WEBVTT 00:00:00.450 --> 00:00:08.441 - All right, it's five o'clock. I'm going to call this meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation 00:00:08.441 --> 00:00:16.589 - Commission for Thursday, July 9th, 2026 to order. Would staff please call the roll? Commissioner Cross? 00:00:16.589 --> 00:00:24.816 - Yes. Vice Chair Baker? Here. Treasurer Butler? Here. Commissioner Castaneda? Here. Commissioner Duesner? 00:00:24.816 --> 00:00:29.438 - Here. Commissioner Duffy? Here. Commissioner Golden? Here. 00:00:29.666 --> 00:00:39.575 - Chair Hacker? Here. Commissioner Schlegel? Here. We have quorum. All right. Would anybody like to move 00:00:39.575 --> 00:00:49.291 - to amend the agenda? So I have a question. By sending my email, I thought that the motion that I was 00:00:49.291 --> 00:00:58.142 - hoping to talk about would be added to the agenda because I gave more than 48 hours notice. 00:00:58.434 --> 00:01:07.991 - And I notified all of the commissioners. But for some reason, it was not. And I sent it on Monday morning. 00:01:07.991 --> 00:01:17.280 - So if there was any questions, there was more than enough time to ask me what my intention was. So puts 00:01:17.280 --> 00:01:26.390 - me on the horns of a dilemma, because I don't have faith that the commissioners will necessarily vote 00:01:26.390 --> 00:01:27.998 - their conscience. 00:01:28.162 --> 00:01:35.756 - And so essentially this makes me have to have another hurdle. I would have to have two votes, one vote 00:01:35.756 --> 00:01:43.646 - to get it on the agenda. So would it be, I think it would probably be wiser for me to do this next meeting 00:01:43.646 --> 00:01:51.609 - and have it on the agenda. I ask for council to weigh in on that just to make sure we understand, everybody 00:01:51.609 --> 00:01:54.558 - understands what the proper process is. 00:01:54.658 --> 00:02:00.781 - for this and I think going forward, if anybody wants to add something there, we know exactly deadlines 00:02:00.781 --> 00:02:06.845 - and all that kind of stuff. So we have the fair procedure. Yes. So I apologize. We all read your memo 00:02:06.845 --> 00:02:12.849 - independently and we all came away with the same understanding, which is that you were notifying the 00:02:12.849 --> 00:02:18.973 - body that you intended to make a motion. Why would I? Because according to Robert's rules, if you give 00:02:18.973 --> 00:02:23.134 - advance notice to your body, you only need a majority vote to get it. 00:02:23.906 --> 00:02:29.294 - on the agenda, but if you don't give advance notice, then you need the two thirds vote to get it on 00:02:29.294 --> 00:02:34.737 - the agenda. So honestly, everybody looked at it and thought that's why you were providing notice. So 00:02:34.737 --> 00:02:40.179 - I apologize that we did not understand that your goal was to put a motion on the agenda. And I think 00:02:40.179 --> 00:02:45.406 - we'll get into that motion a little bit later, but I just wanted to let you know that it was not 00:02:45.698 --> 00:02:53.235 - It was not an intentional oversight. It was truly a misunderstanding because you said that I'm announcing 00:02:53.235 --> 00:03:00.416 - that I'm going to make a motion, and we took that as the required notice under Robert's rules to the 00:03:00.416 --> 00:03:07.597 - body to get that lower vote. Do you have a follow up? Well, so going forward, could I still get this 00:03:07.597 --> 00:03:14.494 - same thing heard next week if I say the magic words in the correct format? Well, not this point. 00:03:15.490 --> 00:03:22.942 - And I've asked Dana Kerr, my colleague, to talk to you a little bit about a recent Indiana Supreme Court 00:03:22.942 --> 00:03:30.181 - case holding that came down in November of last year that directly affects a rescission or revocation 00:03:30.181 --> 00:03:37.633 - from an administrative body, to talk to the group about why actually a motion to rescind is not a proper 00:03:37.633 --> 00:03:44.446 - motion in this instance. But, yes, if you wanted to say, like, oh, my gosh, on the next agenda, 00:03:44.578 --> 00:03:50.715 - I would really like to talk about Princess Theater, right? And you send Noah and Jeremy an email that 00:03:50.715 --> 00:03:56.731 - says, could you please add an agenda item about Princess Theater? I'd like to make a motion on that 00:03:56.731 --> 00:04:02.988 - item. I mean, saying that you want an item added to the agenda, okay? Because here it just sounded like 00:04:02.988 --> 00:04:06.718 - procedural, I'm gonna raise my hand and try and do something. 00:04:06.978 --> 00:04:12.964 - as opposed to I'd like to have an item added to the agenda. And I'm sorry, I'm sure that feels like 00:04:12.964 --> 00:04:19.249 - splitting hairs, but honestly, it was in good faith. We really just read it the way it was stated, which 00:04:19.249 --> 00:04:25.355 - is that you plan to make a motion. Do you have any follow-up? I guess that's a parliamentary inquiry. 00:04:25.355 --> 00:04:31.341 - Commissioner Cross, do you have a parliamentary inquiry? Could we, for the sake of the minutes, for 00:04:31.341 --> 00:04:36.190 - the sake of the record, read the email John Butler sent into the record, please? 00:04:36.674 --> 00:04:43.836 - Oh, and I'm happy to read it in there, but I also have, I need to, I'm sorry, I forgot to make one other 00:04:43.836 --> 00:04:50.726 - point. In terms of the 48 hours, the open door law does require that the, that notice be provided 48 00:04:50.726 --> 00:04:57.752 - hours in advance of the meeting. Open door law does not require that an agenda be posted 48 hours. And 00:04:57.752 --> 00:05:03.550 - it allows for an amendment to the agenda all the way up until you're in the meeting. 00:05:04.386 --> 00:05:11.236 - So you could make a proper motion for it to add something to the agenda right now. And we would be able 00:05:11.236 --> 00:05:17.888 - to add it according to the state's open door laws. So because we knew that open door law would allow 00:05:17.888 --> 00:05:24.474 - you to amend it here at the table, that kind of factored into the like, oh, you must be planning to 00:05:24.474 --> 00:05:29.150 - bring an amendment to add something to the agenda so that then you can 00:05:29.762 --> 00:05:35.404 - get the item, the rescission item on the agenda so you can then make a motion to rescind. Does that 00:05:35.404 --> 00:05:41.045 - make sense? One other question. So I think you indicated that that's not the proper motion to make, 00:05:41.045 --> 00:05:46.856 - so should I just not bother making it? Well, what I'd like is I would like for Dana to walk us through 00:05:46.856 --> 00:05:53.118 - the memo that literally just got finished today that you guys got at the same time that everybody else got it. 00:05:53.506 --> 00:06:00.247 - about this Supreme Court case so that you can kind of understand why that applies to the HPC, and I'm 00:06:00.247 --> 00:06:07.054 - hoping that will address your questions. Attorney Holmes, are you done speaking? Yes, thank you. Okay, 00:06:07.054 --> 00:06:13.728 - Commissioner Cross, do you have a part of inquiry? I don't know what we're talking about, so I think 00:06:13.728 --> 00:06:20.337 - it would be prudent that it be read into the records so everybody at the table knows the subject of 00:06:20.337 --> 00:06:22.782 - Commissioner Butler's memo so we can 00:06:23.746 --> 00:06:33.943 - decide for ourselves whether or not we hold to one opinion as opposed to another. And when the memo 00:06:33.943 --> 00:06:44.548 - is read into the record, I'd be like the opportunity to ask questions and make a statement with regards 00:06:44.548 --> 00:06:50.462 - to. Does Commissioner Butler wish to make a motion to add 00:06:51.586 --> 00:06:58.827 - Well, I thought I had the floor. Didn't make a motion. I'm asking him. No, well, the issue on the table 00:06:58.827 --> 00:07:05.929 - is reading the memo into the minutes. You didn't make a motion. I don't have to make a motion. Why do 00:07:05.929 --> 00:07:13.310 - I have to make a motion? Bernard, actually, everybody got the memo. The memo was distributed to the body. 00:07:13.922 --> 00:07:21.687 - as is required by Robert's rules when you have an opportunity to do a rescission. So the body all received 00:07:21.687 --> 00:07:29.016 - the memo. But is the memo in the minutes of this meeting yet? I think we can put it with the packet, 00:07:29.016 --> 00:07:36.345 - and we'll put the legal memo with the packet as well. All right. So assuming that the memo is in the 00:07:36.345 --> 00:07:43.166 - meeting, I have a question. When did the agenda come out? NOAA is required to set the agenda. 00:07:43.554 --> 00:07:50.590 - six days in advance and send it to you all. And by setting it, it's a preliminary setting, right? Because 00:07:50.590 --> 00:07:57.493 - it can get amended. And like we talked about, you can amend it all the way until you're in the meeting. 00:07:57.493 --> 00:08:04.462 - OK, if I could just ask Noah, when did the memo get distributed? Sorry, not memo. The agenda? The agenda 00:08:04.462 --> 00:08:11.100 - get distributed. The agenda was sent out last Wednesday. Last Wednesday? That's right. OK. When did 00:08:11.100 --> 00:08:12.958 - Commissioner Butler's email 00:08:13.250 --> 00:08:23.111 - get to you. This Monday? This Monday, so two days before. So he, none of us were. No, not two days before, 00:08:23.111 --> 00:08:32.787 - Wednesday of last week. Oh, when? When John Butler's memo came Monday of this week. Monday of this week, 00:08:32.787 --> 00:08:39.422 - right. No, because I called this week to ask for copies of the minutes. 00:08:39.970 --> 00:08:46.950 - And I was told that those minutes wouldn't have come out with the agenda packet. With the packet? With 00:08:46.950 --> 00:08:53.726 - the packet. And when did I get it? Are the minutes not in the packet? When did the packet come out? 00:08:53.726 --> 00:09:00.706 - They should have come out on Friday. The packet came out on Friday? Last week Friday? Last. Right. The 00:09:00.706 --> 00:09:06.398 - first version comes out on Wednesday before, and then it comes out Friday, finally. 00:09:08.226 --> 00:09:15.982 - that's the there's actually a chart on the website where it has a calendar of here's when items need 00:09:15.982 --> 00:09:23.891 - to be submitted here's when a draft goes out here's when it's finalized okay Commissioner Butler would 00:09:23.891 --> 00:09:31.800 - you like to add a make a motion to add an item to the agenda well I've been instructed that that would 00:09:31.800 --> 00:09:35.102 - be an incorrect motion to make so it seems 00:09:35.746 --> 00:09:44.329 - Would you like to hear the legal rationale on why our office, your legal counsel, would say that that's 00:09:44.329 --> 00:09:52.747 - not a proper motion? And then maybe you can determine whether you still want to make a motion or not. 00:09:52.747 --> 00:10:01.083 - I mean, we're counsel. You should follow our advice, but you're not obligated to. I'm very confused. 00:10:01.083 --> 00:10:03.806 - I am not going to make a motion. 00:10:04.386 --> 00:10:11.621 - If you had an opportunity to read the memo, if not. No, I had no memo. When was that sent? Just this 00:10:11.621 --> 00:10:18.928 - afternoon. I've not been on there since. So that makes it difficult for me to get in without knowing. 00:10:18.928 --> 00:10:26.092 - That's why I'm offering that maybe we want to take a pause, hear from Dana, and then go back to the 00:10:26.092 --> 00:10:30.462 - question that Jeremy just posed to you. I would say I would. 00:10:32.226 --> 00:10:40.843 - I think we need to move to hear explanation from council about this legal memorandum that they sent. 00:10:40.843 --> 00:10:49.802 - And I would entertain a motion to add that as an agenda item. All right. So we have a second. All right. 00:10:49.802 --> 00:10:58.676 - So Jeff Golden has moved to hear council explain the legal memorandum. Commissioner Baker has seconded. 00:10:58.676 --> 00:11:01.662 - Is there any immediate discussion? 00:11:02.594 --> 00:11:11.058 - All right, would staff please call the roll in question? Certainly, this is on a motion to hear legal's 00:11:11.058 --> 00:11:19.359 - explanation. Motion and second, we'll do a roll call vote, all voting members. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. 00:11:19.359 --> 00:11:27.824 - Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. 00:11:27.824 --> 00:11:31.486 - Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. 00:11:31.650 --> 00:11:39.296 - Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion passes, 8-0. All right, the motion is passed. Thank you very 00:11:39.296 --> 00:11:47.018 - much for our attorneys for showing up. I'd like for either attorney Holmes or, I'm sorry, I can't see 00:11:47.018 --> 00:11:54.664 - your name, Kerr. Dana Kerr. Dana Kerr. Mr. Kerr, please take it away. Thank you. Yes, this issue had 00:11:54.664 --> 00:11:59.358 - just come up, and so I apologize that we just had to date it. 00:11:59.586 --> 00:12:10.739 - So that did go out late this afternoon, so you may or may not have received it. The legal question was, 00:12:10.739 --> 00:12:21.677 - can the Historic Preservation Commission rescind a demolition delay decision once that final decision 00:12:21.677 --> 00:12:28.862 - has been made? And to start off with, I just had made a point that 00:12:29.154 --> 00:12:38.329 - The attorney for the unit, the city of Bloomington, is the attorney for the commission, just to establish 00:12:38.329 --> 00:12:46.984 - that the city legal department is the legal representation, so that you know that you can rely upon 00:12:46.984 --> 00:12:56.418 - our advice. And also state what you already know, that the Historic Preservation Commission is a statutorily 00:12:56.418 --> 00:12:57.630 - created body. 00:12:58.146 --> 00:13:10.358 - So the statue creates the body, the statue sets out what powers the body has within the statue, which 00:13:10.358 --> 00:13:22.570 - the large part of that is the certificate of appropriateness and creating the maps, which you all are 00:13:22.570 --> 00:13:24.126 - involved in. 00:13:24.642 --> 00:13:34.398 - But as an example, for illustrative purposes, I put out there the approval and denial of certifications 00:13:34.398 --> 00:13:43.778 - of appropriateness. And the statute talks about how you can prove them, how they can be denied, the 00:13:43.778 --> 00:13:53.534 - different ways that can happen. But none of those state in any way that that decision can be rescinded. 00:13:54.338 --> 00:14:02.219 - Yes, sir. In point of order, we're referring to a demolition delay, which I believe is a different item 00:14:02.219 --> 00:14:09.796 - than a COA. So I don't think it is. Illustrating purposes. But I know it's like apples and oranges, 00:14:09.796 --> 00:14:17.373 - right? This is showing where the statute has laid out what powers there is to do. And if it doesn't 00:14:17.373 --> 00:14:22.526 - specifically mention one, that it does not exist in that situation. 00:14:24.322 --> 00:14:37.947 - So, but as it relates to demolition delay, the Bloomington Municipal Code has the demolition delay ordinance 00:14:37.947 --> 00:14:50.697 - and it's been put into the Bloomington Municipal Code section 20.06.050 CII2. And within that is that 00:14:50.697 --> 00:14:53.822 - section, subsection two, 00:14:54.178 --> 00:15:05.892 - it talks about the early termination of the waiting period. And that states that the remainder of the 00:15:05.892 --> 00:15:17.606 - waiting period shall be considered waived and the certificate of zoning compliance shall be issued if 00:15:17.606 --> 00:15:22.430 - within the 90 or 180 day, 120 day period, 00:15:22.530 --> 00:15:30.065 - One of the following occurs, and all other requirements of the UDO are satisfied. The Historic Preservation 00:15:30.065 --> 00:15:37.112 - Commission votes affirmatively not to recommend local historic designation to the common council, or 00:15:37.112 --> 00:15:44.159 - the Historic Preservation Commission votes on a motion to recommend local designation and the motion 00:15:44.159 --> 00:15:50.718 - fails, or in case of contributing structures in a single family district, which just isn't so 00:15:52.034 --> 00:16:00.458 - or the common council disapproves of a recommendation of local historic designation of this subject 00:16:00.458 --> 00:16:09.556 - property. So within the Bloomington Municipal Code, that is the limitation of the powers that is presented. 00:16:09.556 --> 00:16:18.485 - Yes, sir. I have a question. I'm not trying to interrupt. When we release something for demolition delay, 00:16:18.485 --> 00:16:20.254 - we read a statement. 00:16:20.482 --> 00:16:27.656 - please have someone read that statement into the record. And I think after this, let's go ahead and 00:16:27.656 --> 00:16:34.903 - let Mr. Kerr finish his statement. We'll do a round of questions like we normally do, and then we'll 00:16:34.903 --> 00:16:42.221 - do comments at that point, just so we get it. No, it's okay. I get where you're coming from. So there 00:16:42.221 --> 00:16:48.606 - are three potential actions that you can take on a demolition delay. One is the release. 00:16:49.122 --> 00:16:55.333 - of the demolition delay, in which case you read, today regarding the property located at blank address, 00:16:55.333 --> 00:17:01.425 - the Historic Preservation Commission declares that it got notice of the proposed demolition and after 00:17:01.425 --> 00:17:07.577 - today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition 00:17:07.577 --> 00:17:14.206 - delay waiting period. The HPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the Common Council. 00:17:17.730 --> 00:17:30.064 - Let's let him finish. I see where you're going. So again, that is what the Clinton municipal code gives 00:17:30.064 --> 00:17:41.923 - as far as the role of the Historic Preservation Commission when it comes to demolition. And it does 00:17:41.923 --> 00:17:46.430 - talk further about limitations of the 00:17:47.778 --> 00:17:56.336 - changes that might be made because in 20.06.050Fii, it states that no action of the Historic Preservation 00:17:56.336 --> 00:18:05.055 - Commission may prevent issuance or affect revocation of such certificate of zoning compliance or demolition 00:18:05.055 --> 00:18:13.370 - permit issued in reliance upon such certificate of zoning compliance for a period of one year from the 00:18:13.370 --> 00:18:15.550 - end of the waiting period. 00:18:16.162 --> 00:18:27.731 - which waiving the waiting period by an action in the meeting would have ended the waiting period. So 00:18:27.731 --> 00:18:40.216 - that's the statute. And there's no statutory authority of rescinding anything that the Historic Preservation 00:18:40.216 --> 00:18:44.798 - Commission does. The statute also talks 00:18:45.186 --> 00:18:55.662 - about how there's a lot of overlap between the Historic Preservation Commission and the Board of Zoning 00:18:55.662 --> 00:19:05.635 - Appeals. They are very similar bodies. And in fact, the Indiana Code when it comes to the Historic 00:19:05.635 --> 00:19:10.974 - Preservation Commission in IC 36-7-11-4A states that 00:19:11.298 --> 00:19:20.739 - a final decision of the commission is subject to judicial review under IC 36-7-4 as if it were a final 00:19:20.739 --> 00:19:29.997 - decision of a board of zoning appeals. So the Indiana code treats decisions that you make just as if 00:19:29.997 --> 00:19:39.254 - they were decisions as the board of zoning appeals. So once they're made, they follow the same order 00:19:39.254 --> 00:19:40.446 - of review as 00:19:40.642 --> 00:19:50.034 - the Board of Zoning Appeals. So there's a case that came out late last year. It was November of last 00:19:50.034 --> 00:19:59.518 - year. And it is an Indiana Supreme Court case. It is the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals versus 00:19:59.518 --> 00:20:07.422 - the Bedford Recycling Inc. For the record, it's 269 Northeast 3rd, 831 in 2025 case. 00:20:10.818 --> 00:20:17.353 - This case is directly on point. Bedford Recycling sought a conditional use permit to be able to operate 00:20:17.353 --> 00:20:23.637 - a scrap metal recycling and sorting facility on property it owned in Muro County that was owned for 00:20:23.637 --> 00:20:30.046 - mineral extraction, which didn't include this type of use. The VCA granted the permit, and the county 00:20:30.046 --> 00:20:35.262 - attorney set out to verify it was in fact required to support the permit approval. 00:20:35.810 --> 00:20:42.752 - In drafting the findings of fact, the county attorney determined that the BZA made a legal error in 00:20:42.752 --> 00:20:50.041 - granting the permit. The county attorney felt that there was case law that supported revoking the permit 00:20:50.041 --> 00:20:56.984 - if the revocation was based on a legal error. After 11 months of board member changes and meetings, 00:20:56.984 --> 00:21:01.982 - the BZA voted to revoke the Bedford Recycling's conditional use permit. 00:21:02.306 --> 00:21:09.889 - based on the fact that it was granted beyond the BZA's legal authority. Bedford Recycling appealed to 00:21:09.889 --> 00:21:17.621 - the Monroe Circuit Court, which found in favor of Bedford Recycling, the Court of Appeals reversed that 00:21:17.621 --> 00:21:25.278 - decision. Then it went to the Indiana Supreme Court. In their decision, the Supreme Court cited a case 00:21:25.278 --> 00:21:30.110 - all the way back in 1926, 100 years ago, saying an agency cannot 00:21:30.402 --> 00:21:39.317 - reconsider its own final decision unless the legislature explicitly grants the agency that power. The 00:21:39.317 --> 00:21:48.057 - legislature has at times specifically stated if the body can modify its own decisions. For example, 00:21:48.057 --> 00:21:57.758 - administrative law judges and panels who are considered ultimate authorities can modify their own orders under 00:21:57.858 --> 00:22:05.457 - Indiana Code 4-21.5-3-31. The Supreme Court then says, if the legislature is silent on reconsideration 00:22:05.457 --> 00:22:12.908 - of decisions, then the body does not have that power. So if the legislature speaks and says you have 00:22:12.908 --> 00:22:20.360 - that power to reconsider, you have that power. If the legislature is silent on whether you have that 00:22:20.360 --> 00:22:22.942 - power, you do not have that power. 00:22:23.554 --> 00:22:37.689 - Sorry, which legislature are you referring to, the state or the city? The state legislature. So again, 00:22:37.689 --> 00:22:51.412 - the state legislature has said that the final decision by this body is reviewed judicially as would 00:22:51.412 --> 00:22:53.470 - be of the BZA. 00:22:53.730 --> 00:23:04.214 - Supreme Court is talking about the BZA and what its abilities to do. It treats this body just like the 00:23:04.214 --> 00:23:14.392 - BZA does in the statute. So I am 100% confident that the Indian Supreme Court would treat this body 00:23:14.392 --> 00:23:22.942 - reconsidering a decision it has made the same as for this body as it would the BZA. 00:23:23.362 --> 00:23:33.928 - So reconsidering a decision that has already been made would be inappropriate in the city of Bloomington's 00:23:33.928 --> 00:23:44.000 - legal department opinion. And that is what our advice is to this body. As you can see, there's strong 00:23:44.000 --> 00:23:51.998 - public policy on that. If these decisions could be changed at any point in time, 00:23:52.514 --> 00:23:59.317 - There would be so much uncertainty. Developers, in this case, would not know what they could do or what 00:23:59.317 --> 00:24:05.923 - they couldn't do. They wouldn't know if what they were allowed to do was going to change at the very 00:24:05.923 --> 00:24:12.530 - next meeting, even though they had gotten their approval to move ahead because their time period had 00:24:12.530 --> 00:24:19.398 - been waived. They have already taken steps. They may have already signed contracts. They may have things 00:24:19.398 --> 00:24:22.014 - such as that for the Bedford recycling. 00:24:22.146 --> 00:24:31.438 - They may have already started building facilities and things within that 11-month period. So public 00:24:31.438 --> 00:24:40.823 - policy would support also what the Indian Supreme Court said. And I think the policies that the city 00:24:40.823 --> 00:24:51.230 - of Bloomington has in wanting to make things so that the people who work with the city of Bloomington know what 00:24:51.618 --> 00:25:00.109 - is expected of them and know what directions they're supposed to follow. And they follow the proper 00:25:00.109 --> 00:25:08.686 - procedures. They can rely on following those proper procedures. And so that is, again, public policy 00:25:08.686 --> 00:25:16.158 - that would support not rescinding a final decision that's already been made. Thank you. 00:25:16.386 --> 00:25:22.642 - Thank you very much. I think if we're going to operate as we normally do, we usually have a public comment 00:25:22.642 --> 00:25:28.547 - before we do commissioner questions and then commissioner comments. I think it seems like people are 00:25:28.547 --> 00:25:34.394 - here and may be interested in speaking on this. And I think we need to make sure everybody is heard 00:25:34.394 --> 00:25:40.300 - on this particular issue. Do you have a point of order? So I don't get an opportunity to ask counsel 00:25:40.300 --> 00:25:45.854 - of questions based on this presentation? No, you do. We're going to do public questions first. 00:25:45.954 --> 00:25:52.271 - then commissioner comments or questions, and then commissioner comments as we normally do for all the 00:25:52.271 --> 00:25:58.897 - COAs. So that way we're operating under the same procedure we normally do. That's really not what normally 00:25:58.897 --> 00:26:05.276 - happens. Noah would read the COA. And if there's something in the COA that we don't understand or we'd 00:26:05.276 --> 00:26:11.779 - like to get more information on, we usually ask it directly of Noah. Public comment usually comes before 00:26:11.779 --> 00:26:15.742 - commissioner questions. That's correct. You're telling me that. 00:26:16.994 --> 00:26:23.369 - The historical way, the way we've always done it is if you throw something up there, and I'm saying, 00:26:23.369 --> 00:26:30.186 - could you go back a second? What's that word? Could you throw up another picture? Could I clarify something 00:26:30.186 --> 00:26:37.002 - about the information? We have never done that before, Commissioner's question. That what you're describing 00:26:37.002 --> 00:26:43.377 - is Commissioner's questions. Every meeting, we read the procedure for certificate of appropriateness 00:26:43.377 --> 00:26:44.766 - and demolition delay. 00:26:47.138 --> 00:26:52.715 - And this is what I say at every meeting. For each item on the agenda, the Historic Preservation Program 00:26:52.715 --> 00:26:58.291 - Manager will first present a staff report. We are treating this as a staff report right now. We'll then 00:26:58.291 --> 00:27:03.707 - hear if the petitioner has any additional information. I mean, we made the motion. And then we go to 00:27:03.707 --> 00:27:09.230 - public comment. We do public comment. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask 00:27:09.230 --> 00:27:14.645 - questions to staff, the petitioner, and the public. And then we go on to comments. So I read that at 00:27:14.645 --> 00:27:16.254 - the beginning of every month. 00:27:17.442 --> 00:27:23.715 - So we will go on to public comments next. I think let's go in the room first, and then we'll go online 00:27:23.715 --> 00:27:29.865 - just to make sure we're kind of doing this in order. Does anybody in the room wish to make a comment 00:27:29.865 --> 00:27:36.016 - on this? You will have three minutes, and please, the comments are based on the legal memorandum and 00:27:36.016 --> 00:27:42.228 - explanation that our attorneys gave to us. No. Yes, please. OK, you have three minutes. Starting now. 00:27:42.228 --> 00:27:44.542 - I think all I need is one minute. OK. 00:27:45.442 --> 00:27:50.970 - Thank you so much for the legal interpretation and the memo. As a member of the public, I think it's 00:27:50.970 --> 00:27:56.444 - very, very difficult for me to comment, or any member of the public, when we haven't seen the memo, 00:27:56.444 --> 00:28:02.026 - we haven't had time to read the case. And we know that cases are like movies. Two people can see them 00:28:02.026 --> 00:28:07.555 - and they see different things. Ten people can see them and they see different things. And I think in 00:28:07.555 --> 00:28:13.028 - your citation and your explanation, you talked about how administrative law judges, their decisions 00:28:13.028 --> 00:28:13.630 - are final. 00:28:13.922 --> 00:28:19.358 - But they're not amongst the parties. The parties have a window in which they can appeal. I've 00:28:19.358 --> 00:28:25.140 - done administrative law cases. And right now, your party here is the public. And the public has not 00:28:25.140 --> 00:28:30.981 - had adequate information about this memo. The public has no idea how to listen to all this legalese. 00:28:30.981 --> 00:28:36.763 - And God bless you. It's fine. But I think that we're standing in the doorway and blocking the hall, 00:28:36.763 --> 00:28:42.430 - quote Bob Dylan. And I think this is a very difficult sort of thing for the public to understand. 00:28:42.882 --> 00:28:48.595 - I have some advantage because I'm a lawyer. But if you're not a lawyer to listen to all this and you 00:28:48.595 --> 00:28:54.478 - don't have a chance to read the memo, it waxes with the other day when the RDC, where am I at the time? 00:28:54.478 --> 00:29:00.192 - One minute and 13 seconds. It waxes the other day when the RDC did not have a meeting on January 6th 00:29:00.192 --> 00:29:06.301 - and had not told the public. Nobody knew. This young lady was planning to go to the meeting. I was planning 00:29:06.301 --> 00:29:11.166 - on going to the meeting and there was no meeting and there was no public information. 00:29:11.554 --> 00:29:21.941 - And I think when we fail to adequately inform the public about what's going on, then we're letting one 00:29:21.941 --> 00:29:32.026 - of the parties be misrepresented. Thank you for your comment. Does anybody else in the room wish to 00:29:32.026 --> 00:29:36.766 - comment on this? Not on that. Okay. I figured. 00:29:37.026 --> 00:29:44.087 - All right. Let's go online. Does anybody wish to comment on the legal explanation given by the city 00:29:44.087 --> 00:29:51.359 - attorneys? We have a person named Eric. I've asked to unmute. I've also asked for their first and last 00:29:51.359 --> 00:29:58.703 - name, but we haven't had that yet. Okay. Eric, you are welcome to speak. You've got three minutes. Good 00:29:58.703 --> 00:30:06.046 - afternoon, everyone. My name is Eric Post and I hope, can you hear me okay? We can hear you. Good. I am 00:30:11.042 --> 00:30:20.577 - participating as a member of the public. I appreciate this discussion. I do think procedural questions 00:30:20.577 --> 00:30:30.205 - are very important because that's how decisions are made or reconsidered. The previous public commenter 00:30:30.205 --> 00:30:40.574 - mentioned in the absence of seeing all the materials it's difficult to ask questions that may be well formed or 00:30:40.834 --> 00:30:51.582 - perhaps not so well formed. And so I wanted to note that usually in this, I'm not a lawyer and we'll 00:30:51.582 --> 00:31:03.074 - proclaim, but I do read and it seems like if in terms of legal hierarchy, if other bodies or other statutes 00:31:03.074 --> 00:31:09.246 - are silent, the ability to do something usually passes to 00:31:10.274 --> 00:31:19.457 - the body, even if it's a statutory body. And the HPC, I think, has adopted Robert's rules as its operating 00:31:19.457 --> 00:31:28.554 - framework. And in that framework, any member of the body may make a point of information, and that member 00:31:28.554 --> 00:31:37.566 - of the body could read their copy of the memo into the record. And number two is that I believe there is 00:31:40.578 --> 00:31:46.689 - You're breaking up. Are you still there? Eric? That a member of, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. 00:31:46.689 --> 00:31:53.522 - You're back. I stopped your time. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. No, that's, that's 00:31:53.522 --> 00:32:00.356 - why I appreciate it. And the second point I would make is that I believe under Robert's rules, a member 00:32:00.356 --> 00:32:06.926 - of the body who was on the prevailing side of a prior motion can make a motion to reconsider and it 00:32:06.926 --> 00:32:08.766 - doesn't resend them up the, 00:32:09.282 --> 00:32:16.373 - judgment or the decision, but it does bring it back up for reconsideration. And the operating framework 00:32:16.373 --> 00:32:23.328 - in which those really fall afoul is when there have been irreversible changes made. So in the case of 00:32:23.328 --> 00:32:30.351 - the building, if the building hasn't been demolished yet, then there is case law to support the body's 00:32:30.351 --> 00:32:37.237 - ability to change the decision on reconsideration. So that's really all my comment. And I appreciate 00:32:37.237 --> 00:32:38.942 - everyone's work on this. 00:32:40.130 --> 00:32:47.755 - All right. Thank you, Mr. House. All right. Are there any other folks online who wish to weigh in on 00:32:47.755 --> 00:32:55.834 - the attorney's explanation of the legal memo? All right. Hearing none, we'll go to Commissioner Questions. 00:32:55.834 --> 00:33:03.459 - Commissioner Castaneda, do you have any questions? I do not have any questions. Commissioner Golden, 00:33:03.459 --> 00:33:07.838 - do you have any questions? I do not. Commissioner Butler. 00:33:08.546 --> 00:33:18.066 - So you cited some stuff about border zoning appeals. So my question is, is there any case law pertaining 00:33:18.066 --> 00:33:27.950 - to how do I rephrase? So when we read that statement at the end, that statement to me seems like a statement 00:33:27.950 --> 00:33:36.382 - saying this is not a final decision, because we are reserving the right. So in the case law, 00:33:36.546 --> 00:33:44.587 - We're reserving the right to change our decisions, specifically in the last thing we say. We can still 00:33:44.587 --> 00:33:52.473 - recommend this to the mayor. So in the case law you cited, it's all about final stuff, right? And so 00:33:52.473 --> 00:34:00.358 - if we're not making a final decision, then that would not apply. Is that correct? But you waived the 00:34:00.358 --> 00:34:04.574 - demolition period. But we still reserved the right to 00:34:04.674 --> 00:34:10.643 - be able to designate it. So that's the thing. If you did, then you. So that's what's really confusing 00:34:10.643 --> 00:34:16.846 - for me here. So you're not actually reserving a right. What you're saying is that you may later recommend 00:34:16.846 --> 00:34:22.932 - it. And I've been trying to figure out what that means too, right? When you agree to a demolition delay 00:34:22.932 --> 00:34:29.194 - permit, what are the chances that later that building is going to still be there to recommend designation? 00:34:29.194 --> 00:34:31.710 - And so how would I do that is my question. 00:34:32.098 --> 00:34:41.279 - How would you say I want to preserve the right to recommend designation? No. And this just lets me be 00:34:41.279 --> 00:34:50.279 - specific to this issue. How would I do the last sentence where I recommend this to counsel? I don't 00:34:50.279 --> 00:34:59.550 - understand that. Excuse me. Can we? Yep. Thank you. Well, you can't do that right now because you have 00:35:00.130 --> 00:35:06.270 - properly decided the issue. You've made a final determination. I don't know. I'm telling you, I wouldn't 00:35:06.270 --> 00:35:12.352 - admit that to you. That is very misleading to me as a commissioner, because I would feel that the issue 00:35:12.352 --> 00:35:18.258 - is not put to bed if I still have an avenue that I can go to. But I don't think it's an avenue. It's 00:35:18.258 --> 00:35:24.281 - an expressly wasted. I see what you're saying. I don't think that that's a reservation of a power. You 00:35:24.281 --> 00:35:27.614 - can't give someone, say, oh, we approve your demolition. 00:35:28.290 --> 00:35:36.783 - But we might take it back at a later date. Except that's literally what we're doing. That's literally 00:35:36.783 --> 00:35:44.526 - what we say every time we do this. Yeah. I get that. All right. I've done no more questions. 00:35:44.526 --> 00:35:52.935 - Yeah. Commissioner Duffy. No questions. Commissioner Dueser. No. Commissioner Cross. In the case you 00:35:52.935 --> 00:35:57.598 - just read, it alludes to an error made in a decision by 00:35:57.858 --> 00:36:07.573 - the zoning authority? Yes, there was. They based the conditional use. These law did not support the 00:36:07.573 --> 00:36:17.288 - conditional use that they granted. However, they could not go back and correct that, even though it 00:36:17.288 --> 00:36:27.294 - was an error of law, which it wasn't just simply a change of opinion. It was actually an error of law. 00:36:27.394 --> 00:36:36.825 - process to fix that error was a judicial review. That's the process that the statute allows. And that's 00:36:36.825 --> 00:36:46.257 - what the process the statute allows for the Historic Preservation Commission. If there is an issue that 00:36:46.257 --> 00:36:56.414 - somebody who has standing has with a decision that has been made, they can see judicial review of the decision. 00:36:56.738 --> 00:37:06.982 - So I'm new to American law. I find it fascinating that, for example, the Supreme Court could have established 00:37:06.982 --> 00:37:16.294 - precedents. But another case comes before it, and that precedence changes. Because things and times 00:37:16.294 --> 00:37:24.862 - change. I beg your pardon. Things and times change. And this court seems to have been using 00:37:25.186 --> 00:37:33.569 - presidents from over 100 years ago, or roundabout. I think if we did a little bit of research, we could 00:37:33.569 --> 00:37:41.952 - find several decisions made by every court to include the Supreme Court at different points in history, 00:37:41.952 --> 00:37:50.174 - where before the case came before them, it was established presidents. And at every level, because of 00:37:50.174 --> 00:37:54.366 - a new set of circumstances, they ruled differently. 00:37:55.842 --> 00:38:04.804 - Would I be incorrect to say that? It is not as common as you would believe for precedent to be overturned. 00:38:04.804 --> 00:38:13.179 - And I'm not implying that it's common. I'm not quantifying my statement. I'm just saying that it is 00:38:13.179 --> 00:38:21.805 - possible that there is established precedence. But somehow, a different set of people put in different 00:38:21.805 --> 00:38:24.318 - eyes, in a different context, 00:38:24.642 --> 00:38:31.760 - in a different time under different circumstances may rule differently. I'm just asking if it's possible. 00:38:31.760 --> 00:38:38.476 - Actually, this case is instructive because a bunch of courts did rule differently. And so different 00:38:38.476 --> 00:38:45.191 - jurisdictions were handling that issue differently. And this Supreme Court case says no. Right. And 00:38:45.191 --> 00:38:52.310 - I get that. But it was different courts looking at the same set of circumstances within the same context, 00:38:52.310 --> 00:38:54.526 - within the same time in history. 00:38:55.682 --> 00:39:04.956 - One could argue that a court before 1865 would have ruled differently on some issues as opposed to a 00:39:04.956 --> 00:39:14.231 - court post 1865. I'm just, okay, so my point holds. My question specifically was to the facts of the 00:39:14.231 --> 00:39:23.230 - case. So it was an error in law. Is this issue considered an error in law or an error in process? 00:39:25.122 --> 00:39:37.152 - This issue. Like I said, I'm an amateur. I hope to be educated. Yes. Right. This issue would be considered 00:39:37.152 --> 00:39:48.732 - that the decision would want to be rescinded. And that's a procedure. Just like the decision to revoke 00:39:48.732 --> 00:39:53.342 - the conditional use. That's a procedure. 00:39:53.858 --> 00:40:02.192 - The basis of it, I'm just saying the error of law is a very strong argument to turn something around 00:40:02.192 --> 00:40:10.692 - and try to revoke it. But even in that strong, strong reasoning, this NBN Supreme Court still said you 00:40:10.692 --> 00:40:19.109 - shouldn't do it. So there's not even an error of law here. So even in those extreme cases where there 00:40:19.109 --> 00:40:23.070 - is, the Supreme Court says, no, don't touch it. 00:40:23.778 --> 00:40:32.477 - We have established in the statute, this legislature, Indiana legislature, established in the statute 00:40:32.477 --> 00:40:41.517 - the review process, which is judicial review, not a body reviewing its own work. OK. And my last question 00:40:41.517 --> 00:40:50.046 - would be, were the circumstances of this case that you cite one where the body broke its own rules, 00:40:52.930 --> 00:41:01.667 - It was under strong objections of its members, certainly three of them. It was under strong objection 00:41:01.667 --> 00:41:10.318 - by members of the public. And something that had been established by the body's own rules, both ones 00:41:10.318 --> 00:41:18.884 - that were codified and ones set in precedence, were all breached. I'm asking because a lot of times 00:41:18.884 --> 00:41:22.910 - different circumstances surrounding a decision 00:41:24.514 --> 00:41:32.595 - might sway some people. And again, I was in the courtroom when it was argued. I got this memo literally 00:41:32.595 --> 00:41:40.676 - minutes before. I haven't done my research. Again, it is your brief and a legal brief is representative 00:41:40.676 --> 00:41:48.680 - of the lawyers that produced that brief, that is their opinion. Drawing on this gentleman here, I have 00:41:48.680 --> 00:41:51.166 - enough experience to learn that 00:41:51.682 --> 00:42:00.610 - two people looking on the same thing might come to a completely different conclusion. So again... Yes, 00:42:00.610 --> 00:42:09.885 - I really understand your question is that if you believe that there was an error in procedure... Agregious 00:42:09.885 --> 00:42:18.900 - errors in procedure. Agregious errors in procedures that led to the vote. And I say this in the context 00:42:18.900 --> 00:42:20.894 - that judges are human. 00:42:21.634 --> 00:42:28.498 - And when they're ruling on a very specific case, they make a ruling based on the circumstances of that 00:42:28.498 --> 00:42:35.161 - case. And if those circumstances were different, it is possible, one could argue probable, that the 00:42:35.161 --> 00:42:41.892 - decision could be different, especially at the Supreme Court, where they're creating precedents, not 00:42:41.892 --> 00:42:49.022 - acting on one, because they overturned their previous court. So they were, in effect, doing something that 00:42:49.218 --> 00:42:56.724 - probably never been done before. They were actually creating precedent at the time when this decision 00:42:56.724 --> 00:43:04.083 - was made. Because I'm thinking if the Court of Appeals had precedents to act, again, I haven't read 00:43:04.083 --> 00:43:11.442 - it. I would have loved to have read the decisions from the burning of zoning BZA to the lower court 00:43:11.442 --> 00:43:15.710 - through to the Supreme Court and actually informed myself 00:43:16.162 --> 00:43:23.644 - so that I could come here and perhaps ask you intelligent questions. But I just got this memo two minutes 00:43:23.644 --> 00:43:30.915 - before the meeting started. I understand that. And what the Supreme Court was saying in this case, and 00:43:30.915 --> 00:43:38.044 - that's why I mentioned that the other case was from 1926 was a Supreme Court case, is that the Court 00:43:38.044 --> 00:43:45.950 - of Appeals cases started drifting away from what they had established 100 years ago. And this Supreme Court was 00:43:46.050 --> 00:43:53.622 - pulling them back in to what the law has been and saying, no, you've drifted too far, and you need to 00:43:53.622 --> 00:44:01.268 - come back. Well, you do appreciate that one of the bases in which courts make decisions possibly could 00:44:01.268 --> 00:44:08.766 - be the effect on the community. And they weigh, if I rule this way or that way, has customs changed? 00:44:08.766 --> 00:44:10.622 - Has the society changed? 00:44:11.106 --> 00:44:18.310 - So in 1926, when they made this decision, that could effectively have been the case. But we've moved 00:44:18.310 --> 00:44:25.444 - on over 100 years. And a new body listening to this case under the circumstances that this decision 00:44:25.444 --> 00:44:32.577 - was made could possibly say, if I uphold this decision, I would be legitimizing the process used to 00:44:32.577 --> 00:44:39.710 - get it here. And they could perhaps have made a decision that could be overturned at the US Supreme 00:44:40.514 --> 00:44:48.866 - I'm just saying, isn't that possible? That's theology. We can debate that. Which is why this body's 00:44:48.866 --> 00:44:57.552 - for, sir, to debate. I limit. Please let him respond. The Indiana Supreme Court is not having an issue. 00:44:57.552 --> 00:45:05.904 - Sir, you're out of order. Let him respond. Indiana Supreme Court is the law of Indiana. Could it be 00:45:05.904 --> 00:45:09.662 - different someday? Was it different someday? 00:45:10.242 --> 00:45:19.507 - That is the law as it stands right now. And that is the law that we have to abide by. And as the attorney 00:45:19.507 --> 00:45:28.422 - for the city of Bloomington and for this body, I have to recommend and advise this body to follow the 00:45:28.422 --> 00:45:37.337 - law in Indiana as it stands right now. And for the Indiana Supreme Court, that is what I'm doing. And 00:45:37.337 --> 00:45:38.910 - so that's, if we, 00:45:39.650 --> 00:45:49.259 - don't like that, there are ways to change the legislature so that they add different ways to review 00:45:49.259 --> 00:45:58.868 - your own decisions. But the way the law stands right now, this case is extremely strong, especially 00:45:58.868 --> 00:46:09.534 - since it says that the BZA and the HPC are treated identically when it comes to reviewing their decisions that 00:46:09.890 --> 00:46:18.983 - that this case applies here, and that this body can't change that decision. I understand your job. And 00:46:18.983 --> 00:46:27.812 - don't misinterpret my questions as. Oh, I appreciate that. Right. And yeah, I'm glad that you do. I 00:46:27.812 --> 00:46:36.905 - once learned that the law doesn't have to be right. It just has to be certain. But I also learned that 00:46:36.905 --> 00:46:38.494 - the law isn't us. 00:46:39.874 --> 00:46:49.603 - also, and those statements were made by jurists. So it... My last question. Sorry. This is a question. 00:46:49.603 --> 00:46:59.238 - I don't have any more questions. I'm sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Baker, do you have any questions? 00:46:59.238 --> 00:47:07.550 - No, I do not. Commissioner Slagle, questions? No, I do not. I don't have any questions. 00:47:08.418 --> 00:47:17.887 - All right, we'll go over to any comments. Commissioner Castaneda, do you have any comments? Commissioner 00:47:17.887 --> 00:47:27.175 - Golden, do you have any comments? Not right now. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Butler, comments? Well, 00:47:27.175 --> 00:47:31.774 - I'd like to figure out how it's possible for us to 00:47:43.906 --> 00:47:52.422 - Commissioner Duffy, do you have any comments? No. Commissioner Duesner, do you have any comments? No. 00:47:52.422 --> 00:48:01.273 - Commissioner Cross, comments? I have a few. Firstly, a lot was said here about information. The gentleman 00:48:01.273 --> 00:48:09.956 - online, the gentleman there, and so did I. There are members of the public seated here. And even though 00:48:09.956 --> 00:48:13.630 - we have seen, Commissioner Butler's memoir, 00:48:14.562 --> 00:48:22.899 - they don't know what the contents of that is. And it has been a matter of some discussion by this body, 00:48:22.899 --> 00:48:31.077 - and they're all ignorant as to what we're talking about. Which is why I said, I asked that it be read 00:48:31.077 --> 00:48:39.574 - so that members of the public could have some idea of what we're talking about. Whether it's procedurally 00:48:39.574 --> 00:48:43.262 - correct or just correct because we serve them 00:48:43.970 --> 00:48:52.071 - I will admit that I'm somewhat ignorant of the technicalities of the process. But I believe that the 00:48:52.071 --> 00:49:00.253 - spirit of this body is to work for the people. And the people must have information on which they can 00:49:00.253 --> 00:49:08.675 - make decisions. They can ask pertinent, reasonable, legitimate questions about what we're talking about. 00:49:08.675 --> 00:49:12.766 - But without the information, how can they do that? 00:49:14.498 --> 00:49:23.542 - It being in the minutes for next week's meeting is completely different than these gentlemen and lady 00:49:23.542 --> 00:49:32.763 - being in the gallery and their ability to stand and ask questions during public comment when they don't 00:49:32.763 --> 00:49:41.630 - know what we're talking about. Again, I appreciate that you just got this today, but I wrote a memo 00:49:43.586 --> 00:49:54.001 - a week and a half ago, and gave copies to Noah, which with my permission, he sent to other people. So 00:49:54.001 --> 00:50:04.721 - there was ample time for a position to have been arrived at and communicated to all here, all concerned, 00:50:04.721 --> 00:50:11.358 - so that we could do our research and come here, prepare to argue 00:50:12.162 --> 00:50:21.499 - the facts, the substance, of your opinion. A learned opinion, though it is, it's still an opinion. And 00:50:21.499 --> 00:50:30.656 - there are a number of people here who may have different ones, including another qualified attorney. 00:50:30.656 --> 00:50:39.721 - And I love to see attorneys argue. I learn a lot, right? But I get the feeling, certainly since the 00:50:39.721 --> 00:50:42.078 - meeting of two weeks ago, 00:50:43.586 --> 00:50:53.529 - that there's an agenda beyond the one for this meeting. There is something happening that I don't know 00:50:53.529 --> 00:51:03.375 - because almost every single thing about the process of the last meeting on the 25th of June was alien 00:51:03.375 --> 00:51:11.966 - to me. Established processes that have been in effect, that have the power of precedent, 00:51:13.218 --> 00:51:24.292 - was dismissed, brushed aside in the face of objections of members of this commission. Right? A vote 00:51:24.292 --> 00:51:36.030 - was arrived at improperly so based on, certainly, again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a citizen who serves. 00:51:38.050 --> 00:51:45.843 - and my certain, by my interpretation of the common language of the rules that govern this commission, 00:51:45.843 --> 00:51:53.560 - says that requests of more time ought to have been brought before the commission and have all taken. 00:51:53.560 --> 00:52:01.430 - That was not done. If I might, to clarify the record on the record. Yes. No motion was made to request 00:52:01.430 --> 00:52:07.390 - an extension of time. Okay. The motion that was put on the floor was a motion 00:52:07.618 --> 00:52:14.814 - to approve the request for demolition. That was properly voted on. I know you all talked about it in 00:52:14.814 --> 00:52:22.367 - your comments that you wish that there were additional time, but no motion was made to ask for additional 00:52:22.367 --> 00:52:29.563 - time. I was going to get there at some point, but let me jump there and then I can jump back. It has 00:52:29.563 --> 00:52:34.622 - certainly been established by this commission based on common practice 00:52:35.234 --> 00:52:44.023 - that we're not technocrats and sometimes we will make requests not using the technical language of a 00:52:44.023 --> 00:52:52.899 - motion and not being provided with the addition of Robert's rules that we're supposed to be using for 00:52:52.899 --> 00:52:59.774 - our meetings I had to resort to our research on the internet and forgive me if 00:53:00.386 --> 00:53:06.186 - The edition that I probably found online is not up-to-date. I don't have a copy of the up-to-date one. 00:53:06.186 --> 00:53:12.042 - I don't even know which edition we're using, because our rules are Sir Robert's rules, and I understand 00:53:12.042 --> 00:53:17.841 - that the 12th is in publication. So I honestly don't know if there are any differences between edition 00:53:17.841 --> 00:53:23.134 - one and edition 11. I don't know which one we're using. But certainly, it would indicate that 00:53:25.122 --> 00:53:33.106 - established precedence has the weight of a rule if there's nothing in our guidelines which counter it. 00:53:33.106 --> 00:53:41.168 - It also says that a request where the intent is clear and understandable ought to be framed in the form 00:53:41.168 --> 00:53:49.462 - of a motion by the chair put back in front of the commission as a motion and a second should be requested. 00:53:49.462 --> 00:53:51.710 - Now, again, not an attorney. 00:53:52.450 --> 00:54:00.573 - But my common understanding of what I read indicates that Mr. Butler's clear communication that he required 00:54:00.573 --> 00:54:08.620 - more time. And the rules for demolition delay, which allows for more time, that being supported by another 00:54:08.620 --> 00:54:16.517 - voting member and an advisory member, clearly communicated the intent to the chair and the other members 00:54:16.517 --> 00:54:21.406 - of the commission. And it ought to have been treated as a motion 00:54:21.826 --> 00:54:29.183 - Or certainly in the chair's role as chair, he should have said, do I hear a motion? Are you trying to 00:54:29.183 --> 00:54:36.973 - make a motion? Which is what has happened. Even if it's not supposed to be done, it's certainly established 00:54:36.973 --> 00:54:44.186 - by customs of this body. That is what happened when Sam de Sola was chair, and that's what happened 00:54:44.186 --> 00:54:50.750 - when John Saunders was chair. So if this chair is going to change that, it cannot be done. 00:54:50.978 --> 00:55:02.643 - arbitrarily and capriciously. It cannot. Members of the public also ask for more time. And when we're 00:55:02.643 --> 00:55:14.651 - given 16 weeks, 12 by, I don't know, right, and a discretionary four weeks at the end, we have available 00:55:14.651 --> 00:55:19.454 - to us 16 weeks to make a decision, and we 00:55:21.570 --> 00:55:30.881 - in the face of withering opposition by three members and members of the public, we made a decision because 00:55:30.881 --> 00:55:40.367 - a technical motion wasn't made, even though the clear intention of three of the commissioners to petitioning 00:55:40.367 --> 00:55:48.286 - for more time was clearly understood, was brushed aside, and a vote was made on the floor. 00:55:54.466 --> 00:56:00.562 - Also keep in mind, no I'm not done yet, I'm sorry. I was pausing for effect. Also keep in mind that 00:56:00.562 --> 00:56:06.902 - none of us here are experts. We don't even have, do you have a copy of Robert's Rules? Does anyone here 00:56:06.902 --> 00:56:13.059 - have a copy of Robert's Rules? And it's good that you have one, but I don't. I don't even know, what 00:56:13.059 --> 00:56:19.399 - edition do you have? Okay, how did you get it? So is it the expectation that members of this commission 00:56:19.399 --> 00:56:23.422 - are gonna go out and purchase their own copies of Robert's Rules? 00:56:23.778 --> 00:56:36.177 - And there's nothing in the guidance that I've been given is that we're using the 12th. If they publish 00:56:36.177 --> 00:56:48.336 - a 13th tomorrow, do we stop using the 12th and start using the 13th? The whole process was farcical. 00:56:48.336 --> 00:56:52.670 - It was an absolute and utter farce. 00:56:53.922 --> 00:57:06.006 - for us to be stuck here. Transparency is a hell of a thing. It's not just enough that justice is done, 00:57:06.006 --> 00:57:18.089 - but justice must be seen to be done. And when this commission, a deliberative body constituted to make 00:57:18.089 --> 00:57:22.430 - these decisions based on information 00:57:24.258 --> 00:57:32.400 - And we have members of the public. We have commissioners. Commissioner Butler is a historian. What's 00:57:32.400 --> 00:57:40.785 - your name? It's with Esau. The growth of America's comments, that's a question. Well, he's a historian. 00:57:40.785 --> 00:57:48.927 - And he knows a lot of stuff about the things that we do here. And he has shepherded through at least 00:57:48.927 --> 00:57:52.958 - one, through this body, through the city council, 00:57:53.090 --> 00:58:03.075 - and gotten designation. Two, good. If this goodly gentleman, I looked at the criteria for appointing 00:58:03.075 --> 00:58:12.960 - commissioners, they're very specific about the level of expertise that these people are supposed to 00:58:12.960 --> 00:58:22.846 - have just to qualify. When you look at the level of expertise, the guidelines, the time allotted to 00:58:23.106 --> 00:58:31.758 - deliberate on a matter, the specific circumstances surrounding this demolition that came to this body 00:58:31.758 --> 00:58:40.325 - in less than two weeks for us to consider. We have three commissioners asking for more time, members 00:58:40.325 --> 00:58:48.807 - of the public asking for more time, no less a person than a historian who has shepherded this thing 00:58:48.807 --> 00:58:52.030 - through before, asking for more time. 00:58:53.410 --> 00:59:06.242 - clear request that should be interpreted by the chair as a motion was brushed aside, rushed to a vote 00:59:06.242 --> 00:59:17.438 - to tear down these buildings. Context, there are lots of outside issues concerning this. 00:59:18.658 --> 00:59:28.954 - And whereas those issues should not sway our decision, we have to appreciate that the decision is being 00:59:28.954 --> 00:59:38.854 - made in context of that, where there are significant powers jockeying for this thing to be done and 00:59:38.854 --> 00:59:45.982 - that thing to be done. And when we act in the way we acted on the 25th, 00:59:49.602 --> 00:59:57.485 - When we break our own rules and when we act not in accordance of how this body has acted previously, 00:59:57.485 --> 01:00:05.603 - I asked Noah to do some research. Go back to the start of last year and pull from me all the demolition 01:00:05.603 --> 01:00:14.111 - delays that have come before us where additional time was requested. He brought up four. Two were withdrawn, 01:00:14.111 --> 01:00:19.262 - so I didn't consider that. The votes for each of them was 6 to 0. 01:00:22.626 --> 01:00:30.563 - Am I correct? One was 6-0. I know both passed. But both passed, right? We waited. We got additional 01:00:30.563 --> 01:00:38.818 - information. One went to council. One didn't. But at the end of the day, I'm almost sure that everybody 01:00:38.818 --> 01:00:46.278 - walked away feeling heard, feeling that we considered the matter. We availed ourselves of all 01:00:46.278 --> 01:00:51.358 - the information. And we made a decision. You might not like it. 01:00:53.122 --> 01:01:02.518 - I'm almost sure that everybody here was prepared to live with it. That's democracy. I have been on the 01:01:02.518 --> 01:01:11.915 - losing end of some serious 7 to 1 votes in this place. And I have left here, defeated, but not bitter, 01:01:11.915 --> 01:01:21.950 - because I was here when the process was followed. And it was transparent. Everybody got the time to be heard. 01:01:23.426 --> 01:01:35.743 - And that's just how it is in a democracy. What happened on the 25th of June was not that. It was not 01:01:35.743 --> 01:01:48.304 - that. It was something else. We did not do our job on the 25th of June. We did nothing resembling what 01:01:48.304 --> 01:01:53.182 - our mandate required of us. And for us, 01:01:53.890 --> 01:02:05.259 - to sit here and the opinion is to live with this? That's my comment. Again, to be clear, the legal opinion 01:02:05.259 --> 01:02:15.885 - is that the recent Indiana Supreme Court holding says that statutory bodies only have the authority 01:02:15.885 --> 01:02:22.366 - that's granted to them by statute, and the HBC does not have 01:02:22.626 --> 01:02:28.294 - the authority to rescind, revoke, or revisit. So that's our legal opinion. I have issues with it. I 01:02:28.294 --> 01:02:34.245 - probably disagree with it. But I heard it. And I accept that that is your legal opinion. So just because 01:02:34.245 --> 01:02:39.912 - I pushed back, it doesn't mean that I. Right. And I don't want you to interpret anything other than 01:02:39.912 --> 01:02:45.636 - we are literally reading the holding of the case. All of the other stuff that you spoke to about how 01:02:45.636 --> 01:02:51.134 - people feel and whether people feel like they got hurt, that is not part of our. No, no, no, no. 01:02:52.258 --> 01:03:03.200 - Those are my comments. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. Comments. Thank you. Appreciate your 01:03:03.200 --> 01:03:14.034 - time. All right. Thank you for everyone for being able to express this. I don't have any comments on 01:03:14.034 --> 01:03:19.934 - the findings of the attorneys, so thank you very much. 01:03:20.418 --> 01:03:26.993 - We weren't taking the vote because we basically said we want to hear what they have to say. So we are 01:03:26.993 --> 01:03:33.632 - still actually at the part of the agenda. We were asking if anybody wanted to make an amendment on it. 01:03:33.632 --> 01:03:40.207 - So on the agenda, anybody wanted to make a motion to add anything to the agenda? We've heard what the 01:03:40.207 --> 01:03:46.782 - attorneys have had to say. It's still up to any individual commissioner if they want to do so or not. 01:03:54.530 --> 01:04:04.627 - We're hearing no motion. We will move on to approval of the minutes from the July 29th. Does anybody 01:04:04.627 --> 01:04:15.224 - have any edits to the minutes? Yes. Almost eight times. Hold on. Point of order. I would like the minutes 01:04:15.224 --> 01:04:21.022 - to be amended to show the debate that occurred last time. 01:04:21.442 --> 01:04:28.632 - minutes don't reflect that. I specifically do not want my name associated with the results, so I would 01:04:28.632 --> 01:04:35.892 - definitely like it to show that I was in disapproval and did not vote for that. And so I just feel like 01:04:35.892 --> 01:04:43.083 - the minutes are very brief. They do not do a good job of encapsulating the debate, nor do they capture 01:04:43.083 --> 01:04:49.086 - the divide of the commission on the issues. OK, thank you. Is there a second? Second. 01:04:50.050 --> 01:05:00.199 - Okay, so Commissioner Butler has asked that the minutes be revised to provide more detail on the demolition 01:05:00.199 --> 01:05:09.971 - delays. Okay, and Commissioner Golden has seconded. Is there any comment on that? May I make a comment? 01:05:09.971 --> 01:05:19.838 - I don't even know if I cannot support, but I agree with the position taken. I believe that for something 01:05:22.210 --> 01:05:32.062 - I believe for the level of objections and the type of objections that were made in the last meeting 01:05:32.062 --> 01:05:42.112 - and they need to be recorded in the minutes as accurately as possible. There were also, well, I guess 01:05:42.112 --> 01:05:50.782 - it will be covered if the objections are properly put into the minutes. There was also, 01:05:52.290 --> 01:06:06.992 - question that was asked by Commissioner Butler, obviously directed at the chair, with regards to what 01:06:06.992 --> 01:06:21.406 - the process would have been if having had a motion and the motion seconded, if he had an objection. 01:06:22.274 --> 01:06:31.034 - I think that's what you phrased it at, that it made no sense that once the vote, once the motion has 01:06:31.034 --> 01:06:39.707 - been made and seconded, it must be voted on. If it is that there is some issue that has come up, is 01:06:39.707 --> 01:06:48.380 - there no option? And I do recall you commenting on it. I'm not going to say that I remember exactly 01:06:48.380 --> 01:06:50.462 - what it was, but I left 01:06:52.258 --> 01:07:00.237 - thinking that, as you did, that once a motion has been made, it must be voted on. There's nothing that 01:07:00.237 --> 01:07:07.751 - can be done after a motion on the floor to amend that motion. Do you recall that? I was actually 01:07:07.751 --> 01:07:15.574 - misinstructed that the demolition delay was considered a motion on the table and that we had to vote 01:07:15.574 --> 01:07:21.694 - on that first before we could introduce any other motion, but that's not true. 01:07:22.082 --> 01:07:28.228 - A demolition delay is not a motion. A motion is something that's done by a commissioner. And so we can 01:07:28.228 --> 01:07:34.314 - make a motion on the demolition delay. But the demolition delay in and of itself isn't a motion until 01:07:34.314 --> 01:07:40.400 - we make it a motion. We move. That's the motion. It's an action. So it's just laying on the table. So 01:07:40.400 --> 01:07:46.605 - this argument that we have to vote on the demolition delay first before we can vote on any other motion 01:07:46.605 --> 01:07:50.782 - I believe is incorrect. I believe any motion that would be introduced 01:07:50.914 --> 01:07:58.256 - I think we're getting into another topic. We're here to... No, well, I wanted specifically for that 01:07:58.256 --> 01:08:05.672 - exchange to be recorded in the minutes because that was incorrect. There are... Bernard, in response 01:08:05.672 --> 01:08:13.014 - to your request, I'm happy... Attorney Holmes? Yes. Commissioner Cross, please. Commissioner Cross. 01:08:13.014 --> 01:08:16.318 - I'm happy to work with Tonda on the minutes. 01:08:16.450 --> 01:08:22.290 - And she has done exactly what she's been asked. All of the housing commissions and the staff liaisons 01:08:22.290 --> 01:08:28.186 - have been asked to move to the memo format, which is what's required by state law so that they can get 01:08:28.186 --> 01:08:34.026 - turned around. And I know you have this correspondence with Jennifer Crossley. The goal is to make it 01:08:34.026 --> 01:08:39.751 - easy enough for the staff to be able to get it out within 48 hours so that they can be available on 01:08:39.751 --> 01:08:43.358 - the website for review. There's also a video, it's live taped. 01:08:43.938 --> 01:08:50.151 - being live broadcast and it's also available on cats so that anybody can go back and actually watch 01:08:50.151 --> 01:08:56.798 - the discussion if they read the minutes or the memo and are interested in seeing the vote. So I understand 01:08:56.798 --> 01:09:03.011 - your concern about this one and I'm happy to go back and look at them but I will tell you that from 01:09:03.011 --> 01:09:09.472 - a state law standpoint in terms of what's required to be in the minutes or in a memo, they are correct. 01:09:09.472 --> 01:09:10.590 - So something like 01:09:12.194 --> 01:09:19.666 - misinformation given to members by other members or the chair is not at the sufficient level where it 01:09:19.666 --> 01:09:27.431 - warrants very specific entries into the minutes. That's a question. I know sometimes people ask questions 01:09:27.431 --> 01:09:33.950 - that sound like statements, but I don't do it. It's literally a request for information. 01:09:38.658 --> 01:09:45.943 - So misleading instructions given to members of the commission by the chair or other commissioners, I 01:09:45.943 --> 01:09:53.589 - believe should be specifically recorded in the minutes, especially if a commissioner use that information 01:09:53.589 --> 01:09:58.494 - to not make a motion that he could had he been properly instructed. 01:10:07.234 --> 01:10:14.985 - So we've said a lot. I want to make sure we understand what we're moving here to do. So please, Commissioner 01:10:14.985 --> 01:10:22.594 - Butler, work with me here to make sure we get this motion right. Is staff ready to make sure we're getting 01:10:22.594 --> 01:10:29.847 - this down correctly? You were moving that we amend the amendments to include the discussion about the 01:10:29.847 --> 01:10:35.678 - demolition delays specifically and some of the procedure that led up to the vote. 01:10:35.778 --> 01:10:44.932 - Is that an accurate way to say that? Okay, thank you very much. And Commissioner Golden. That's my second. 01:10:44.932 --> 01:10:53.743 - Okay. Any other comments? All right. Seeing none. I didn't know if I can ask a question. I can ask you 01:10:53.743 --> 01:11:02.298 - later. Okay. Okay. Yeah, sorry. No, that's okay. I know. All right. So there's no public comment on 01:11:02.298 --> 01:11:04.094 - this one. I'm sorry. 01:11:04.674 --> 01:11:12.411 - All right, so I think we're ready for the vote if staff could please call the roll. Yes, and this is 01:11:12.411 --> 01:11:20.224 - on motion to amend the minutes. It's been moved and seconded. We'll do a roll call vote on the motion 01:11:20.224 --> 01:11:28.115 - to amend. Chair Baker? No. I'm sorry, Vice Chair Baker, my part, my apologies. No, still no. Treasurer 01:11:28.115 --> 01:11:33.630 - Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? I'm staying. Commissioner Duesner? 01:11:38.210 --> 01:11:48.371 - Commissioner Duffy. Did you say that it's required to write this memo for you? The state law only requires 01:11:48.371 --> 01:11:57.866 - a memo that just has who was there, the time and the date of the meeting, and the actions that were 01:11:57.866 --> 01:12:07.742 - taken. It does not require that transcript kind of minutes. But it can be included? Yep. Although, yes. 01:12:08.066 --> 01:12:16.408 - Commissioner Golden. Yes. Commissioner Hackard. I'm sorry, Chair Hackard. Sorry, this is just, I'm still 01:12:16.408 --> 01:12:24.591 - trying to figure out what to do with this. Chair Hackard. Yes. Commissioner Schlegel. Yes. OK, so that 01:12:24.591 --> 01:12:29.278 - motion to amend passes 5, 1, and 2 abstentions. All right. 01:12:29.410 --> 01:12:38.438 - Thank you very much. The motion passes. Next up, we are up for staff review of COAs. Mr. Sandler, please 01:12:38.438 --> 01:12:47.208 - take it away. Yes, Commissioner Baker. Is it appropriate for me to make a motion at this point? We've 01:12:47.208 --> 01:12:55.979 - had other motions. I would lean on the attorneys here. You can ask to make a motion if you would like 01:12:55.979 --> 01:12:58.558 - to put a motion on the table. 01:12:59.266 --> 01:13:07.955 - The motion is to limit commissioner comments for this meeting only to three minutes per comment. For 01:13:07.955 --> 01:13:16.815 - the duration of the meeting, the purpose is to allow adequate time for comment while maintaining focus 01:13:16.815 --> 01:13:25.504 - and conducting business in a timely fashion. All right. Commissioner Baker has requested that we put 01:13:25.504 --> 01:13:26.622 - three minute 01:13:27.618 --> 01:13:34.622 - on comments made by commissioners for this meeting. Is there a second? All right, Commissioner Castaneda 01:13:34.622 --> 01:13:41.493 - has seconded. Are there any questions or comments, Commissioner Schlegel? I just wanted to ask, that's 01:13:41.493 --> 01:13:48.163 - the same amount of time the public has. Correct, yes. Okay, I just want to make sure I was correct. 01:13:48.163 --> 01:13:54.967 - That's all I had to say. Yep, Commissioner Croft. Yeah, you're supposed to go first. I apologize. The 01:13:54.967 --> 01:13:57.502 - reason I'm making this motion is that 01:13:57.666 --> 01:14:05.011 - I believe we have adequate preparation before we come to the meetings. We have the documents sent out 01:14:05.011 --> 01:14:12.572 - by staff. We have the staff recommendations. We have read those documents before we come to the meeting. 01:14:12.572 --> 01:14:19.774 - Generally, we have a lot of information in front of us. Some of us actually go out to the sites and 01:14:19.774 --> 01:14:22.078 - take a look and try to fill in. 01:14:22.242 --> 01:14:29.951 - And we all develop some sort of an idea, I think, before we come to the meeting of where we're going, 01:14:29.951 --> 01:14:37.660 - which direction we're going, and then we listen to comments in the meeting and make our decision. And 01:14:37.660 --> 01:14:45.520 - this is just to give us some focus, not keep us here beyond, give us reasonable amount of time to think 01:14:45.520 --> 01:14:50.206 - and to decide how we want to vote while we're in the meeting. 01:14:50.754 --> 01:14:57.286 - so that things don't become excessive. And to keep the meeting so that we get all of our business done 01:14:57.286 --> 01:15:03.692 - in a very timely fashion, as I said. Those are my comments on the motion. Commissioner Castaneda, do 01:15:03.692 --> 01:15:10.034 - you have any follow-up? No. All right, we'll go around the room then. Commissioner Schlegel, do you 01:15:10.034 --> 01:15:16.502 - have any questions or comments? Commissioner Cross. Yes, I wholeheartedly disagree. In particular for 01:15:16.502 --> 01:15:19.166 - this meeting, that is not a standard that 01:15:20.610 --> 01:15:29.462 - I'm not even going to comment as to whether it happens anywhere else. We have the people's business 01:15:29.462 --> 01:15:38.580 - to discuss. We're commissioners. And whereas I understand that we can't drone on and on and on forever 01:15:38.580 --> 01:15:47.166 - and ever and ever, I believe this particular meeting, and I will say that this particular motion 01:15:49.410 --> 01:15:56.644 - deliberate attempt to prevent members of this commission from airing issues that they believe they need 01:15:56.644 --> 01:16:04.227 - to be that need to be properly ventilated which I think that's a violation point of order you were impinging 01:16:04.227 --> 01:16:11.253 - on his motives which is not allowed are we gonna take a vote on that I don't know what the procedure 01:16:11.253 --> 01:16:17.374 - is if you can you can request an appeal to the body yes I can't I'm not a voting member 01:16:17.794 --> 01:16:25.219 - But we haven't voted yet. There's a motion on the floor. And it's been properly seconded. And so now 01:16:25.219 --> 01:16:32.718 - we're doing our round of comments and questions. I will put the matter to rest. I would like to think 01:16:32.718 --> 01:16:40.511 - that there were other reasons to want to limit the time in this meeting in particular. It wasn't proposed 01:16:40.511 --> 01:16:47.422 - as a general rule. It was proposed for this meeting. And the way this meeting has gone so far 01:16:48.930 --> 01:16:57.306 - I can't think of a reason other than to limit the time allowed to present issues that are of concern 01:16:57.306 --> 01:17:05.681 - to members of the commission, which I believe need to be properly ventilated in front of the public. 01:17:05.681 --> 01:17:14.389 - This body doesn't exist for its own cause. It is a public body where the press and members of the public 01:17:14.389 --> 01:17:17.374 - are here, and if commissioners have 01:17:20.546 --> 01:17:28.817 - issues that they want to air, they ought to be given reasonable time. Now, I've been here for a while, 01:17:28.817 --> 01:17:36.928 - and I've seen meetings go up until 9 p.m. It is just 6, 18, and we have three COAs, which are, what, 01:17:36.928 --> 01:17:45.119 - staff approvals? So basically, you're just gonna read it and give the decision. So we'll be over with 01:17:45.119 --> 01:17:49.054 - those in like another 40 minutes, I would think. 01:17:50.178 --> 01:17:59.045 - I'd be surprised if we're here at seven o'clock. So I really don't see why this motion is being presented 01:17:59.045 --> 01:18:07.410 - other than to stifle debate. But that's just my comment. Please excuse me. I'm not needed for this. 01:18:07.410 --> 01:18:16.110 - Thank you. Commissioner Duesner, comments. Just my comment is I'm not a fan of making rule changes that 01:18:16.110 --> 01:18:17.950 - apply to one meeting. 01:18:19.042 --> 01:18:26.132 - All right, thank you. Commissioner Duffy. Commissioner Butler. I'm sorry that Commissioner Cross left, 01:18:26.132 --> 01:18:33.085 - because I feel like since he's really the only person who's using more than three minutes, that this 01:18:33.085 --> 01:18:39.969 - is maybe sort of affecting him more than other people. But I would ask him to perhaps formulate his 01:18:39.969 --> 01:18:46.302 - ideas more quickly. That's my thought. All right, thank you very much. Commissioner Golden. 01:18:48.994 --> 01:18:59.059 - I have respect for other people's time and concise responses are important. And I think that we have 01:18:59.059 --> 01:19:08.725 - experienced not that. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Castaneda. No more comments. Thank you. 01:19:08.725 --> 01:19:17.694 - All right. It is common for bodies such as this to establish time limits on their debate. 01:19:18.082 --> 01:19:25.595 - City council does it. I've seen other councils do it as well. It helps with focusing and it helps make 01:19:25.595 --> 01:19:32.963 - sure everybody gets equal time and no one person can filibuster and make people sit there on and on. 01:19:32.963 --> 01:19:40.476 - So I fully support it. All right. Anybody have any secondary comments? No, I think we're ready for the 01:19:40.476 --> 01:19:48.062 - vote. Would staff please call the roll? This is on the motion to limit speaking time for three minutes. 01:19:48.290 --> 01:19:57.818 - We'll go ahead and take that vote. Chair Baker? Vice Chair Baker? I'm sorry. Treasurer Butler? 01:19:57.818 --> 01:20:08.350 - No. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? No. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? 01:20:08.350 --> 01:20:16.574 - Yes. Chair Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? No. That motion passes. Five yes. 01:20:17.314 --> 01:20:24.819 - Three, no, zero abstentions. All right, thank you very much. Mr. Samuels. COA 2638. The address is 320 01:20:24.819 --> 01:20:32.178 - South Madison Street in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. Petitioner is Dave Grubert. 320 01:20:32.178 --> 01:20:40.048 - South Madison is a 1920 American Forest warehouse with a limestone porch and a terraced limestone retaining 01:20:40.048 --> 01:20:44.638 - wall that appears to have been modified between 2001 and 2007. 01:20:45.186 --> 01:20:51.091 - judging by a comparison of county assessments and Google Street View. The request is I received it. 01:20:51.091 --> 01:20:57.292 - I currently have a retaining wall in front of my house, which frames both sides of the yard and supports 01:20:57.292 --> 01:21:03.197 - the hill that leads to my house. The current wall, which was probably installed 15 to 20 years ago, 01:21:03.197 --> 01:21:09.279 - is now decaying due to improper drainage at the time of installation by a previous owner. I want slash 01:21:09.279 --> 01:21:12.350 - need to replace it after sections of the wall fail. 01:21:12.994 --> 01:21:19.578 - We'll also replace the steps leading up to the house at the same time, as they are also crumbling in 01:21:19.578 --> 01:21:26.162 - several places. I will use a local stonemason, Sandstone Creek LLC, to do the work. And they will be 01:21:26.162 --> 01:21:32.876 - removing the existing walls and install new walls made from Belgard, Tandler, Ashler-style brick. This 01:21:32.876 --> 01:21:39.851 - is a kind of composite imitation stone, which will nicely complement my home. The materials on the current 01:21:39.851 --> 01:21:42.654 - walls have been deemed largely unsuitable. 01:21:42.850 --> 01:21:49.844 - as many current bricks are failing. I've uploaded a sketch of the plan. Importantly, the new walls will 01:21:49.844 --> 01:21:57.040 - replace the current walls. There are no plans to change the location or appearance of this reconstruction. 01:21:57.040 --> 01:22:03.832 - It will mirror what I currently have. It only will be more sturdy and provide proper drainage so the 01:22:03.832 --> 01:22:10.624 - walls remain structurally sound in the long term. Now, something else that I have clarified with the 01:22:10.624 --> 01:22:11.902 - petitioner is that 01:22:13.186 --> 01:22:20.184 - There are a couple of piers up near the porch that will stay in place since there's nothing structurally 01:22:20.184 --> 01:22:27.249 - wrong with them. Staff approved COA 2638. While the existing retaining wall is not historic, the original 01:22:27.249 --> 01:22:33.981 - wall likely was limestone like the neighboring retaining walls. Nevertheless, the proposed imitation 01:22:33.981 --> 01:22:41.246 - stone wall is visually similar and district guidelines emphasize a light review of these landscape features. 01:22:49.026 --> 01:22:58.365 - That I recommend? That I approve? Did I not? Staff approve COA 2638. Next item, COA 2639. This is for 01:22:58.365 --> 01:23:07.978 - 211 East Gilbert Drive in the Matlock Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Adam Will. Built in 1953, 01:23:07.978 --> 01:23:17.134 - 211 East Gilbert is a minimal limestone ranch in the Matlock Heights Historic District located on a 01:23:17.134 --> 01:23:18.782 - shady corner lot. 01:23:19.554 --> 01:23:27.003 - This request involves the installation of a hoop house style greenhouse on the western side of the property 01:23:27.003 --> 01:23:34.313 - at 211 East Gilbert Drive, Bloomington, Indiana, a property within the Matlock Heights Historic District. 01:23:34.313 --> 01:23:41.555 - The greenhouse structure will be purchased as a kit from bootstrap farmers with an approximate footprint 01:23:41.555 --> 01:23:46.590 - size of 12 by 20 feet. While the district guidelines state of preference 01:23:46.818 --> 01:23:52.541 - for any auxiliary building to be at the rear of the primary building. A row of pines along the western 01:23:52.541 --> 01:23:58.209 - border of the property would block out the sunlight for a large portion of the day, making a location 01:23:58.209 --> 01:24:03.876 - farther north of the proposed site suboptimal. Therefore, it is desirable to place the green house to 01:24:03.876 --> 01:24:09.544 - the side of the primary building, but still behind the front edge of the house, meeting the intent of 01:24:09.544 --> 01:24:14.878 - the district guidelines that this structure be a subordinate position to the primary structure. 01:24:15.874 --> 01:24:24.577 - Pending approval, the construction date of the greenhouse will take place in September or October 2026. 01:24:24.577 --> 01:24:33.614 - Staff approves COA 2639. The hoop house greenhouse, lacking a foundation, could be described as a temporary 01:24:33.614 --> 01:24:41.982 - removable structure, which is handled by staff review according to commission rules and procedures. 01:24:42.882 --> 01:24:49.965 - This category doesn't quite occupy the same place as an accessory structure. In considering the limited 01:24:49.965 --> 01:24:56.911 - design options for this type of structure, the goal for this evaluation should be that it not detract 01:24:56.911 --> 01:25:03.858 - from the feel or setting of the property or district. The proposed placement of the hoop house places 01:25:03.858 --> 01:25:09.374 - it behind the front facade of the primary structure, considering the low profile 01:25:09.986 --> 01:25:18.133 - open feel, and setback of this temporary structure behind the front facade and over 50 feet from the 01:25:18.133 --> 01:25:26.200 - street. Staff feels that this new greenhouse is compatible with the district. COA 2640, this is our 01:25:26.200 --> 01:25:34.347 - last COA of the evening. 2330 North Fritz Drive, also in the Matlock Heights Historic District. 20th 01:25:34.347 --> 01:25:36.606 - petitioner is Thomas Yiser. 01:25:37.442 --> 01:25:44.868 - 2330 North Fritz Drive is a mass limestone ranch with an attached garage located on a three quarter 01:25:44.868 --> 01:25:52.590 - acre plot. The property owner is proposing to install a five foot chain link fence in the back and much 01:25:52.590 --> 01:26:00.610 - of the side yard to the north behind the front facade. Um, as I will show you, uh, the request has written, 01:26:00.610 --> 01:26:05.214 - I want to build a chain link fence in Matlock Heights lot 38. 01:26:05.954 --> 01:26:13.235 - The primary purpose is to provide a safe place for pets. The fence would include part of the house's 01:26:13.235 --> 01:26:20.589 - backyard, a space in the north and east corner of the property. The proposed fence would be five feet 01:26:20.589 --> 01:26:27.942 - high with steel posts and gates. Staff approved COA 2640. While this chain link fence faces a street, 01:26:27.942 --> 01:26:34.430 - it is set back from the front facade of the house and would retain an open feel, which is 01:26:35.298 --> 01:26:43.595 - what the guidelines of the district propose for chain link fences. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. 01:26:43.595 --> 01:26:51.650 - Sandweiss, is there any old business? I think there is. Mr. Sandweiss, is there any new business? I 01:26:51.650 --> 01:27:00.107 - don't have any new business right now. OK. We'll go. I have a question. Sure. Your tour of Vinegar Hill, 01:27:00.107 --> 01:27:02.846 - is rescheduled for tomorrow? Yes. 01:27:03.106 --> 01:27:10.104 - I guess that is new business. It's rescheduled for tomorrow, provided weather permitting. Weather permitting. 01:27:10.104 --> 01:27:16.974 - So I haven't canceled because it looks like it's not going to be storming at the time, but. Are we supposed 01:27:16.974 --> 01:27:23.018 - to sign up? I'm not sure. Oh, there's because of my schedule. There is not a sign up page. OK, 01:27:23.018 --> 01:27:30.270 - thank you. I guess anybody could go on one. Sounds good. All right. Commissioner comments. Commissioner Schlegel. 01:27:30.754 --> 01:27:37.461 - On Saturday, July 11th, the History Center is having History on the Block, where we're going to showcase, 01:27:37.461 --> 01:27:44.042 - obviously, with an old Carnegie building. We have a bunch of new exhibits, free bands, a select showing 01:27:44.042 --> 01:27:50.939 - of Ken Burns' America 250, with commentators from Indiana Humanities that selected us to come to Bloomington 01:27:50.939 --> 01:27:57.330 - just for this event. So we are very excited to have. And if it storms or not, the good news is we're 01:27:57.330 --> 01:27:59.038 - just going to move inside. 01:27:59.138 --> 01:28:05.616 - Either way, just come to our place and we'll either be outside if it's nice or inside if it's rainy. 01:28:05.616 --> 01:28:12.030 - So I just wanted to let folks know if you, I figure most people here like history, so end the walk. 01:28:12.030 --> 01:28:18.315 - But everyone is welcome to come on out and just visit us for the history on the block. All right. 01:28:18.315 --> 01:28:24.729 - Thank you, Commissioner Schlegel. Commissioner Baker, do you have any comments? Except to say thank 01:28:24.729 --> 01:28:26.974 - you for everyone around the table. 01:28:27.106 --> 01:28:36.387 - for your time, your experience, your expertise with that, and they go through your opinions as well 01:28:36.387 --> 01:28:46.317 - and your help and straightening us out when we go a little crooked or deviate or don't know. We appreciate 01:28:46.317 --> 01:28:56.062 - that. I think people do do their due diligence when they come and I think we all appreciate one another. 01:28:56.898 --> 01:29:07.217 - Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Cross, do you have any comments? Oh, three minutes? Three 01:29:07.217 --> 01:29:17.436 - minutes. Oh, OK. A comment was made with regards to having all the information, deciding. Sorry, that 01:29:17.436 --> 01:29:25.150 - was a different one. Keep going. Basically, how it is they're going to vote. 01:29:26.882 --> 01:29:38.895 - coming here. Forgive me if I didn't paraphrase correctly. I personally think that's the wrong way of 01:29:38.895 --> 01:29:50.788 - going about it. This is the deliberative body. This is where you come. You hear what people have to 01:29:50.788 --> 01:29:55.070 - say. You are patient. You are wise. 01:29:57.858 --> 01:30:08.594 - you exercise good judgment. That's like saying a judge reads the packet and decides on the outcome of 01:30:08.594 --> 01:30:19.224 - a case before he goes into court. Nobody would accept that because court is where both sides come to 01:30:19.224 --> 01:30:25.118 - argue. That's where the facts of the case is presented. 01:30:26.882 --> 01:30:39.135 - But what I heard was coming here with your mind made up, going through the motions, and then making 01:30:39.135 --> 01:30:51.633 - a vote. That's not what my 30 years in public service has led me to believe is our true purpose. That 01:30:51.633 --> 01:30:54.206 - being said, no, I... 01:30:56.450 --> 01:31:04.649 - Wrote a memo. I mean, I was planning on reading all 18 pages of it in the record, but as it is that 01:31:04.649 --> 01:31:13.094 - I only have three minutes, I would ask that my comments, four public comments, are the contents of the 01:31:13.094 --> 01:31:20.883 - memo and may be included in the minutes. How much more time do I have? About 53 seconds. Okay, 01:31:20.883 --> 01:31:25.310 - there you go. You could have saved yourself a motion. 01:31:27.554 --> 01:31:37.614 - That's it. Thank you. That was not necessary. Oh, I apologize. I withdraw. Tom's saying another commissioner 01:31:37.614 --> 01:31:47.027 - is out of order, sir. That is inappropriate. Please. I accept my scolding. Commissioner Duffy. I just 01:31:47.027 --> 01:31:55.518 - will second Commissioner Baker in thanking everyone, the legal team, members of the public, 01:31:56.194 --> 01:32:03.015 - whether they're here or already left, as well as my fellow commissioners, each and everyone. Thank you. 01:32:03.015 --> 01:32:09.639 - Thank you. Commissioner Butler. First of all, I'd like to apologize to the anti-petitioners. I guess 01:32:09.639 --> 01:32:16.525 - they're called. They didn't get a fair shake the first meeting. And despite my best efforts, they didn't 01:32:16.525 --> 01:32:23.870 - get another fair shake tonight. We made a mistake last time. I wish there was a way that we could rectify that. 01:32:24.674 --> 01:32:30.691 - Apparently there's not. I would encourage them to try to rectify that in any way that they can. And 01:32:30.691 --> 01:32:37.070 - I'm sure that there is somebody that will oversee us. I also think there are some mistakes made by fellow 01:32:37.070 --> 01:32:43.568 - commissioners in judging the buildings too harshly. And so I would like to read the criteria for historical 01:32:43.568 --> 01:32:49.646 - designation so that we can think about that. So building must be 50 years old, which it was. It says 01:32:49.646 --> 01:32:53.918 - nothing about notable, outstanding, contributing, or non-contributing. 01:32:54.466 --> 01:33:01.026 - A, it must embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or engineering type, 01:33:01.026 --> 01:33:07.860 - which it did. B and C are very specific, so I won't bother you with those, and did not apply. D, it 01:33:07.860 --> 01:33:15.241 - contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship, which represent a significant innovation. 01:33:15.241 --> 01:33:17.086 - The corner windows and the 01:33:17.506 --> 01:33:23.236 - Angled front buttresses could be argued that, but maybe not. But they definitely qualify for E, contains 01:33:23.236 --> 01:33:29.239 - any architectural style, detail, or other element in danger of being lost or visual feature of a neighborhood 01:33:29.239 --> 01:33:34.751 - or the city. And F, owing to its unique location or physical characteristics, represents established 01:33:34.751 --> 01:33:40.481 - and or familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or of the city. You can literally vote to say something 01:33:40.481 --> 01:33:46.430 - because it has established characteristics. That's how broad our mandate is. Don't surrender these buildings 01:33:47.170 --> 01:33:55.117 - just because you've got a bad feeling about it. That's it in my comments. All right. Thank you, Commissioner 01:33:55.117 --> 01:34:02.407 - Goldwin. I'd like to say that I come prepared because I want to have the discussion, an intelligent 01:34:02.407 --> 01:34:09.479 - discussion, and being prepared is not coming here with a decision in mind. That's it. All right. 01:34:09.479 --> 01:34:16.478 - Thank you. That's pretty good. Commissioner Casaneda. No comments. All right. Somebody time me. 01:34:18.946 --> 01:34:24.038 - Thank you. I want to address the last several weeks directly. This commission has a clear established 01:34:24.038 --> 01:34:29.080 - procedure for handling motions on COAs and demolition delays. We read it at every meeting. It aligns 01:34:29.080 --> 01:34:34.222 - with Robert's rules of order. After staff petitioner and public comments, commissioners ask questions. 01:34:34.222 --> 01:34:39.464 - When questions conclude, the chair requests a motion, a step we all know is coming. At our last meeting, 01:34:39.464 --> 01:34:44.955 - commissioner moved to release the demolition delay. Motion was seconded and restated by the chair, consistent 01:34:44.955 --> 01:34:47.102 - with our practice and with Robert's rules. 01:34:47.298 --> 01:34:52.946 - Every commissioner had the opportunity to speak before the vote was taken. At no point was the motion 01:34:52.946 --> 01:34:58.595 - contested. No point of order was raised. No parliamentary inquiry was made. No amendment was offered. 01:34:58.595 --> 01:35:04.132 - Commissioners are responsible for asserting their own rights during the process. No objections were 01:35:04.132 --> 01:35:10.224 - made. C's analysis, what we've heard, confirms that the procedure was followed was normal order. Disagreement 01:35:10.224 --> 01:35:13.214 - with the outcome of the vote is not procedural error. 01:35:13.346 --> 01:35:19.633 - It is simply disagreement with the result of a democratic process in which each commissioner voted according 01:35:19.633 --> 01:35:25.690 - to their own judgment. I'm asking all commissioners to conduct ourselves professionally, to show respect 01:35:25.690 --> 01:35:31.458 - for one another, to recognize that reasonable people can reach different conclusions from the exact 01:35:31.458 --> 01:35:37.226 - same information. I've been on losing side of votes before, and when that happens, I acknowledge it 01:35:37.226 --> 01:35:42.302 - and I move forward. We can disagree, but we must do so constructively and respectively. 01:35:42.594 --> 01:35:49.759 - without lectures. I hope this commission can return to operating with collegiality and respect. It's 01:35:49.759 --> 01:35:57.278 - a focus on the work before us rather than on drama that distracts us from our responsibilities and serves 01:35:57.278 --> 01:36:04.584 - no one. Thank you. Public comment. Yes, please. I have a question and a request. The question is about 01:36:04.584 --> 01:36:11.678 - the man who stood here earlier and spoke. You did not ask him his name and you didn't swear him in. 01:36:11.906 --> 01:36:17.916 - but if he were to speak in front of the BCA, that's the first thing they would do, state your full name, 01:36:17.916 --> 01:36:23.641 - and they would swear him in. I'm curious why this body does not swear in speakers. You haven't even 01:36:23.641 --> 01:36:29.422 - asked me my name yet. Is it because this is a commission and that's a board? Is it because you're in 01:36:29.422 --> 01:36:35.432 - a small room and they're in a big room? Is it because you trust people and they don't? What is the legal 01:36:35.432 --> 01:36:36.062 - reason why 01:36:36.482 --> 01:36:43.995 - Do you bring up a good point? And we should be asking people to put their name on the record when they 01:36:43.995 --> 01:36:51.289 - stand up to make comments from the public. That's a good point. They do not have to. We can request 01:36:51.289 --> 01:36:58.656 - it. And when the BZA is asking to swear people in, they are accepting testimony in a public hearing. 01:36:58.656 --> 01:37:05.950 - What is happening here isn't a public hearing. It is we had agenda items that were being discussed. 01:37:06.274 --> 01:37:15.388 - and public comment, and this is general public comment period. So you're not commenting on a hearing 01:37:15.388 --> 01:37:24.142 - that is before the body. So that's a difference whether it's during a hearing, a public hearing, 01:37:24.142 --> 01:37:33.527 - or not. And some entities do swear in, other entities don't. That is the prerogative of that particular 01:37:33.527 --> 01:37:35.422 - order of commission. 01:37:35.746 --> 01:37:45.903 - Some do it like BZA for the fact that so many of, as we saw from the court case mentioned today, so 01:37:45.903 --> 01:37:56.364 - many BZA items get judicially reviewed that it creates a cleaner record for that purpose. So they take 01:37:56.364 --> 01:38:04.286 - extra steps to do that. It's not technically required to square in a visitor. 01:38:04.706 --> 01:38:12.257 - It's not required to get the names. It's been the policy of the city that we'd like to identify who 01:38:12.257 --> 01:38:20.034 - it is that is speaking. But they also have the right to speak without, when it comes to public comment 01:38:20.034 --> 01:38:27.735 - and they're asked to speak, to speak without mentioning their name if they refuse to do so. So if you 01:38:27.735 --> 01:38:32.190 - would like to mention your name, we would appreciate that. 01:38:32.450 --> 01:38:41.709 - I do have a request for information. I would like to request an investigation be made into an instance 01:38:41.709 --> 01:38:51.148 - of a potential demolition by neglect. Is this the appropriate body for me to make this request or should 01:38:51.148 --> 01:38:52.766 - I email somebody? 01:38:53.186 --> 01:38:58.610 - I think you might want to follow up with Noah. Yeah. Why don't you talk to us after the meeting? I think 01:38:58.610 --> 01:39:03.826 - a request like that might properly be entered into the new report system so that there's a record of 01:39:03.826 --> 01:39:09.043 - that, and then it gets assigned to the appropriate people to investigate that request. So I actually 01:39:09.043 --> 01:39:14.312 - think that is the best way to do it. But if you want to grab us and just kind of give us the nutshell 01:39:14.312 --> 01:39:17.566 - of what you're concerned about, I'd be happy to listen to you. 01:39:22.498 --> 01:39:29.617 - in the room right online is anybody wish to speak online I've also mentioned in the chat that we're 01:39:29.617 --> 01:39:36.878 - a public comment if anyone wanted to raise their hand I don't see any hands raised and no other chats 01:39:36.878 --> 01:39:43.996 - nothing in the chat to indicate that okay well seeing that there's no one else in there that brings 01:39:43.996 --> 01:39:48.766 - us to the end of our agenda so this meeting is adjourned thank you