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