd Street. The
ground floor is dominated by large picture windows. The second story windows are a mixture of older
divided light metal casement windows and replacement vinyl windows.
Several garage bays and secondary entrances front the sides of the building facing the beeline trail
and valley to the east. This commercial residential building, they gave you the background on Ralph
Deckard. So I'm going to skip ahead to some of the things that are particular to this building.
Let's see. For this one, I did find
Several more mentions of residents who lived here. I guess they were made during the time they reside
in this building. A couple instances including a Westinghouse engineer, Olson Robert Harm, who received
a company award at this time for one of his patents, as well as Donny Abram, an aspiring country singer
who released one LP
With the help of local country star Bobby Helm, who wrote Jingle Bell Rock, I believe. Recommendation
here is for the release of Demolition Delay 2609. All right. Does the petitioner have anything they'd
like to add? No, we don't. Unless, John, I don't think there's time. Anything to add back there for
the petitioner? No, not over the staff room.
Okay, thank you very much. Now it's time for public comment. I'll go to folks in the room. Does anybody
wish to make any comments? Yeah, I just like to add a couple more things. So we aren't proposing this
just to save the buildings for a political reason. We are wanting to save
the buildings because we do see them as historically significant. They were built 70 years ago, and
to most of the advocates, that is historical for us. And a lot of the art and cultural things that have
gone on there over the last many years mean something to us.
that you can understand that we're not just doing this as a political boy. And then I was gonna say
something else and now I'm forgetting what I was gonna say. That's how my brain works. But at least
I said that. So thank you. I would like to add,
that in reference to some of the deferred maintenance, deferred maintenance isn't necessarily a reason
that something deserves to be torn down. There are plenty of buildings, and I can think of many that
the Cooks, for example, have poured a lot of money into that I think the majority of people would agree
had a lot of deferred maintenance, and that it probably would have been
more cost effective to go ahead and tear them down. But just like it's not necessarily relevant what's
happening with the buildings in the future, that deferred maintenance is not necessarily a reason for
them to go ahead and be demolished. And they are currently housing people. So Hand, the city itself,
has determined that they are
are certainly livable to the standard that the city holds. So there's that comment that I want to make.
The other thing that I would just like to draw attention to and kind of say and echo some of what Amber
said is things don't need to be saved until there is an external threat.
And so part of why this hasn't come up before is because demolition delay wasn't relevant, which is
one of the reasons why we're now here advocating. And so that's it. Okay. Thank you very much. I remember
I was gonna say, can I say it? Yes, you still have some time. Okay, great. Conservation, making it a
conservation district,
is also important to this group because we're going to be granting it, if we get the land, to a land
trust that will hold the land and preserve it, and then to a co-op whose whole point is to keep it out
of the speculative market and keep it safe. So just know that the whole point is that we want to conserve
the land. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Do you have a comment, if you don't mind? I don't know if that counts.
No, not right now. Is there anyone online who wishes to speak? We don't have anyone online. All right,
we'll turn to Commissioner Questions next. Commissioner Schlegel, do you have questions? No. Commissioner
Golden, do you have questions? No. Commissioner Butler. I have the same question that I had last time.
I would like to know how.
many of these mid-century commercial buildings we have left. I happen to know that we have one less
than we did a moment ago, which is too bad. And so I would beg the commission to give us enough time
to answer this question. Okay. Commissioner Duffy, do you have any questions? No. Commissioner Cross?
No questions. No questions. Commissioner Baker? No.
I have a question for Mr. Sandweiss, the patent. Did he get this patent after he lived there? As far
as I can tell, he had two patents. I found a reference to one that he acquired there for Westinghouse.
I couldn't find what that patent was. Maybe if I looked a little deeper, he acquired a later patent
that I was able to find when he moved to a different company.
That brings us to the end of questions. So we'll entertain a motion. Move to release demolitions by
26-09. Commissioner Golden has moved to release demolitions by 26-09. Is there a second? I'll second.
Commissioner Baker has seconded. We'll go to Commissioner Comments next. Commissioner Golden. No further
comments. No further comments, Commissioner Baker. Just to repeat a few of the comments I made.
So they appreciate you coming out and doing what you're doing. It's good work. I think though that we
are under such strict, under such stricture here that we have to consider it in a far more strict way
than you are presenting in the opposite. We have to look at historic value and
While we do consider some of the social aspects of it, it's a rarity that the social aspects become
enough to become significant. And I don't think they do in this case. And I don't feel like that the
building meets the threshold of historical significance. So again, I'll be voting for release.
Thank you. Commissioner Cross.
comments aren't really about the building, and it's more about what I've come to accept as normal operating
practice for this commission, certainly from what I've seen over the last five years that I've been
associated with it. And I'm trying to think of a time where, with two and a half, almost the entirety
of a demolition delay,
What do you call it? Period of consideration where a commissioner has asked for more information and
notwithstanding that request, when there's so much time available, a decision was made and that request
has not been entertained. I can't recall ever seeing that happen.
I do not see where the petitioners are going to do. There's a need to have these buildings for some
purpose that needs to happen within the three months. I don't think there's a plan to demolish these
buildings probably for months or years in the future. We have two and a half months remaining. Not one,
but two commissioners have asked for time to consider.
And we've not been granted it. And I believe that the reason we're asking for time are legitimate reasons
that can be accommodated. And I've never seen, certainly in the last five years, that I've been here.
And I can't help but see it as a lack of regard for members of the commission.
I would like to hear a reason why our requests for what three actually three commissioners have asked
for time and for research to be done. And it has not been entertained. I'm disappointed.
I would like somebody to explain to me what other way I am to take the actions of this commission in
view of a request for more information and to delay the process for about two weeks so that we can satisfy
ourselves that we've exhausted avenues for consideration. It's my comment.
Thank you. Commissioner Duffy, comments, sorry. Well, I have two comments by way of response to the
two comments that the two ladies gave. And to say I agree with both of you. One, the buildings
are historical. They just don't reach the level of significance that we have to meet, a very high level of
of historical significance in terms of the rest of the community that we're bound by law to meet. And
then secondly, you're absolutely right that maintenance is irrelevant to our consideration, unless the
building is so bad that it presents a public danger, which is not the case. So I'm sympathetic.
to your presentations. But again, I just have to say that as Commissioner Baker said, the standard is
so strict and high. And from all evidence, I don't see these buildings meeting the level of significance.
Mr. Beller.
I find it disappointing. I second what Commissioner Cross said about asking for more time and
more information and not receiving it. I think that that is part of our job and I think that to do our
job well and to do it thoroughly, we have to be careful and we have to take our time. So I am disappointed
that there seems to be some sort of rush in this case. I think this building is also interesting to
me and I would like
to know more about it. Someone mentioned that there's a recording studio, but it's not clear which of
the two buildings the recording studio was in. I would like to know about that. But I guess I probably
won't get to. I think this building on its own merits has architectural significance and could be saved.
And so I'm going to vote against releasing this.
I think I'll just second what Commissioner Butler said. I would like to know a little bit more especially
with this one having a resident that had a patent. Noah can just get two more weeks or a little time
to find out what that was if it is a big deal or if it's more common one. I don't think two weeks is
in the grand scheme of things, gonna hurt anybody or anything unlike this chair. So I'm not gonna lean
back. But that's my only comment is that just two weeks just to find out more, just to have a more informed
opinion before voting to permanently tear this down or potentially not. So. Okay, thank you. Yeah,
for me, based on the information that we've received,
The rating of this building, I'm satisfied with the conclusion of the staff recommendation.
That is my right, and I can vote in that direction. It speaks no ill will toward anyone else on this
commission. Respect everybody here. And sometimes we have differences of opinion, and that's okay. That's
why we vote. We find out where we stand. So that's where we're at. All right, I think we are ready to
call the vote.
OK, there's a motion on the floor that's been seconded regarding demolition delay 2609. We'll take a
roll call vote on the release. Chair Baker? Vice Chair Baker. Vice Chair Baker, sorry. You get all of
the titles today. Vice Chair Baker. Yes. Excuse me, we have our prior petitioner joining.
Going on with the roll call vote, Treasurer Butler? No. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden?
Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? No. So that is a four in favor and two against. That
passes the delay to release the delay. Mr. Baker, would you please read the release?
Today, regarding the property located at 222 West 2nd Street, the Historic Preservation Commission declares
that it got notice of proposed demolition, partial 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. Thank you very much.
understand that the we will go back up to commission review of certificates of appropriateness I believe
the petitioner omnarla is available online is that correct all right so we'll move over to COA 2635
Mr. Sandweiss please take it away
Hold on, Steph's going to read the report first. All right, but I'm glad to see that you're here. Application
for certificate of appropriateness 2635 for 1112 East 3rd Street. This is the Fleener Building. Petitioner
is Omnarla. This request, we'll get into the description first.
The Fleener building is an individually listed 1928 or 1927. It says 1927 on the transom, but I think
it might be 1928. Commercial building. The building uses a textured block with vertically scratched
segment bordered by two smooth segments. In the summer of 2026, a car hit the west end of the facade
damaging the window and brick wall. This proposed request is to repair the accident damaged brick areas
and replace the damaged brick only where necessary. A significant amount of the original brick has been
retained and salvaged for reuse. The intent of the work is to preserve and reinstall the existing original
brick wherever it is serviceable and appropriate for reuse.
The proposed new replacement brick will be used only in areas where the original brick from the accident
cannot be reused due to breakage, loss, or severe damage or unsuitable condition. No wholesale replacement
of existing brick is proposed. Because this project is subject to historical society review, the repair
approach prioritizes preservation of existing brick. A salvaged original brick will be reused first.
The replacement brick identified in the submittal is proposed as a supplemental material only for locations
where the restored original brick is not available and cannot be used safely or properly. The installation
will be performed to maintain the existing wall appearance to the greatest extent practicable, including
brick alignment, coursing, affected locations, and the blended
with the surrounding existing brickwork as field conditions allow. So I'm going to get into the staff
recommendation here. Since this application was submitted, there have been a few sort of reiterations
of the proposal, which is why this is being, or part of the reason why this is being presented for commission
review when it's using mostly in-kind materials.
The staff recommendation is for approval of COA 2635, beginning to the rationale. The Fleener building
uses a very unusual type of brick, likely a limited run from the 1920s. There's a few buildings built
by this pair of contractors from the 20s, and they all use sort of weird limited edition bricks. The
distinctive segments of scratched and smooth brick
on this building's particular texture. Having searched through new and salvaged brick available in the
state, staff has unfortunately not been able to find a matching replacement. Some portions of the brick
on secondary facades have been replaced with an alternative make, but the primary facade on 3rd Street,
particularly in the damaged area, is much more conspicuous and uses an unusual bond pattern. The design
cannot be matched exactly with either scratched or smooth brick,
although patterns of brick themselves can be replicated with either. Considering the apparent unavailability
of a more suitable replacement brick and the need to stabilize and seal the building that's currently
being rented, staff recommends the approval of the proposed combination of salvaged original brick and
new smooth red brick for the repairs. Does the petitioner have anything to add?
still there. Yes, I'm on the call. Thank you very much. You've done a really good job explaining. I
really have nothing to add. Okay. All right. Public comment. Is there anyone in the room who wants to
speak on this? Looking like no. Anyone online? No. All right. We'll move over to Commissioner questions.
Commissioner Schlegel, the chair got me earlier too. It's dangerous.
Yeah, it's not just you. Noah, thank you very much for the presentation. The only additional question
I had based on what was in the packet is it looks like on some graph paper, one of the, is it windows
are supposed to be replaced with limestone or just the part below? That's the original plan that I received.
And part of the reason why I continue to include that, even though the proposal is for brick replacement
now is because that shows where repairs are going to have to be made.
which, you know, we additionally have this picture here of the damaged storefront, but this is sort
of at an angle, so. Yeah. Mm-hmm. OK. So the window stays. Yes, the window's going to stay. It's going
to be blended instead of having limestone put in there. Yes. My understanding, that's going to be a
combination of salvaged brick and the smooth red brick. OK. I just want to be 100% sure that you know.
Commissioner Golden. I have a comment on that. Hold on. Hold on, please. We do have those windows restored
and they're out of the property.
when we start installing, if we feel that really bad, can we replace the windows? Well, that's a separate
thing. That's a whole new request. Got it. OK. Commissioner Golden. No questions. Excuse me, sir. Can
you please hold on? We're doing questions right now. Commissioner Golden. No questions. Commissioner
Butler. No questions. It wouldn't matter if I did. Commissioner Duffy. No questions. Commissioner Cross.
No questions.
Commissioner Baker? Yes. How many square feet or how many brick are we talking about? These replacements.
Is that for Noah or the petitioner? Whoever can provide an answer. Mr. Samwise, do you know? I don't.
Do you have the sketch pulled up? I have this.
It doesn't have measurements, does it? Unless the grab is to scale. For the petitioner, do you know
how many square feet this takes up for where the bricks need to be replaced? No, we are not 100% sure.
But I can tell you, we will need quite a few. A lot of bricks have been damaged. And also,
When we walked with the contractor last week, we also found that around the door also would require
some work. We don't have a count on it, but we are assuming it's going to be significant.
Would you be willing to make a guess as to how many brick are involved? Is it on the order of 10 bricks?
Is it on the order of 100 brick, 200 brick? I'm trying to get an idea of the significance of it, how
it's going to show. I would say 100 plus bricks. Okay, thank you. And as to the type of brick, I'm hearing
it's a red
Is it a glazed brick, or is it a dull brick? We found that it's a red clay called brick. I'm not 100%
sure. I'm not an expert in this. But this brick we thought was reasonably good. We're being shown two
different things.
on the graphic we have up, one is a dull red sort of rough surfaced brick, and the other one appears
to be more of a glazed red. And what I'm trying to get at is how this is going to blend with the...
Oh, exactly. I'm sorry? We will, the motor will be, we will try to keep the motor same as what we have
right now. Yes, I understand that.
That's a good point that you made because the mortar's obviously part of this. But anyway, I think,
all right, I think that's the only questions I have right now. Thank you. For me, this question is for
the petitioner. You said there might need to be some work on the door. When would you know that?
waiting to do some of the brick work before you figure out if the door needs something? Right, right.
Once we start opening up all the areas, that's when you identify that. OK. Thank you. But that is also
part of this damage. So the door is damaged as part of this? It's cracked. It's not fully damaged. I
see it crack.
Any secondary questions from anybody? No? Okay. All right. I guess now we'll entertain a motion on this.
Anybody want to make a motion? I would move approval with the condition that the replacement bricks match
closely as possible to the existing brick in terms of color and texture. And of course, the mortar lines
should be as close as possible to the existing mortar color. Okay, so you've moved to approve with the
condition of the brick condition and color and the mortar? Yes. Okay, is there a second? I'll second.
Okay, Commissioner Schlegel is seconded. Commissioner Baker, you made the motion, so you can go first.
It's important that it be as close as possible to the original design. And we obviously can't get there,
but we could get further from it. If we used a glazed red brick, for example, it's going to show and
not going to be something people, I think, want to look at. We want to blend it to make it just as close
as possible. And that's why I put in my motion
Since we can't find an identical brick, it should be at least a close in color and texture. Okay. You
second it. So Commissioner Schlegel, do you have any comments? I'll second what Vice Chair Baker just
said as well on that, because it was so well said. So thank you. Okay. Commissioner Gold. So my comment
is more like a question. What's the process of approval of the brick?
Does it go to NOAA? Does it come back here? I mean, there have been instances in the past where more
specific details were requested as part of a conditional approval, in which case, as opposed to sending
it back to the commission, it would be staff approval of a proposed material. And that's your sense
of how this will work? Yeah. That's it.
Commissioner Beller? No. Commissioner Deff? No. Commissioner Crotty? Comments? This is comments. Comments,
no comments. Comments. A comment for me. In general, I'm in favor of this. It's a shame what happened
to this building. I mean, it just got absolutely obliterated. I appreciate the petitioner trying to
blend in whatever bricks that they can salvage in with newer bricks that match as close as they possibly can.
in addition to the mortar. If there's any, as the work is being done, if there's any substantial issues
with the door or the windows, I think we need to make sure, talk to NOAA and see if there needs to be
an addendum to the COA or a new COA just to make sure any future work is matching up with the historic
preservation standards we have set up. So that is my comment. Any other secondary comments from anybody?
No, seeing none. Okay, I think we're ready to vote.
been motioned and seconded for the conditional approval of COA 2635. We'll take a roll call vote. Vice
Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker?
Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion is approved 6-0. All right. Thank you very much for the
petitioner.
for coming in. Next up, we have old business. We already hit demolition delay. Mr. Sanweiss is their
old business. Oh, yes. So the limestone, sorry, Vinegar Hill limestone walking tour, which I believe
I brought up at the last meeting. It was supposed to be tomorrow. It's going to be raining all day tomorrow.
So it's been postponed for two weeks. Also, I'm going to wait for new business.
Anything else. What about training. That's right. Good point. So a while back I sent out an email to
everybody from deputy clerk Jennifer Crosley about training for required training for commissioners.
Some of you have attended so thank you for doing that.
I think this only works if everybody attends. And if not, she's going to have to come in here and give
a presentation. And I really like Jennifer and talking to her. But it's going to add some time onto
the end of the meeting. So if you need that link again so that you can sign up for one of those sessions,
I can resend the email. OK. Excellent. Yes? What was the training about? I didn't get a sense of it. Oh, OK.
characterized very broad, general, somewhat vague terms. And I didn't get up. It was difficult for me
to figure out how to respond when I didn't know what I was being trained to do. So I mean, some of the
people have taken it and speak to what they saw there. My understanding is it's basically two things.
It's a standard, what do you call it, code of conduct for commissioners, and then some information about
adhering to Robert's Rules of Order.
which we have started doing pretty well. It's pretty straightforward. Is there a take-home version of
this training? You can do it online, which is what I would do, and then put a cardboard you in front
of the screen and go live your life.
It's for the lawyers, it's not for us. Yeah, but come on. It's for the lawyers. We have to do it. Democracy
is a hell of a thing, as I've been informed very recently. And I'm kind of averse to solutions that
don't have a problem they're trying to solve.
I think we were interviewed for the job and we got it because those persons who interviewed us believed
that we had the competence and the professionalism and the judgment and bearing to do the job. Then
now to come and have us spend time in front of a screen or have somebody give us a presentation to ensure
that we have those qualities that we were found and judged to have had
to get this job makes no sense to me. Now, if it is that there's some specific requirement, let's throw
Robert's Rules, for example. I read very well. You could just say, read Robert's Rules and make sure
that you know it before your first meeting, and that works for me. Again, we're all grown-ups here.
Does that ordinance pass by the city council that's requiring it?
Do the city councilors have to do this training? They do some form of training. Okay, well, I can pass
the ordinance. Cardboard, you said that works? I didn't do that. We do not advocate. Again, solutions
must, again, if that's what it requires that I turn it on, I go mow the lawn and I come back and I go
check, then why? I don't think there is that option. I think it's really,
intended for people to listen. So I can listen to it while I'm mowing the lawn? Sure. Why not? Or I
can just have it sat there on a table while I mow the lawn. Is there an online version? Yeah. Unfortunately,
I was foolish not to do that. Almost everyone at the training session I went to was online. And so there's
like six people in the room. And then just all these names on the screen, which maybe they were there,
maybe they weren't.
You see, sometimes you have to be careful what you say yes to, because that says a lot about you and
your values. And if somebody's going to treat you like an infant, and you allow them to treat you like
an infant, you're in essence saying that I accept that I'm an infant. But again, that's just one person's
opinion. All right. New business. Questions? Oh, sorry.
No, you sent me a link. Unfortunately, the link listed all of those that were passed. I didn't see any
coming in the future. And then there were a couple of sign-ins to get to the form that just completely
baffled my computer. So again, I've been having trouble with technology lately, but this was one of
those where it just wanted a password or something, and it just didn't work at all.
I'm looking for a little help saying that the deputy clerk hasn't shown up to one of our meetings yet.
I don't think it's out of the question that there might be more meetings so I can check with her new
business. Anything new business. OK. Something I wanted to bring up is the state historic preservation
conference has been announced. I mean we knew the dates and location but the agenda has been announced.
So in addition to everything else that you might find useful or interesting there, there is every year
a program called CAMP that's commissioner something and mentorship program, which is specifically for
members of historic preservation commissions. Every year, a couple of scholarships are given to each
preservation commission that's
a member of this National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, which we're a member of. Those scholarships
are not usually given out until later. But if you're interested in going to the state conference or
camp, have this on your radar. It's going to be the end of September in, gosh, what's that town? Franklin,
Indiana. It's a good conference. I went last year.
Got one of those scholarships. It was great. Got to learn about some of the commission stuff, but then
there's a lot of other sort of things about historic preservation going on. So if you're interested,
please let me know. Let me see. I think it's September 28th or 29th through October 1st. Yep. So yeah.
Let Noah know if you're interested so he can kind of loop you in when, when they make those available
and see how to distribute those out. Um, I went last year, so I won't go this time around to make sure
somebody else can, uh, take, take advantage of that. So, um, anything else on new business, uh, Mr.
Sam Weiss? Not that I can think of. Okay. Uh, commissioner comments is next. Anyone wish to make any
further comments? Yes.
Commissioner Cross. Sometimes it might seem facetious when I make reference to democracy, but I'm not.
I'm very serious. And not just as a member of the public, but certainly as a commissioner in my standing
as advisory.
I believe that every commissioner has an equal right to make their positions heard on any issue.
I like rules, I like regulations, I like things in black and white because it keeps me centered and
focused as to what my role is. I also believe that bodies like this should be deliberative.
and take every opportunity to make the best decision, having availed themselves of all the information.
The persons who were asked to be or were invited to be on this body have skill sets that are broad and varied.
listen to very carefully the opinions of my commissioners. Whenever we make a decision, it affects the
lives of all the members in our community, or the members in our community in a very significant way.
And if it is that I'm going to make a decision and there's more information out there, I'd like to hear it.
I've been here long enough to see that even though we may disagree, we're more collegiate than competitive
or adversarial. Because despite our ways of doing things and our proclivities, I believe that there
to be a general respect and regard for the opinions of others.
know personally, I'm not going to speak for anybody else, where I've been in position to something or
been in support of something and have been swayed by one person on this commission. I'm not an architect,
so I listen to the architects. I'm not a historian, so I listen to the historian. I'm not a contractor
or skilled in construction, so I listen to these people. And if someone says, hey, I believe this, give
me an opportunity to go do some research and come back
I make a presentation. I have always been inclined to allow that. And my experience here, and I would
even use the word precedent setting, that that is the way we do things. There is no downside to that.
I can only see an upside.
And if it is that hearing all the information, my position doesn't change, it makes me feel better knowing
that I made the decision with all the information, hearing all the opinions properly ventilated. This
is the only place legally that we can discuss among ourselves anything related to matters that come
before us. It's usually the first time and a lot of times the only time.
We cannot meet outside of this body and discuss anything. And even though it's not written
in the regulations, maybe a lawyer in here could say that there certainly have been rules or process
established by common law, by common practice.
Whenever we make a decision, not only do we need to be able to defend it credibly, but it should stand
to historical scrutiny. And one of the ways of ensuring that happens is to avail ourselves of all the
information, listening to all the opinions. I've seen us sit in this room
for five hours, half of which was spent on one issue. I have seen where matters that are seemingly
insignificant have captured the time and the attention of this body for hours, for weeks. We've sent
for samples, we've sent for this,
gone report, we've redone drawings, we've done all of these things. And it's tedious, it's time consuming.
But I come back here every single sitting of this board because I believe that it's important. And I
need to be able to go out there and face every single member of this community. And if challenged about
a decision that I have made, I can say, listen,
We ventilated this over X amount of hours, X amount of meetings, even if I personally have acquiesced.
When I'm certain of how I was gonna vote, but I believed it was important to give the other members
of this commission the opportunity to make their case. Sometimes it swayed me, sometimes it hasn't.
I have never left.
commission feeling that I have not been given an opportunity to fully express and vent my opinion and
position on a topic ever until today. And it is sad. I will say that I hope this is an anomaly because I believe
ourselves and our community and our mandate at this service. This wasn't an arbitrary request for time.
We had three commissioners out of six, six, seven, 50% asking, pleading on two separate occasions and
two separate votes for an extension.
on a three-month matter when we're less than 20% in on the time allowable. I don't believe that should
have even been a matter to be considered for a vote. If it were up to me, that would have been written
in our rules. That is how significant I believe it is. We were not at the end of our time allowed. There
was no overriding reason that the decision had to be made today
And we had three commissioners asking for additional time to explore other matters brought forward.
It is my opinion that in this consultative process, that the least that could have been done is to allow
for this matter to be tabled for two weeks.
Thank you. Commissioner Baker, you had your hand. Just a little bit of rebuttal. It wasn't a matter
for rebuttal. It was just an opinion. No, I'm going to make a comment. I'm making a comment. That's
all I'm doing. But seek not to rebut my comment. If you have an independent comment to make,
you make it. Mr. Cross, please let Commissioner Baker speak, but please also make sure this is not directed
at anyone. I am simply going to state procedure.
The procedure played out. A motion was made and seconded and voted on. And while you have a motion ongoing,
you don't make other motions. I agree that there were comments made that worked against the motion.
People didn't want to, but the motion was made. The motion was passed.
Basically, that's it. If a motion had been made to transfer to another meeting or ask for additional
information at a later meeting, that could have been done, but it wasn't. There was a time period when
our president asked for a motion. There was a delay, I noticed. There wasn't anyone who,
immediately jumped to make a motion. In fact, I seconded a motion that somebody made, but there was
a time lapse there. And so the opportunity was there to make a motion to delay. But that motion wasn't
made. A motion was made and carried out. That's the simple politics, not the politics. That's the simple
dynamics of the way the commission works. There's nothing wrong with that.
that's just the way that's just the way it works and that's the way it will continue to work. Thank
you commissioner Baker again commissioner Butler again please make sure we're just. Just a question
I'm not sure about the procedure so if the motion is already on the table if we're considering a demolition
delay is that what then is on the table or is it so in other words nothing else could have been voted
on until so the fact that there was a
pause wouldn't have mattered. Nothing else could have been voted on until the demolition delay was voted
down. Is that right? And then a new thing could be brought up? And I think you also the you can make
a motion before the to release to say, you know, request to move on if before that had occurred or if
that request or motion to
release had been voted down, then a subsequent motion could be made. So there was no opportunity to
present a separate motion. So I don't understand what the point is. We're all making comments. We're
not having a cross common argument here. So Commissioner Butler has the floor. I just had a question.
Thank you. Anybody else have any comments? If I may be allowed to.
make one more comment, and I really have to leave. I learned very early in my schooling a phrase, comment,
idiom, what you call it. And it goes, the rules are meant for the guidance of the wise. Guidance of
the wise. And I'll leave the rest of that comment hanging lest somebody believe I'm calling them a fool.
which that's not my intention. But it's the first part of that comment. And this is why we make rules
can be changed. If we recognize in a process that the rules that govern that process do not serve the
ends, we are not slaves to that rule. And as intelligent people, we should be able to sit back and go,
hold on. If we go this way, it gets us to an end that
We probably don't want to, let's figure out a way because rules are contextual. They're made for a time,
for a set of circumstances. And those circumstances may change or different factors present themselves
where the purpose of these rules may not suit the ends for which these rules were designed.
And like I said, we're a deliberative body.
We're meant to sit here and argue, and argument must be based on information. And all I'm saying is,
for us to do our best job at what we were brought here to do, we should seek to avail ourselves of all
the available information, documented opinions of experts, different perspectives,
from different people. That is, maybe I'm spoiled. That is what I've grown used to. That is what I thought
I signed up for. That is what I believe is the best way to go about our business. And I really hope
that that is the way we move forward. Mr. Chair, I really need to go. Thank you very much for allowing
me to ventilate my issues, gentlemen.
have a good evening. Two more weeks. I'll see you. All right. My comments are thank you all very much
for coming here today, participating in this. I know we didn't all agree on this. That happens. And
that's okay. That's part of what this is. We had a vote. We had a motion. We had a discussion. I know
some people are upset about that. That's okay. We took a vote.
and the majority of people voted how they did. And then we move on. That's how this commission works.
That's how it will always work. That's also democracy. Sometimes you're not happy with the end of the
vote, and that's okay. I think it's important here that we all retain our respect for each other and
understand and not call into question people's motives. I do not question any of your motives for how
you voted one way or the other, and I would hope and expect that you would do the same for everyone
else here.
So that is my comment. Is there any public comment? Is there anyone online? All right, we've come to
the end of our meeting. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.