- All right, it's five o'clock. I'm going to call this meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation
- Commission for Thursday, July 9th, 2026 to order. Would staff please call the roll? Commissioner Cross?
- Yes. Vice Chair Baker? Here. Treasurer Butler? Here. Commissioner Castaneda? Here. Commissioner Duesner?
- Here. Commissioner Duffy? Here. Commissioner Golden? Here.
- Chair Hacker? Here. Commissioner Schlegel? Here. We have quorum. All right. Would anybody like to move
- to amend the agenda? So I have a question. By sending my email, I thought that the motion that I was
- hoping to talk about would be added to the agenda because I gave more than 48 hours notice.
- And I notified all of the commissioners. But for some reason, it was not. And I sent it on Monday morning.
- So if there was any questions, there was more than enough time to ask me what my intention was. So puts
- me on the horns of a dilemma, because I don't have faith that the commissioners will necessarily vote
- their conscience.
- And so essentially this makes me have to have another hurdle. I would have to have two votes, one vote
- to get it on the agenda. So would it be, I think it would probably be wiser for me to do this next meeting
- and have it on the agenda. I ask for council to weigh in on that just to make sure we understand, everybody
- understands what the proper process is.
- for this and I think going forward, if anybody wants to add something there, we know exactly deadlines
- and all that kind of stuff. So we have the fair procedure. Yes. So I apologize. We all read your memo
- independently and we all came away with the same understanding, which is that you were notifying the
- body that you intended to make a motion. Why would I? Because according to Robert's rules, if you give
- advance notice to your body, you only need a majority vote to get it.
- on the agenda, but if you don't give advance notice, then you need the two thirds vote to get it on
- the agenda. So honestly, everybody looked at it and thought that's why you were providing notice. So
- I apologize that we did not understand that your goal was to put a motion on the agenda. And I think
- we'll get into that motion a little bit later, but I just wanted to let you know that it was not
- It was not an intentional oversight. It was truly a misunderstanding because you said that I'm announcing
- that I'm going to make a motion, and we took that as the required notice under Robert's rules to the
- body to get that lower vote. Do you have a follow up? Well, so going forward, could I still get this
- same thing heard next week if I say the magic words in the correct format? Well, not this point.
- And I've asked Dana Kerr, my colleague, to talk to you a little bit about a recent Indiana Supreme Court
- case holding that came down in November of last year that directly affects a rescission or revocation
- from an administrative body, to talk to the group about why actually a motion to rescind is not a proper
- motion in this instance. But, yes, if you wanted to say, like, oh, my gosh, on the next agenda,
- I would really like to talk about Princess Theater, right? And you send Noah and Jeremy an email that
- says, could you please add an agenda item about Princess Theater? I'd like to make a motion on that
- item. I mean, saying that you want an item added to the agenda, okay? Because here it just sounded like
- procedural, I'm gonna raise my hand and try and do something.
- as opposed to I'd like to have an item added to the agenda. And I'm sorry, I'm sure that feels like
- splitting hairs, but honestly, it was in good faith. We really just read it the way it was stated, which
- is that you plan to make a motion. Do you have any follow-up? I guess that's a parliamentary inquiry.
- Commissioner Cross, do you have a parliamentary inquiry? Could we, for the sake of the minutes, for
- the sake of the record, read the email John Butler sent into the record, please?
- 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
- point. In terms of the 48 hours, the open door law does require that the, that notice be provided 48
- hours in advance of the meeting. Open door law does not require that an agenda be posted 48 hours. And
- it allows for an amendment to the agenda all the way up until you're in the meeting.
- So you could make a proper motion for it to add something to the agenda right now. And we would be able
- to add it according to the state's open door laws. So because we knew that open door law would allow
- you to amend it here at the table, that kind of factored into the like, oh, you must be planning to
- bring an amendment to add something to the agenda so that then you can
- get the item, the rescission item on the agenda so you can then make a motion to rescind. Does that
- make sense? One other question. So I think you indicated that that's not the proper motion to make,
- so should I just not bother making it? Well, what I'd like is I would like for Dana to walk us through
- the memo that literally just got finished today that you guys got at the same time that everybody else got it.
- about this Supreme Court case so that you can kind of understand why that applies to the HPC, and I'm
- hoping that will address your questions. Attorney Holmes, are you done speaking? Yes, thank you. Okay,
- Commissioner Cross, do you have a part of inquiry? I don't know what we're talking about, so I think
- it would be prudent that it be read into the records so everybody at the table knows the subject of
- Commissioner Butler's memo so we can
- decide for ourselves whether or not we hold to one opinion as opposed to another. And when the memo
- is read into the record, I'd be like the opportunity to ask questions and make a statement with regards
- to. Does Commissioner Butler wish to make a motion to add
- Well, I thought I had the floor. Didn't make a motion. I'm asking him. No, well, the issue on the table
- is reading the memo into the minutes. You didn't make a motion. I don't have to make a motion. Why do
- I have to make a motion? Bernard, actually, everybody got the memo. The memo was distributed to the body.
- as is required by Robert's rules when you have an opportunity to do a rescission. So the body all received
- the memo. But is the memo in the minutes of this meeting yet? I think we can put it with the packet,
- and we'll put the legal memo with the packet as well. All right. So assuming that the memo is in the
- meeting, I have a question. When did the agenda come out? NOAA is required to set the agenda.
- six days in advance and send it to you all. And by setting it, it's a preliminary setting, right? Because
- it can get amended. And like we talked about, you can amend it all the way until you're in the meeting.
- OK, if I could just ask Noah, when did the memo get distributed? Sorry, not memo. The agenda? The agenda
- get distributed. The agenda was sent out last Wednesday. Last Wednesday? That's right. OK. When did
- Commissioner Butler's email
- get to you. This Monday? This Monday, so two days before. So he, none of us were. No, not two days before,
- Wednesday of last week. Oh, when? When John Butler's memo came Monday of this week. Monday of this week,
- right. No, because I called this week to ask for copies of the minutes.
- And I was told that those minutes wouldn't have come out with the agenda packet. With the packet? With
- the packet. And when did I get it? Are the minutes not in the packet? When did the packet come out?
- They should have come out on Friday. The packet came out on Friday? Last week Friday? Last. Right. The
- first version comes out on Wednesday before, and then it comes out Friday, finally.
- that's the there's actually a chart on the website where it has a calendar of here's when items need
- to be submitted here's when a draft goes out here's when it's finalized okay Commissioner Butler would
- you like to add a make a motion to add an item to the agenda well I've been instructed that that would
- be an incorrect motion to make so it seems
- Would you like to hear the legal rationale on why our office, your legal counsel, would say that that's
- not a proper motion? And then maybe you can determine whether you still want to make a motion or not.
- I mean, we're counsel. You should follow our advice, but you're not obligated to. I'm very confused.
- I am not going to make a motion.
- If you had an opportunity to read the memo, if not. No, I had no memo. When was that sent? Just this
- afternoon. I've not been on there since. So that makes it difficult for me to get in without knowing.
- That's why I'm offering that maybe we want to take a pause, hear from Dana, and then go back to the
- question that Jeremy just posed to you. I would say I would.
- I think we need to move to hear explanation from council about this legal memorandum that they sent.
- And I would entertain a motion to add that as an agenda item. All right. So we have a second. All right.
- So Jeff Golden has moved to hear council explain the legal memorandum. Commissioner Baker has seconded.
- Is there any immediate discussion?
- All right, would staff please call the roll in question? Certainly, this is on a motion to hear legal's
- explanation. Motion and second, we'll do a roll call vote, all voting members. Vice Chair Baker? Yes.
- Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes.
- Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes.
- Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion passes, 8-0. All right, the motion is passed. Thank you very
- much for our attorneys for showing up. I'd like for either attorney Holmes or, I'm sorry, I can't see
- your name, Kerr. Dana Kerr. Dana Kerr. Mr. Kerr, please take it away. Thank you. Yes, this issue had
- just come up, and so I apologize that we just had to date it.
- So that did go out late this afternoon, so you may or may not have received it. The legal question was,
- can the Historic Preservation Commission rescind a demolition delay decision once that final decision
- has been made? And to start off with, I just had made a point that
- The attorney for the unit, the city of Bloomington, is the attorney for the commission, just to establish
- that the city legal department is the legal representation, so that you know that you can rely upon
- our advice. And also state what you already know, that the Historic Preservation Commission is a statutorily
- created body.
- So the statue creates the body, the statue sets out what powers the body has within the statue, which
- the large part of that is the certificate of appropriateness and creating the maps, which you all are
- involved in.
- But as an example, for illustrative purposes, I put out there the approval and denial of certifications
- of appropriateness. And the statute talks about how you can prove them, how they can be denied, the
- different ways that can happen. But none of those state in any way that that decision can be rescinded.
- Yes, sir. In point of order, we're referring to a demolition delay, which I believe is a different item
- than a COA. So I don't think it is. Illustrating purposes. But I know it's like apples and oranges,
- right? This is showing where the statute has laid out what powers there is to do. And if it doesn't
- specifically mention one, that it does not exist in that situation.
- So, but as it relates to demolition delay, the Bloomington Municipal Code has the demolition delay ordinance
- and it's been put into the Bloomington Municipal Code section 20.06.050 CII2. And within that is that
- section, subsection two,
- it talks about the early termination of the waiting period. And that states that the remainder of the
- waiting period shall be considered waived and the certificate of zoning compliance shall be issued if
- within the 90 or 180 day, 120 day period,
- One of the following occurs, and all other requirements of the UDO are satisfied. The Historic Preservation
- Commission votes affirmatively not to recommend local historic designation to the common council, or
- the Historic Preservation Commission votes on a motion to recommend local designation and the motion
- fails, or in case of contributing structures in a single family district, which just isn't so
- or the common council disapproves of a recommendation of local historic designation of this subject
- property. So within the Bloomington Municipal Code, that is the limitation of the powers that is presented.
- Yes, sir. I have a question. I'm not trying to interrupt. When we release something for demolition delay,
- we read a statement.
- please have someone read that statement into the record. And I think after this, let's go ahead and
- let Mr. Kerr finish his statement. We'll do a round of questions like we normally do, and then we'll
- do comments at that point, just so we get it. No, it's okay. I get where you're coming from. So there
- are three potential actions that you can take on a demolition delay. One is the release.
- of the demolition delay, in which case you read, today regarding the property located at blank address,
- the Historic Preservation Commission declares that it got notice of the proposed demolition and after
- today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition
- delay waiting period. The HPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the Common Council.
- Let's let him finish. I see where you're going. So again, that is what the Clinton municipal code gives
- as far as the role of the Historic Preservation Commission when it comes to demolition. And it does
- talk further about limitations of the
- changes that might be made because in 20.06.050Fii, it states that no action of the Historic Preservation
- Commission may prevent issuance or affect revocation of such certificate of zoning compliance or demolition
- permit issued in reliance upon such certificate of zoning compliance for a period of one year from the
- end of the waiting period.
- which waiving the waiting period by an action in the meeting would have ended the waiting period. So
- that's the statute. And there's no statutory authority of rescinding anything that the Historic Preservation
- Commission does. The statute also talks
- about how there's a lot of overlap between the Historic Preservation Commission and the Board of Zoning
- Appeals. They are very similar bodies. And in fact, the Indiana Code when it comes to the Historic
- Preservation Commission in IC 36-7-11-4A states that
- a final decision of the commission is subject to judicial review under IC 36-7-4 as if it were a final
- decision of a board of zoning appeals. So the Indiana code treats decisions that you make just as if
- they were decisions as the board of zoning appeals. So once they're made, they follow the same order
- of review as
- the Board of Zoning Appeals. So there's a case that came out late last year. It was November of last
- year. And it is an Indiana Supreme Court case. It is the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals versus
- the Bedford Recycling Inc. For the record, it's 269 Northeast 3rd, 831 in 2025 case.
- This case is directly on point. Bedford Recycling sought a conditional use permit to be able to operate
- a scrap metal recycling and sorting facility on property it owned in Muro County that was owned for
- mineral extraction, which didn't include this type of use. The VCA granted the permit, and the county
- attorney set out to verify it was in fact required to support the permit approval.
- In drafting the findings of fact, the county attorney determined that the BZA made a legal error in
- granting the permit. The county attorney felt that there was case law that supported revoking the permit
- if the revocation was based on a legal error. After 11 months of board member changes and meetings,
- the BZA voted to revoke the Bedford Recycling's conditional use permit.
- based on the fact that it was granted beyond the BZA's legal authority. Bedford Recycling appealed to
- the Monroe Circuit Court, which found in favor of Bedford Recycling, the Court of Appeals reversed that
- decision. Then it went to the Indiana Supreme Court. In their decision, the Supreme Court cited a case
- all the way back in 1926, 100 years ago, saying an agency cannot
- reconsider its own final decision unless the legislature explicitly grants the agency that power. The
- legislature has at times specifically stated if the body can modify its own decisions. For example,
- administrative law judges and panels who are considered ultimate authorities can modify their own orders under
- Indiana Code 4-21.5-3-31. The Supreme Court then says, if the legislature is silent on reconsideration
- of decisions, then the body does not have that power. So if the legislature speaks and says you have
- that power to reconsider, you have that power. If the legislature is silent on whether you have that
- power, you do not have that power.
- Sorry, which legislature are you referring to, the state or the city? The state legislature. So again,
- the state legislature has said that the final decision by this body is reviewed judicially as would
- be of the BZA.
- Supreme Court is talking about the BZA and what its abilities to do. It treats this body just like the
- BZA does in the statute. So I am 100% confident that the Indian Supreme Court would treat this body
- reconsidering a decision it has made the same as for this body as it would the BZA.
- So reconsidering a decision that has already been made would be inappropriate in the city of Bloomington's
- legal department opinion. And that is what our advice is to this body. As you can see, there's strong
- public policy on that. If these decisions could be changed at any point in time,
- There would be so much uncertainty. Developers, in this case, would not know what they could do or what
- they couldn't do. They wouldn't know if what they were allowed to do was going to change at the very
- next meeting, even though they had gotten their approval to move ahead because their time period had
- been waived. They have already taken steps. They may have already signed contracts. They may have things
- such as that for the Bedford recycling.
- They may have already started building facilities and things within that 11-month period. So public
- policy would support also what the Indian Supreme Court said. And I think the policies that the city
- of Bloomington has in wanting to make things so that the people who work with the city of Bloomington know what
- is expected of them and know what directions they're supposed to follow. And they follow the proper
- procedures. They can rely on following those proper procedures. And so that is, again, public policy
- that would support not rescinding a final decision that's already been made. Thank you.
- Thank you very much. I think if we're going to operate as we normally do, we usually have a public comment
- before we do commissioner questions and then commissioner comments. I think it seems like people are
- here and may be interested in speaking on this. And I think we need to make sure everybody is heard
- on this particular issue. Do you have a point of order? So I don't get an opportunity to ask counsel
- of questions based on this presentation? No, you do. We're going to do public questions first.
- then commissioner comments or questions, and then commissioner comments as we normally do for all the
- COAs. So that way we're operating under the same procedure we normally do. That's really not what normally
- happens. Noah would read the COA. And if there's something in the COA that we don't understand or we'd
- like to get more information on, we usually ask it directly of Noah. Public comment usually comes before
- commissioner questions. That's correct. You're telling me that.
- The historical way, the way we've always done it is if you throw something up there, and I'm saying,
- could you go back a second? What's that word? Could you throw up another picture? Could I clarify something
- about the information? We have never done that before, Commissioner's question. That what you're describing
- is Commissioner's questions. Every meeting, we read the procedure for certificate of appropriateness
- and demolition delay.
- And this is what I say at every meeting. For each item on the agenda, the Historic Preservation Program
- Manager will first present a staff report. We are treating this as a staff report right now. We'll then
- hear if the petitioner has any additional information. I mean, we made the motion. And then we go to
- public comment. We do public comment. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask
- questions to staff, the petitioner, and the public. And then we go on to comments. So I read that at
- the beginning of every month.
- So we will go on to public comments next. I think let's go in the room first, and then we'll go online
- just to make sure we're kind of doing this in order. Does anybody in the room wish to make a comment
- on this? You will have three minutes, and please, the comments are based on the legal memorandum and
- explanation that our attorneys gave to us. No. Yes, please. OK, you have three minutes. Starting now.
- I think all I need is one minute. OK.
- Thank you so much for the legal interpretation and the memo. As a member of the public, I think it's
- very, very difficult for me to comment, or any member of the public, when we haven't seen the memo,
- we haven't had time to read the case. And we know that cases are like movies. Two people can see them
- and they see different things. Ten people can see them and they see different things. And I think in
- your citation and your explanation, you talked about how administrative law judges, their decisions
- are final.
- But they're not amongst the parties. The parties have a window in which they can appeal. I've
- done administrative law cases. And right now, your party here is the public. And the public has not
- had adequate information about this memo. The public has no idea how to listen to all this legalese.
- And God bless you. It's fine. But I think that we're standing in the doorway and blocking the hall,
- quote Bob Dylan. And I think this is a very difficult sort of thing for the public to understand.
- I have some advantage because I'm a lawyer. But if you're not a lawyer to listen to all this and you
- don't have a chance to read the memo, it waxes with the other day when the RDC, where am I at the time?
- One minute and 13 seconds. It waxes the other day when the RDC did not have a meeting on January 6th
- and had not told the public. Nobody knew. This young lady was planning to go to the meeting. I was planning
- on going to the meeting and there was no meeting and there was no public information.
- And I think when we fail to adequately inform the public about what's going on, then we're letting one
- of the parties be misrepresented. Thank you for your comment. Does anybody else in the room wish to
- comment on this? Not on that. Okay. I figured.
- All right. Let's go online. Does anybody wish to comment on the legal explanation given by the city
- attorneys? We have a person named Eric. I've asked to unmute. I've also asked for their first and last
- name, but we haven't had that yet. Okay. Eric, you are welcome to speak. You've got three minutes. Good
- afternoon, everyone. My name is Eric Post and I hope, can you hear me okay? We can hear you. Good. I am
- participating as a member of the public. I appreciate this discussion. I do think procedural questions
- are very important because that's how decisions are made or reconsidered. The previous public commenter
- mentioned in the absence of seeing all the materials it's difficult to ask questions that may be well formed or
- perhaps not so well formed. And so I wanted to note that usually in this, I'm not a lawyer and we'll
- proclaim, but I do read and it seems like if in terms of legal hierarchy, if other bodies or other statutes
- are silent, the ability to do something usually passes to
- the body, even if it's a statutory body. And the HPC, I think, has adopted Robert's rules as its operating
- framework. And in that framework, any member of the body may make a point of information, and that member
- of the body could read their copy of the memo into the record. And number two is that I believe there is
- You're breaking up. Are you still there? Eric? That a member of, can you hear me? Yes. Okay.
- You're back. I stopped your time. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. No, that's, that's
- why I appreciate it. And the second point I would make is that I believe under Robert's rules, a member
- of the body who was on the prevailing side of a prior motion can make a motion to reconsider and it
- doesn't resend them up the,
- judgment or the decision, but it does bring it back up for reconsideration. And the operating framework
- in which those really fall afoul is when there have been irreversible changes made. So in the case of
- the building, if the building hasn't been demolished yet, then there is case law to support the body's
- ability to change the decision on reconsideration. So that's really all my comment. And I appreciate
- everyone's work on this.
- All right. Thank you, Mr. House. All right. Are there any other folks online who wish to weigh in on
- the attorney's explanation of the legal memo? All right. Hearing none, we'll go to Commissioner Questions.
- Commissioner Castaneda, do you have any questions? I do not have any questions. Commissioner Golden,
- do you have any questions? I do not. Commissioner Butler.
- So you cited some stuff about border zoning appeals. So my question is, is there any case law pertaining
- to how do I rephrase? So when we read that statement at the end, that statement to me seems like a statement
- saying this is not a final decision, because we are reserving the right. So in the case law,
- We're reserving the right to change our decisions, specifically in the last thing we say. We can still
- recommend this to the mayor. So in the case law you cited, it's all about final stuff, right? And so
- if we're not making a final decision, then that would not apply. Is that correct? But you waived the
- demolition period. But we still reserved the right to
- be able to designate it. So that's the thing. If you did, then you. So that's what's really confusing
- for me here. So you're not actually reserving a right. What you're saying is that you may later recommend
- it. And I've been trying to figure out what that means too, right? When you agree to a demolition delay
- permit, what are the chances that later that building is going to still be there to recommend designation?
- And so how would I do that is my question.
- How would you say I want to preserve the right to recommend designation? No. And this just lets me be
- specific to this issue. How would I do the last sentence where I recommend this to counsel? I don't
- understand that. Excuse me. Can we? Yep. Thank you. Well, you can't do that right now because you have
- properly decided the issue. You've made a final determination. I don't know. I'm telling you, I wouldn't
- admit that to you. That is very misleading to me as a commissioner, because I would feel that the issue
- 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
- an expressly wasted. I see what you're saying. I don't think that that's a reservation of a power. You
- can't give someone, say, oh, we approve your demolition.
- But we might take it back at a later date. Except that's literally what we're doing. That's literally
- what we say every time we do this. Yeah. I get that. All right. I've done no more questions.
- Yeah. Commissioner Duffy. No questions. Commissioner Dueser. No. Commissioner Cross. In the case you
- just read, it alludes to an error made in a decision by
- the zoning authority? Yes, there was. They based the conditional use. These law did not support the
- conditional use that they granted. However, they could not go back and correct that, even though it
- was an error of law, which it wasn't just simply a change of opinion. It was actually an error of law.
- process to fix that error was a judicial review. That's the process that the statute allows. And that's
- what the process the statute allows for the Historic Preservation Commission. If there is an issue that
- somebody who has standing has with a decision that has been made, they can see judicial review of the decision.
- So I'm new to American law. I find it fascinating that, for example, the Supreme Court could have established
- precedents. But another case comes before it, and that precedence changes. Because things and times
- change. I beg your pardon. Things and times change. And this court seems to have been using
- presidents from over 100 years ago, or roundabout. I think if we did a little bit of research, we could
- find several decisions made by every court to include the Supreme Court at different points in history,
- where before the case came before them, it was established presidents. And at every level, because of
- a new set of circumstances, they ruled differently.
- Would I be incorrect to say that? It is not as common as you would believe for precedent to be overturned.
- And I'm not implying that it's common. I'm not quantifying my statement. I'm just saying that it is
- possible that there is established precedence. But somehow, a different set of people put in different
- eyes, in a different context,
- in a different time under different circumstances may rule differently. I'm just asking if it's possible.
- Actually, this case is instructive because a bunch of courts did rule differently. And so different
- jurisdictions were handling that issue differently. And this Supreme Court case says no. Right. And
- I get that. But it was different courts looking at the same set of circumstances within the same context,
- within the same time in history.
- One could argue that a court before 1865 would have ruled differently on some issues as opposed to a
- court post 1865. I'm just, okay, so my point holds. My question specifically was to the facts of the
- case. So it was an error in law. Is this issue considered an error in law or an error in process?
- This issue. Like I said, I'm an amateur. I hope to be educated. Yes. Right. This issue would be considered
- that the decision would want to be rescinded. And that's a procedure. Just like the decision to revoke
- the conditional use. That's a procedure.
- The basis of it, I'm just saying the error of law is a very strong argument to turn something around
- and try to revoke it. But even in that strong, strong reasoning, this NBN Supreme Court still said you
- shouldn't do it. So there's not even an error of law here. So even in those extreme cases where there
- is, the Supreme Court says, no, don't touch it.
- We have established in the statute, this legislature, Indiana legislature, established in the statute
- the review process, which is judicial review, not a body reviewing its own work. OK. And my last question
- would be, were the circumstances of this case that you cite one where the body broke its own rules,
- It was under strong objections of its members, certainly three of them. It was under strong objection
- by members of the public. And something that had been established by the body's own rules, both ones
- that were codified and ones set in precedence, were all breached. I'm asking because a lot of times
- different circumstances surrounding a decision
- might sway some people. And again, I was in the courtroom when it was argued. I got this memo literally
- minutes before. I haven't done my research. Again, it is your brief and a legal brief is representative
- of the lawyers that produced that brief, that is their opinion. Drawing on this gentleman here, I have
- enough experience to learn that
- two people looking on the same thing might come to a completely different conclusion. So again... Yes,
- I really understand your question is that if you believe that there was an error in procedure... Agregious
- errors in procedure. Agregious errors in procedures that led to the vote. And I say this in the context
- that judges are human.
- And when they're ruling on a very specific case, they make a ruling based on the circumstances of that
- case. And if those circumstances were different, it is possible, one could argue probable, that the
- decision could be different, especially at the Supreme Court, where they're creating precedents, not
- acting on one, because they overturned their previous court. So they were, in effect, doing something that
- probably never been done before. They were actually creating precedent at the time when this decision
- was made. Because I'm thinking if the Court of Appeals had precedents to act, again, I haven't read
- it. I would have loved to have read the decisions from the burning of zoning BZA to the lower court
- through to the Supreme Court and actually informed myself
- so that I could come here and perhaps ask you intelligent questions. But I just got this memo two minutes
- before the meeting started. I understand that. And what the Supreme Court was saying in this case, and
- that's why I mentioned that the other case was from 1926 was a Supreme Court case, is that the Court
- of Appeals cases started drifting away from what they had established 100 years ago. And this Supreme Court was
- pulling them back in to what the law has been and saying, no, you've drifted too far, and you need to
- come back. Well, you do appreciate that one of the bases in which courts make decisions possibly could
- be the effect on the community. And they weigh, if I rule this way or that way, has customs changed?
- Has the society changed?
- So in 1926, when they made this decision, that could effectively have been the case. But we've moved
- on over 100 years. And a new body listening to this case under the circumstances that this decision
- was made could possibly say, if I uphold this decision, I would be legitimizing the process used to
- get it here. And they could perhaps have made a decision that could be overturned at the US Supreme
- I'm just saying, isn't that possible? That's theology. We can debate that. Which is why this body's
- for, sir, to debate. I limit. Please let him respond. The Indiana Supreme Court is not having an issue.
- Sir, you're out of order. Let him respond. Indiana Supreme Court is the law of Indiana. Could it be
- different someday? Was it different someday?
- That is the law as it stands right now. And that is the law that we have to abide by. And as the attorney
- for the city of Bloomington and for this body, I have to recommend and advise this body to follow the
- law in Indiana as it stands right now. And for the Indiana Supreme Court, that is what I'm doing. And
- so that's, if we,
- don't like that, there are ways to change the legislature so that they add different ways to review
- your own decisions. But the way the law stands right now, this case is extremely strong, especially
- since it says that the BZA and the HPC are treated identically when it comes to reviewing their decisions that
- that this case applies here, and that this body can't change that decision. I understand your job. And
- don't misinterpret my questions as. Oh, I appreciate that. Right. And yeah, I'm glad that you do. I
- once learned that the law doesn't have to be right. It just has to be certain. But I also learned that
- the law isn't us.
- also, and those statements were made by jurists. So it... My last question. Sorry. This is a question.
- I don't have any more questions. I'm sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Baker, do you have any questions?
- No, I do not. Commissioner Slagle, questions? No, I do not. I don't have any questions.
- All right, we'll go over to any comments. Commissioner Castaneda, do you have any comments? Commissioner
- Golden, do you have any comments? Not right now. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Butler, comments? Well,
- I'd like to figure out how it's possible for us to
- Commissioner Duffy, do you have any comments? No. Commissioner Duesner, do you have any comments? No.
- Commissioner Cross, comments? I have a few. Firstly, a lot was said here about information. The gentleman
- online, the gentleman there, and so did I. There are members of the public seated here. And even though
- we have seen, Commissioner Butler's memoir,
- they don't know what the contents of that is. And it has been a matter of some discussion by this body,
- and they're all ignorant as to what we're talking about. Which is why I said, I asked that it be read
- so that members of the public could have some idea of what we're talking about. Whether it's procedurally
- correct or just correct because we serve them
- I will admit that I'm somewhat ignorant of the technicalities of the process. But I believe that the
- spirit of this body is to work for the people. And the people must have information on which they can
- make decisions. They can ask pertinent, reasonable, legitimate questions about what we're talking about.
- But without the information, how can they do that?
- It being in the minutes for next week's meeting is completely different than these gentlemen and lady
- being in the gallery and their ability to stand and ask questions during public comment when they don't
- know what we're talking about. Again, I appreciate that you just got this today, but I wrote a memo
- a week and a half ago, and gave copies to Noah, which with my permission, he sent to other people. So
- there was ample time for a position to have been arrived at and communicated to all here, all concerned,
- so that we could do our research and come here, prepare to argue
- the facts, the substance, of your opinion. A learned opinion, though it is, it's still an opinion. And
- there are a number of people here who may have different ones, including another qualified attorney.
- And I love to see attorneys argue. I learn a lot, right? But I get the feeling, certainly since the
- meeting of two weeks ago,
- that there's an agenda beyond the one for this meeting. There is something happening that I don't know
- because almost every single thing about the process of the last meeting on the 25th of June was alien
- to me. Established processes that have been in effect, that have the power of precedent,
- was dismissed, brushed aside in the face of objections of members of this commission. Right? A vote
- was arrived at improperly so based on, certainly, again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a citizen who serves.
- and my certain, by my interpretation of the common language of the rules that govern this commission,
- says that requests of more time ought to have been brought before the commission and have all taken.
- That was not done. If I might, to clarify the record on the record. Yes. No motion was made to request
- an extension of time. Okay. The motion that was put on the floor was a motion
- to approve the request for demolition. That was properly voted on. I know you all talked about it in
- your comments that you wish that there were additional time, but no motion was made to ask for additional
- time. I was going to get there at some point, but let me jump there and then I can jump back. It has
- certainly been established by this commission based on common practice
- that we're not technocrats and sometimes we will make requests not using the technical language of a
- motion and not being provided with the addition of Robert's rules that we're supposed to be using for
- our meetings I had to resort to our research on the internet and forgive me if
- The edition that I probably found online is not up-to-date. I don't have a copy of the up-to-date one.
- I don't even know which edition we're using, because our rules are Sir Robert's rules, and I understand
- that the 12th is in publication. So I honestly don't know if there are any differences between edition
- one and edition 11. I don't know which one we're using. But certainly, it would indicate that
- established precedence has the weight of a rule if there's nothing in our guidelines which counter it.
- It also says that a request where the intent is clear and understandable ought to be framed in the form
- of a motion by the chair put back in front of the commission as a motion and a second should be requested.
- Now, again, not an attorney.
- But my common understanding of what I read indicates that Mr. Butler's clear communication that he required
- more time. And the rules for demolition delay, which allows for more time, that being supported by another
- voting member and an advisory member, clearly communicated the intent to the chair and the other members
- of the commission. And it ought to have been treated as a motion
- Or certainly in the chair's role as chair, he should have said, do I hear a motion? Are you trying to
- make a motion? Which is what has happened. Even if it's not supposed to be done, it's certainly established
- by customs of this body. That is what happened when Sam de Sola was chair, and that's what happened
- when John Saunders was chair. So if this chair is going to change that, it cannot be done.
- arbitrarily and capriciously. It cannot. Members of the public also ask for more time. And when we're
- given 16 weeks, 12 by, I don't know, right, and a discretionary four weeks at the end, we have available
- to us 16 weeks to make a decision, and we
- in the face of withering opposition by three members and members of the public, we made a decision because
- a technical motion wasn't made, even though the clear intention of three of the commissioners to petitioning
- for more time was clearly understood, was brushed aside, and a vote was made on the floor.
- Also keep in mind, no I'm not done yet, I'm sorry. I was pausing for effect. Also keep in mind that
- none of us here are experts. We don't even have, do you have a copy of Robert's Rules? Does anyone here
- 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
- edition do you have? Okay, how did you get it? So is it the expectation that members of this commission
- are gonna go out and purchase their own copies of Robert's Rules?
- And there's nothing in the guidance that I've been given is that we're using the 12th. If they publish
- a 13th tomorrow, do we stop using the 12th and start using the 13th? The whole process was farcical.
- It was an absolute and utter farce.
- for us to be stuck here. Transparency is a hell of a thing. It's not just enough that justice is done,
- but justice must be seen to be done. And when this commission, a deliberative body constituted to make
- these decisions based on information
- And we have members of the public. We have commissioners. Commissioner Butler is a historian. What's
- your name? It's with Esau. The growth of America's comments, that's a question. Well, he's a historian.
- And he knows a lot of stuff about the things that we do here. And he has shepherded through at least
- one, through this body, through the city council,
- and gotten designation. Two, good. If this goodly gentleman, I looked at the criteria for appointing
- commissioners, they're very specific about the level of expertise that these people are supposed to
- have just to qualify. When you look at the level of expertise, the guidelines, the time allotted to
- deliberate on a matter, the specific circumstances surrounding this demolition that came to this body
- in less than two weeks for us to consider. We have three commissioners asking for more time, members
- of the public asking for more time, no less a person than a historian who has shepherded this thing
- through before, asking for more time.
- clear request that should be interpreted by the chair as a motion was brushed aside, rushed to a vote
- to tear down these buildings. Context, there are lots of outside issues concerning this.
- And whereas those issues should not sway our decision, we have to appreciate that the decision is being
- made in context of that, where there are significant powers jockeying for this thing to be done and
- that thing to be done. And when we act in the way we acted on the 25th,
- When we break our own rules and when we act not in accordance of how this body has acted previously,
- I asked Noah to do some research. Go back to the start of last year and pull from me all the demolition
- delays that have come before us where additional time was requested. He brought up four. Two were withdrawn,
- so I didn't consider that. The votes for each of them was 6 to 0.
- Am I correct? One was 6-0. I know both passed. But both passed, right? We waited. We got additional
- information. One went to council. One didn't. But at the end of the day, I'm almost sure that everybody
- walked away feeling heard, feeling that we considered the matter. We availed ourselves of all
- the information. And we made a decision. You might not like it.
- I'm almost sure that everybody here was prepared to live with it. That's democracy. I have been on the
- losing end of some serious 7 to 1 votes in this place. And I have left here, defeated, but not bitter,
- because I was here when the process was followed. And it was transparent. Everybody got the time to be heard.
- And that's just how it is in a democracy. What happened on the 25th of June was not that. It was not
- that. It was something else. We did not do our job on the 25th of June. We did nothing resembling what
- our mandate required of us. And for us,
- to sit here and the opinion is to live with this? That's my comment. Again, to be clear, the legal opinion
- is that the recent Indiana Supreme Court holding says that statutory bodies only have the authority
- that's granted to them by statute, and the HBC does not have
- the authority to rescind, revoke, or revisit. So that's our legal opinion. I have issues with it. I
- probably disagree with it. But I heard it. And I accept that that is your legal opinion. So just because
- I pushed back, it doesn't mean that I. Right. And I don't want you to interpret anything other than
- we are literally reading the holding of the case. All of the other stuff that you spoke to about how
- people feel and whether people feel like they got hurt, that is not part of our. No, no, no, no.
- Those are my comments. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. Comments. Thank you. Appreciate your
- time. All right. Thank you for everyone for being able to express this. I don't have any comments on
- the findings of the attorneys, so thank you very much.
- We weren't taking the vote because we basically said we want to hear what they have to say. So we are
- still actually at the part of the agenda. We were asking if anybody wanted to make an amendment on it.
- So on the agenda, anybody wanted to make a motion to add anything to the agenda? We've heard what the
- attorneys have had to say. It's still up to any individual commissioner if they want to do so or not.
- We're hearing no motion. We will move on to approval of the minutes from the July 29th. Does anybody
- have any edits to the minutes? Yes. Almost eight times. Hold on. Point of order. I would like the minutes
- to be amended to show the debate that occurred last time.
- minutes don't reflect that. I specifically do not want my name associated with the results, so I would
- definitely like it to show that I was in disapproval and did not vote for that. And so I just feel like
- the minutes are very brief. They do not do a good job of encapsulating the debate, nor do they capture
- the divide of the commission on the issues. OK, thank you. Is there a second? Second.
- Okay, so Commissioner Butler has asked that the minutes be revised to provide more detail on the demolition
- delays. Okay, and Commissioner Golden has seconded. Is there any comment on that? May I make a comment?
- I don't even know if I cannot support, but I agree with the position taken. I believe that for something
- I believe for the level of objections and the type of objections that were made in the last meeting
- and they need to be recorded in the minutes as accurately as possible. There were also, well, I guess
- it will be covered if the objections are properly put into the minutes. There was also,
- question that was asked by Commissioner Butler, obviously directed at the chair, with regards to what
- the process would have been if having had a motion and the motion seconded, if he had an objection.
- I think that's what you phrased it at, that it made no sense that once the vote, once the motion has
- been made and seconded, it must be voted on. If it is that there is some issue that has come up, is
- there no option? And I do recall you commenting on it. I'm not going to say that I remember exactly
- what it was, but I left
- thinking that, as you did, that once a motion has been made, it must be voted on. There's nothing that
- can be done after a motion on the floor to amend that motion. Do you recall that? I was actually
- misinstructed that the demolition delay was considered a motion on the table and that we had to vote
- on that first before we could introduce any other motion, but that's not true.
- A demolition delay is not a motion. A motion is something that's done by a commissioner. And so we can
- make a motion on the demolition delay. But the demolition delay in and of itself isn't a motion until
- we make it a motion. We move. That's the motion. It's an action. So it's just laying on the table. So
- this argument that we have to vote on the demolition delay first before we can vote on any other motion
- I believe is incorrect. I believe any motion that would be introduced
- I think we're getting into another topic. We're here to... No, well, I wanted specifically for that
- exchange to be recorded in the minutes because that was incorrect. There are... Bernard, in response
- to your request, I'm happy... Attorney Holmes? Yes. Commissioner Cross, please. Commissioner Cross.
- I'm happy to work with Tonda on the minutes.
- And she has done exactly what she's been asked. All of the housing commissions and the staff liaisons
- have been asked to move to the memo format, which is what's required by state law so that they can get
- turned around. And I know you have this correspondence with Jennifer Crossley. The goal is to make it
- easy enough for the staff to be able to get it out within 48 hours so that they can be available on
- the website for review. There's also a video, it's live taped.
- being live broadcast and it's also available on cats so that anybody can go back and actually watch
- the discussion if they read the minutes or the memo and are interested in seeing the vote. So I understand
- your concern about this one and I'm happy to go back and look at them but I will tell you that from
- a state law standpoint in terms of what's required to be in the minutes or in a memo, they are correct.
- So something like
- misinformation given to members by other members or the chair is not at the sufficient level where it
- warrants very specific entries into the minutes. That's a question. I know sometimes people ask questions
- that sound like statements, but I don't do it. It's literally a request for information.
- So misleading instructions given to members of the commission by the chair or other commissioners, I
- believe should be specifically recorded in the minutes, especially if a commissioner use that information
- to not make a motion that he could had he been properly instructed.
- So we've said a lot. I want to make sure we understand what we're moving here to do. So please, Commissioner
- Butler, work with me here to make sure we get this motion right. Is staff ready to make sure we're getting
- this down correctly? You were moving that we amend the amendments to include the discussion about the
- demolition delays specifically and some of the procedure that led up to the vote.
- Is that an accurate way to say that? Okay, thank you very much. And Commissioner Golden. That's my second.
- Okay. Any other comments? All right. Seeing none. I didn't know if I can ask a question. I can ask you
- later. Okay. Okay. Yeah, sorry. No, that's okay. I know. All right. So there's no public comment on
- this one. I'm sorry.
- All right, so I think we're ready for the vote if staff could please call the roll. Yes, and this is
- on motion to amend the minutes. It's been moved and seconded. We'll do a roll call vote on the motion
- to amend. Chair Baker? No. I'm sorry, Vice Chair Baker, my part, my apologies. No, still no. Treasurer
- Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? I'm staying. Commissioner Duesner?
- Commissioner Duffy. Did you say that it's required to write this memo for you? The state law only requires
- a memo that just has who was there, the time and the date of the meeting, and the actions that were
- taken. It does not require that transcript kind of minutes. But it can be included? Yep. Although, yes.
- Commissioner Golden. Yes. Commissioner Hackard. I'm sorry, Chair Hackard. Sorry, this is just, I'm still
- trying to figure out what to do with this. Chair Hackard. Yes. Commissioner Schlegel. Yes. OK, so that
- motion to amend passes 5, 1, and 2 abstentions. All right.
- Thank you very much. The motion passes. Next up, we are up for staff review of COAs. Mr. Sandler, please
- take it away. Yes, Commissioner Baker. Is it appropriate for me to make a motion at this point? We've
- had other motions. I would lean on the attorneys here. You can ask to make a motion if you would like
- to put a motion on the table.
- The motion is to limit commissioner comments for this meeting only to three minutes per comment. For
- the duration of the meeting, the purpose is to allow adequate time for comment while maintaining focus
- and conducting business in a timely fashion. All right. Commissioner Baker has requested that we put
- three minute
- on comments made by commissioners for this meeting. Is there a second? All right, Commissioner Castaneda
- has seconded. Are there any questions or comments, Commissioner Schlegel? I just wanted to ask, that's
- the same amount of time the public has. Correct, yes. Okay, I just want to make sure I was correct.
- That's all I had to say. Yep, Commissioner Croft. Yeah, you're supposed to go first. I apologize. The
- reason I'm making this motion is that
- I believe we have adequate preparation before we come to the meetings. We have the documents sent out
- by staff. We have the staff recommendations. We have read those documents before we come to the meeting.
- Generally, we have a lot of information in front of us. Some of us actually go out to the sites and
- take a look and try to fill in.
- And we all develop some sort of an idea, I think, before we come to the meeting of where we're going,
- which direction we're going, and then we listen to comments in the meeting and make our decision. And
- this is just to give us some focus, not keep us here beyond, give us reasonable amount of time to think
- and to decide how we want to vote while we're in the meeting.
- so that things don't become excessive. And to keep the meeting so that we get all of our business done
- in a very timely fashion, as I said. Those are my comments on the motion. Commissioner Castaneda, do
- you have any follow-up? No. All right, we'll go around the room then. Commissioner Schlegel, do you
- have any questions or comments? Commissioner Cross. Yes, I wholeheartedly disagree. In particular for
- this meeting, that is not a standard that
- I'm not even going to comment as to whether it happens anywhere else. We have the people's business
- to discuss. We're commissioners. And whereas I understand that we can't drone on and on and on forever
- and ever and ever, I believe this particular meeting, and I will say that this particular motion
- deliberate attempt to prevent members of this commission from airing issues that they believe they need
- to be that need to be properly ventilated which I think that's a violation point of order you were impinging
- on his motives which is not allowed are we gonna take a vote on that I don't know what the procedure
- is if you can you can request an appeal to the body yes I can't I'm not a voting member
- But we haven't voted yet. There's a motion on the floor. And it's been properly seconded. And so now
- we're doing our round of comments and questions. I will put the matter to rest. I would like to think
- that there were other reasons to want to limit the time in this meeting in particular. It wasn't proposed
- as a general rule. It was proposed for this meeting. And the way this meeting has gone so far
- I can't think of a reason other than to limit the time allowed to present issues that are of concern
- to members of the commission, which I believe need to be properly ventilated in front of the public.
- This body doesn't exist for its own cause. It is a public body where the press and members of the public
- are here, and if commissioners have
- issues that they want to air, they ought to be given reasonable time. Now, I've been here for a while,
- and I've seen meetings go up until 9 p.m. It is just 6, 18, and we have three COAs, which are, what,
- staff approvals? So basically, you're just gonna read it and give the decision. So we'll be over with
- those in like another 40 minutes, I would think.
- I'd be surprised if we're here at seven o'clock. So I really don't see why this motion is being presented
- other than to stifle debate. But that's just my comment. Please excuse me. I'm not needed for this.
- Thank you. Commissioner Duesner, comments. Just my comment is I'm not a fan of making rule changes that
- apply to one meeting.
- All right, thank you. Commissioner Duffy. Commissioner Butler. I'm sorry that Commissioner Cross left,
- because I feel like since he's really the only person who's using more than three minutes, that this
- is maybe sort of affecting him more than other people. But I would ask him to perhaps formulate his
- ideas more quickly. That's my thought. All right, thank you very much. Commissioner Golden.
- I have respect for other people's time and concise responses are important. And I think that we have
- experienced not that. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Castaneda. No more comments. Thank you.
- All right. It is common for bodies such as this to establish time limits on their debate.
- City council does it. I've seen other councils do it as well. It helps with focusing and it helps make
- sure everybody gets equal time and no one person can filibuster and make people sit there on and on.
- So I fully support it. All right. Anybody have any secondary comments? No, I think we're ready for the
- vote. Would staff please call the roll? This is on the motion to limit speaking time for three minutes.
- We'll go ahead and take that vote. Chair Baker? Vice Chair Baker? I'm sorry. Treasurer Butler?
- No. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? No. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden?
- Yes. Chair Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? No. That motion passes. Five yes.
- Three, no, zero abstentions. All right, thank you very much. Mr. Samuels. COA 2638. The address is 320
- South Madison Street in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. Petitioner is Dave Grubert. 320
- South Madison is a 1920 American Forest warehouse with a limestone porch and a terraced limestone retaining
- wall that appears to have been modified between 2001 and 2007.
- judging by a comparison of county assessments and Google Street View. The request is I received it.
- I currently have a retaining wall in front of my house, which frames both sides of the yard and supports
- the hill that leads to my house. The current wall, which was probably installed 15 to 20 years ago,
- is now decaying due to improper drainage at the time of installation by a previous owner. I want slash
- need to replace it after sections of the wall fail.
- We'll also replace the steps leading up to the house at the same time, as they are also crumbling in
- several places. I will use a local stonemason, Sandstone Creek LLC, to do the work. And they will be
- removing the existing walls and install new walls made from Belgard, Tandler, Ashler-style brick. This
- is a kind of composite imitation stone, which will nicely complement my home. The materials on the current
- walls have been deemed largely unsuitable.
- as many current bricks are failing. I've uploaded a sketch of the plan. Importantly, the new walls will
- replace the current walls. There are no plans to change the location or appearance of this reconstruction.
- It will mirror what I currently have. It only will be more sturdy and provide proper drainage so the
- walls remain structurally sound in the long term. Now, something else that I have clarified with the
- petitioner is that
- There are a couple of piers up near the porch that will stay in place since there's nothing structurally
- wrong with them. Staff approved COA 2638. While the existing retaining wall is not historic, the original
- wall likely was limestone like the neighboring retaining walls. Nevertheless, the proposed imitation
- stone wall is visually similar and district guidelines emphasize a light review of these landscape features.
- That I recommend? That I approve? Did I not? Staff approve COA 2638. Next item, COA 2639. This is for
- 211 East Gilbert Drive in the Matlock Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Adam Will. Built in 1953,
- 211 East Gilbert is a minimal limestone ranch in the Matlock Heights Historic District located on a
- shady corner lot.
- This request involves the installation of a hoop house style greenhouse on the western side of the property
- at 211 East Gilbert Drive, Bloomington, Indiana, a property within the Matlock Heights Historic District.
- The greenhouse structure will be purchased as a kit from bootstrap farmers with an approximate footprint
- size of 12 by 20 feet. While the district guidelines state of preference
- for any auxiliary building to be at the rear of the primary building. A row of pines along the western
- border of the property would block out the sunlight for a large portion of the day, making a location
- farther north of the proposed site suboptimal. Therefore, it is desirable to place the green house to
- the side of the primary building, but still behind the front edge of the house, meeting the intent of
- the district guidelines that this structure be a subordinate position to the primary structure.
- Pending approval, the construction date of the greenhouse will take place in September or October 2026.
- Staff approves COA 2639. The hoop house greenhouse, lacking a foundation, could be described as a temporary
- removable structure, which is handled by staff review according to commission rules and procedures.
- This category doesn't quite occupy the same place as an accessory structure. In considering the limited
- design options for this type of structure, the goal for this evaluation should be that it not detract
- from the feel or setting of the property or district. The proposed placement of the hoop house places
- it behind the front facade of the primary structure, considering the low profile
- open feel, and setback of this temporary structure behind the front facade and over 50 feet from the
- street. Staff feels that this new greenhouse is compatible with the district. COA 2640, this is our
- last COA of the evening. 2330 North Fritz Drive, also in the Matlock Heights Historic District. 20th
- petitioner is Thomas Yiser.
- 2330 North Fritz Drive is a mass limestone ranch with an attached garage located on a three quarter
- acre plot. The property owner is proposing to install a five foot chain link fence in the back and much
- of the side yard to the north behind the front facade. Um, as I will show you, uh, the request has written,
- I want to build a chain link fence in Matlock Heights lot 38.
- The primary purpose is to provide a safe place for pets. The fence would include part of the house's
- backyard, a space in the north and east corner of the property. The proposed fence would be five feet
- high with steel posts and gates. Staff approved COA 2640. While this chain link fence faces a street,
- it is set back from the front facade of the house and would retain an open feel, which is
- what the guidelines of the district propose for chain link fences. All right. Thank you very much. Mr.
- Sandweiss, is there any old business? I think there is. Mr. Sandweiss, is there any new business? I
- don't have any new business right now. OK. We'll go. I have a question. Sure. Your tour of Vinegar Hill,
- is rescheduled for tomorrow? Yes.
- I guess that is new business. It's rescheduled for tomorrow, provided weather permitting. Weather permitting.
- So I haven't canceled because it looks like it's not going to be storming at the time, but. Are we supposed
- to sign up? I'm not sure. Oh, there's because of my schedule. There is not a sign up page. OK,
- thank you. I guess anybody could go on one. Sounds good. All right. Commissioner comments. Commissioner Schlegel.
- On Saturday, July 11th, the History Center is having History on the Block, where we're going to showcase,
- obviously, with an old Carnegie building. We have a bunch of new exhibits, free bands, a select showing
- of Ken Burns' America 250, with commentators from Indiana Humanities that selected us to come to Bloomington
- just for this event. So we are very excited to have. And if it storms or not, the good news is we're
- just going to move inside.
- Either way, just come to our place and we'll either be outside if it's nice or inside if it's rainy.
- So I just wanted to let folks know if you, I figure most people here like history, so end the walk.
- But everyone is welcome to come on out and just visit us for the history on the block. All right.
- Thank you, Commissioner Schlegel. Commissioner Baker, do you have any comments? Except to say thank
- you for everyone around the table.
- for your time, your experience, your expertise with that, and they go through your opinions as well
- and your help and straightening us out when we go a little crooked or deviate or don't know. We appreciate
- that. I think people do do their due diligence when they come and I think we all appreciate one another.
- Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Cross, do you have any comments? Oh, three minutes? Three
- minutes. Oh, OK. A comment was made with regards to having all the information, deciding. Sorry, that
- was a different one. Keep going. Basically, how it is they're going to vote.
- coming here. Forgive me if I didn't paraphrase correctly. I personally think that's the wrong way of
- going about it. This is the deliberative body. This is where you come. You hear what people have to
- say. You are patient. You are wise.
- you exercise good judgment. That's like saying a judge reads the packet and decides on the outcome of
- a case before he goes into court. Nobody would accept that because court is where both sides come to
- argue. That's where the facts of the case is presented.
- But what I heard was coming here with your mind made up, going through the motions, and then making
- a vote. That's not what my 30 years in public service has led me to believe is our true purpose. That
- being said, no, I...
- Wrote a memo. I mean, I was planning on reading all 18 pages of it in the record, but as it is that
- I only have three minutes, I would ask that my comments, four public comments, are the contents of the
- memo and may be included in the minutes. How much more time do I have? About 53 seconds. Okay,
- there you go. You could have saved yourself a motion.
- That's it. Thank you. That was not necessary. Oh, I apologize. I withdraw. Tom's saying another commissioner
- is out of order, sir. That is inappropriate. Please. I accept my scolding. Commissioner Duffy. I just
- will second Commissioner Baker in thanking everyone, the legal team, members of the public,
- whether they're here or already left, as well as my fellow commissioners, each and everyone. Thank you.
- Thank you. Commissioner Butler. First of all, I'd like to apologize to the anti-petitioners. I guess
- they're called. They didn't get a fair shake the first meeting. And despite my best efforts, they didn't
- get another fair shake tonight. We made a mistake last time. I wish there was a way that we could rectify that.
- Apparently there's not. I would encourage them to try to rectify that in any way that they can. And
- I'm sure that there is somebody that will oversee us. I also think there are some mistakes made by fellow
- commissioners in judging the buildings too harshly. And so I would like to read the criteria for historical
- designation so that we can think about that. So building must be 50 years old, which it was. It says
- nothing about notable, outstanding, contributing, or non-contributing.
- A, it must embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or engineering type,
- which it did. B and C are very specific, so I won't bother you with those, and did not apply. D, it
- contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship, which represent a significant innovation.
- The corner windows and the
- Angled front buttresses could be argued that, but maybe not. But they definitely qualify for E, contains
- any architectural style, detail, or other element in danger of being lost or visual feature of a neighborhood
- or the city. And F, owing to its unique location or physical characteristics, represents established
- and or familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or of the city. You can literally vote to say something
- because it has established characteristics. That's how broad our mandate is. Don't surrender these buildings
- just because you've got a bad feeling about it. That's it in my comments. All right. Thank you, Commissioner
- Goldwin. I'd like to say that I come prepared because I want to have the discussion, an intelligent
- discussion, and being prepared is not coming here with a decision in mind. That's it. All right.
- Thank you. That's pretty good. Commissioner Casaneda. No comments. All right. Somebody time me.
- Thank you. I want to address the last several weeks directly. This commission has a clear established
- procedure for handling motions on COAs and demolition delays. We read it at every meeting. It aligns
- with Robert's rules of order. After staff petitioner and public comments, commissioners ask questions.
- When questions conclude, the chair requests a motion, a step we all know is coming. At our last meeting,
- commissioner moved to release the demolition delay. Motion was seconded and restated by the chair, consistent
- with our practice and with Robert's rules.
- Every commissioner had the opportunity to speak before the vote was taken. At no point was the motion
- contested. No point of order was raised. No parliamentary inquiry was made. No amendment was offered.
- Commissioners are responsible for asserting their own rights during the process. No objections were
- made. C's analysis, what we've heard, confirms that the procedure was followed was normal order. Disagreement
- with the outcome of the vote is not procedural error.
- It is simply disagreement with the result of a democratic process in which each commissioner voted according
- to their own judgment. I'm asking all commissioners to conduct ourselves professionally, to show respect
- for one another, to recognize that reasonable people can reach different conclusions from the exact
- same information. I've been on losing side of votes before, and when that happens, I acknowledge it
- and I move forward. We can disagree, but we must do so constructively and respectively.
- without lectures. I hope this commission can return to operating with collegiality and respect. It's
- a focus on the work before us rather than on drama that distracts us from our responsibilities and serves
- no one. Thank you. Public comment. Yes, please. I have a question and a request. The question is about
- the man who stood here earlier and spoke. You did not ask him his name and you didn't swear him in.
- but if he were to speak in front of the BCA, that's the first thing they would do, state your full name,
- and they would swear him in. I'm curious why this body does not swear in speakers. You haven't even
- asked me my name yet. Is it because this is a commission and that's a board? Is it because you're in
- a small room and they're in a big room? Is it because you trust people and they don't? What is the legal
- reason why
- Do you bring up a good point? And we should be asking people to put their name on the record when they
- stand up to make comments from the public. That's a good point. They do not have to. We can request
- it. And when the BZA is asking to swear people in, they are accepting testimony in a public hearing.
- What is happening here isn't a public hearing. It is we had agenda items that were being discussed.
- and public comment, and this is general public comment period. So you're not commenting on a hearing
- that is before the body. So that's a difference whether it's during a hearing, a public hearing,
- or not. And some entities do swear in, other entities don't. That is the prerogative of that particular
- order of commission.
- Some do it like BZA for the fact that so many of, as we saw from the court case mentioned today, so
- many BZA items get judicially reviewed that it creates a cleaner record for that purpose. So they take
- extra steps to do that. It's not technically required to square in a visitor.
- It's not required to get the names. It's been the policy of the city that we'd like to identify who
- it is that is speaking. But they also have the right to speak without, when it comes to public comment
- and they're asked to speak, to speak without mentioning their name if they refuse to do so. So if you
- would like to mention your name, we would appreciate that.
- I do have a request for information. I would like to request an investigation be made into an instance
- of a potential demolition by neglect. Is this the appropriate body for me to make this request or should
- I email somebody?
- I think you might want to follow up with Noah. Yeah. Why don't you talk to us after the meeting? I think
- a request like that might properly be entered into the new report system so that there's a record of
- that, and then it gets assigned to the appropriate people to investigate that request. So I actually
- think that is the best way to do it. But if you want to grab us and just kind of give us the nutshell
- of what you're concerned about, I'd be happy to listen to you.
- in the room right online is anybody wish to speak online I've also mentioned in the chat that we're
- a public comment if anyone wanted to raise their hand I don't see any hands raised and no other chats
- nothing in the chat to indicate that okay well seeing that there's no one else in there that brings
- us to the end of our agenda so this meeting is adjourned thank you