This is the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission meeting for October 22, 2026. To begin with,
let's call the order, please. And do a roll call. Thank you. Commissioner Cross? Here. Interim Chair
Baker? Here. Treasurer Butler? Here. Commissioner Castaneda? Here.
Commissioner Duffy? Here. Commissioner Golden? Here. Commissioner Schlegel? Here. We have quorum.
Thank you. All right, let's move on to approval of the minutes. Does anyone have anything to add to
or consider changing in the minutes? Chair, or interim chair, if I may. For the record, could I ask
What has happened to our previous chair? I don't think that has been discussed officially in front of
the HPC. Why is it that you're the interim chair? What has happened to our chair? I'm sorry. I did not
put my hearing aids in, so it's going to be a difficult evening for me. I can address that. Would you
please? Yes.
Chair Hackard resigned, so he's not with the commission anymore. With the effect from? Well, as he had
mentioned earlier, he's taken on some new roles at work, and it has taken up his time to volunteer with
his board. What I'm asking is, when was his resignation effective? What's the date on his resignation?
two weeks ago. I would have to go back and look it up. Yeah. Okay. I have the letter here. Um, September
21st. Okay. And may I ask that since that is a public document that will be placed on the record of
the HPC placed in the minutes. Um, yeah, it's a email to city staff. Um, uh, so I,
That being the case, I'd like to raise a point of information as to when will we be electing the new
chair. Based on the guidelines, Article 2B, it says,
The vice chair shall have authority to act as chair of the commission during the absence or disability
of the chair. In the case of resignation or death of the chair, the vice chair shall succeed to the
office of chair until a new chair is selected from the membership at the next duly noticed general meeting.
Am I to assume that this would be the next duly scheduled general meeting? Next one we've had, yeah.
OK. So it would appear that by our guidelines, an election of a chair should be done at this meeting.
but I didn't see it on the agenda. And normally, traditionally, we do it at the start of the meeting.
So my question is, at what point will we engage with selecting a new chair? Would somebody like to make
a motion? I just want to make sure we're not in the middle of the minutes right now.
because a motion hasn't been made. I think we'd have to have someone that wants to put themselves out
there for sure. If there's anyone that would like to, they can speak up. Well, normally there is a call
for nominees. I'm just going based on how it normally happens. You can nominate yourself or you can
nominate somebody else. Can we make a motion to approve the minutes and then we could act on this? Is
that what?
the staff liaison is asking for. Yeah, we're getting off topic here a bit. Let's do that. I think if
there are any more comments on the minutes themselves. Do I have a motion to approve? A motion to approve
the minutes. I'll second. Seconds, all right. Then let's do a
Sure, that sounds good. OK, there's a motion and a second on the table to approve the minutes from the
August 27th HPC meeting. We'll do a roll call vote voting members only. Interim Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer
Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Abstain. Commissioner
Schlegel? I need to abstain as well.
The minutes are approved with four yes, zero no, two abstentions. All right, thank you. Now, let's go
back to the presidency of the commission. Is there anyone who would like to put their name out as president?
We can't continue along as we are now, or we could elect a new president this evening.
I would like to nominate. I did have a question. Oh, sure. Go ahead. My only question is, do we have
all current members here today? Is this everyone? Yes, it is, in fact. OK. I just wanted to double check
in case we were missing someone, because then I would want to say, oh, if Bob is missing, let's make
sure Bob's here so we can nominate him, since he's not here. So we have several vacancies now? That's right.
Does it make sense to elect a president when we have so many vacancies? Well, we kind of have to,
don't we? Isn't that the procedural thing to do? I'm not sure we have to. It says here in our guidelines,
at the next regularly scheduled meeting. And if this is the next regularly scheduled meeting. If no
one puts their name forward, we would be unable to do that.
No, we would still have it because you could only remain chair if you were elected. Your position as
acting chair is up until a new chair is elected. You could be that person, but you have to be elected
to that office.
Right. Anybody who puts their name forward would have to be elected, of course. Right. That's the way
it works. Which means that you would have to either be nominated or nominated. Either way, you'd have
to be nominated and the process would go through for you to be the chair. But you don't remain interim
chair beyond this meeting. It's either you are voted to chair or another person becomes chair.
I am the elected vice chair. Vice chair is not chair. Can we continue with the agenda and put this under
new business? We have to go through the agenda first. I think that's a very good idea. I think that's
a very good idea. Let's do that. We can carry on and we will get back to it.
Well, I'd like to raise a point of order. Am I recognized? Let's see. I'm going to move into the certificates
of appropriateness. Chair, I would like to raise a point of order. Am I recognized? Yes, you're recognized.
What do you have to say?
Based on the guidelines, I believe that we're proceeding in a manner which is in opposition
to our guidelines. In that, it asks that we select a chair at the next meeting. And traditionally, we
have done so at the start of the meetings. Ever since I've been here, when a chair needs to be-
We're going to move this as suggested to the new business. We are proceeding in normal fashion. The
fact that it's been done one way or another way before makes no difference in that it's not in the rules
that we have to proceed that way. So we will continue on and we will bring it back up at a later time
in the meeting. Chair, I was raising a point of order. I had the floor. I was not finished with my point of order.
Mr. Golding interrupted me. You did not call him out of order. You're correct, but please finish your
comments. Thank you. Tradition has the force of a rule unless there is a rule which precedes it or which
prevents it and if traditionally
we've always selected our chair at the start of the meeting, then it has the force of a rule under our
guidelines as per Robert's Rule Section 4. So the fact that we have selected a chair since this commission
has been in effect at the start of the next regularly scheduled meeting, it has the force of a rule.
Now, if it is that this body would like to change that, it can do that by a vote.
But right now, the election of a chair at the start of a meeting is technically a rule of the HPC. Are
you finished? Sure. And also, we have our assistant attorney online. I'm trying to get her screen on
so she can speak and put in sharing. I'm just trying to put her on video right now. So just one moment, please.
Attorney Holmes, you are unmuted, but right now I'm trying to put you on video. Can you hear us?
I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time logging on with my laptop, so I'm on my iPad. Certainly. It doesn't
connect as well. This is Anna Holmes from the legal department. And weighing in on the issue of a new
chair, I think it's fine if you're going to put it in new business and keep it up. There's many times
at the beginning of the year where we have decided not to.
elected chair in the first meeting based on who was there or people wanting to give consideration on
whether they wanted to be nominated for that role or not. So Commissioner Cross, thank you for raising
the issue. I think it's fine if you want to have the election and it's also fine to do it at a later
time in this agenda and to move forward with the minutes and the approval of the items that are on the
actual agenda of the meeting if appropriate. I have a question.
Are you recognized as the chair? We are moving on. Point of information. I'd like to raise a point of
information. We are moving on. We are going to put the conversation about the chairman into a later
part of the agenda. Right now we are going into the COAs.
I'm going to read the statement before... Chair, for the purpose of the records, are you not recognizing
my request for a point of information? No, I'm not recognizing you at the moment I am moving on with
the agenda.
Procedure for certificates of appropriateness and demolition delays. For each item on the agenda, the
Historic Preservation Program Manager will present a staff report. We will then hear if the petitioner
has any additional information about the request followed by public comment.
Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask questions to staff, the petitioner,
and the public. We ask the petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed
by the chair, unless a question is directly addressed to them. Following commissioner questions, the
chair will entertain a motion from a commissioner regarding the petition. Once a motion is made, we
will then open up a discussion of the item for members of the commission only.
Finally, once the commissioners have each had a chance to speak, the commission will vote on the petition.
We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at
all times. Noah, would you present COA 26.68? Okay. Certificate of Appropriateness 26.68. Petitioner
is Heather Hales. This is for
800 West 6th Street in the Near West Side Historic District. The application, 800 West 6th Street is
a slightly altered gabled L house with a brick front porch, two over two mid-century wood sash windows,
and a picture window on the gable end. There are two front doors, one entering each wing of the house.
This request is for the installation of a new solar array on the street facing roof.
and this application has been approved by staff. The proposed solar installation is set close to the
roof surface and the pitch would not, sorry, close to the roof surface and pitch. It would not obscure
or damage any historic features. Our next item is COA 2669. This is for 221 North Walnut Street in the
Courthouse Square Historic District. Petitioner is Greg Elgar.
221 North Walnut Street is a five-bay break commercial building with a limestone facade facing Walnut
Street and a storefront with picture windows and wood ground floor level panels. The applicant is proposing
to install a sign on the current storefront location of the existing Blacks McInteele sign. The proposed
sign will be fabricated by
from 0.08 inch aluminum sheet. Measure approximately two feet high by seven feet wide. The aluminum
face will be finished black with the cinder name and logo rough cut through the aluminum panel. The
side will be mounted to the existing building facade using six metal standoffs, one near each corner
plus one at the top and one at the bottom center. Exteriorated mounting anchor wear and anchors appropriate
for the existing masonry will be used.
The sign is non-illuminated and will not contain any internal lighting, external lighting, electrical
components, plastic faces, or digital displays. COA 2669 has been approved by staff. The proposed signage
will be mounted in the location of existing signage on existing anchors, and its materials meet district
guidelines. OK.
COA 2671 for 635 South Walnut Street in the Elm Heights Historic District. 635 South Woodlawn is a two-story
1930s colonial revival house with a second-story sleeping porch on the south gable end and a one-story
shed addition on the north end that appears to have been added in the 1960s. The house demonstrates
a high degree of integrity with most of the original features intact. This request is for
the replacement of a street-facing window on that shed addition with a new wood aluminum clad window
to match the previous design. And this petition, COA 2671, has been approved by staff. The replacement
of this window on a side addition with the most
Faithful design and materials commercially available would have a relatively minor impact on a building
that otherwise retains most of its original design and materials. Okay, one more of these. For 1122
East 1st Street, this is also in the Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Rebecca Dirksen.
This is for 1122 East 1st Street. This is break four square with original three over one and four over
one windows and a second story door opening onto the porch roof. The backyard faces Hawthorne Street
and is enclosed by wood privacy fence. The plan replacement fence would be very similar to what exists
with some necessary adjustments. First of all, the original fence separating our lots was around easily
built well onto our property line.
approximately four feet. Our property was professionally surveyed and the goal is to correct that error
to respect the property line. Secondly, we're in the position of having to fix the fence anyway. We
are considering slightly adjusting the northernmost border of the fence where it is attached to the
house on the west side facing Hawthorne Street. The goal would be to cover the basement window and offer
a bit more privacy and security
especially during the winter when the oak leaf hydrangeas along the house foundation are not in leaf.
Additionally, the new placement would hide the exterior radon mitigation pipe from the street to make
it look a bit tidier and protect the hydrangeas from the deer who love to graze on them. Overall, this
would not be a dramatic change, but it would mean extending the west-facing fence approximately 12 feet
north. If permitted, this would add a total of about 12 feet of fencing. Third, from a cosmetic standpoint,
we will eventually stain the fence to protect the wood and avoid the current worn out weathered gray
look. The stain will be as natural as possible and will be selected to match and harmonize with the
brown brick on our house. On the walnut street facing portion of the fence, we have asked Value Fence
to provide us with a slightly more elevated finish than the current version. Namely, this would be a
finished top frame style rather than the current dog-eared style fence.
And Kirk has strongly recommended that we use fence post caps to extend the life of the fence and protect
the wood posts from rotting. The entrance gate would be in the same location and would be the same size,
double wide, as it currently is, but it would be nicer with the boards completely filling in the gate
rather than wide gaps between the boards as currently. And with the gentle arch cut in, sloping downward
to connect the height of the fence
to the gate opening rather than the abrupt and disharmonious gate opening at about half the height of
the full fence. So this application has been approved by staff. Overall, the alterations proposed for
this privacy fence are fairly minor. Although the change in footprint does require review, neither the
existing fence nor the proposed replacement would go against district guidelines.
Thank you. Let's move on then to demolition delay. TD 2614 at 331 South Grant. Is there someone to present
the petition this evening? Somebody to speak for the petition. Please go ahead. State your name first, please.
Oh, it's usually the... Usually I present the staff presentation first. Oh, well, I'm all right. Well,
let's... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm new to this, obviously. If you don't mind, I'd like to say a few
words about our demolition delay process first. Would the chair allow that? So I have records of demolition
delays going back to 2005. And I've always tried to be consistent with the way that it's been handled
by previous staff members.
Some of the goals and lines in the sand that we draw are about protecting buildings with outstanding
or notable significance or buildings that are located in national or state historic districts that aren't
otherwise protected by our code. There could also be exceptional historic interest that may not have
been picked up by the state survey. Also, the survey changes sometimes if members of the commission
disagree with a staff report
or want more information or second opinion, you can always make a motion for that. We've just been getting
a lot more of these for full demolition than we used to. Used to be maybe about half of the number that
we get a year now. And it can be a frustrating process, but I don't want people to be discouraged by
it because, you know, serving on this commission, you do make a difference, and there are a lot of people
sitting around this table who have made a real difference.
Your comments and your votes matter. And I hope that you consider these carefully. I did ask Noah recently
if it would ever be possible for this commission to be given the power to designate historic structures.
And the answer came back pretty definitely that no, it has to be a
like City Council, a political body can do it so it could not be transferred to us. So that possibility
has flowed, I'm sorry to say. We'll continue on with what we have. Okay. Would you like to present this
first one? Sure. This is for CAO A2614. I believe the petitioner is present. This is 331 South Grant Street.
built between 1890 and 1897, 331 South Grant Street, is a two-story Queen Anne style house with a hip
to roof and cross gables. The house has a wraparound corner porch and few distinctive features. There's
a low limestone retaining wall on the edge of the property, a wrought iron fence installed in the early
2000s. The property is rated as contributing on the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory
and exhibits a high degree of integrity judging from historic photos
and materials including original doors and two-over-one windows. Well, the first possible owner of the
house is listed in the 1900 city directory as Marie Fuller. The house does not appear in the 1900 census,
and nobody by that name appears in later directories or newspaper references. I will note that there's
a significant Bloomington individual named Matty Jacobs Fuller.
The best that I could tell, this is not one of the houses that she lived in. She lived in General Morton's
house on North Walnut, and then subsequently moved into the house that became her barbershop across
from Rose Hill Cemetery. By 1909, this house passed into the hands of real estate agent and landlord
William Andy Hazel and his wife Laura. The couple lived in the house until 1920, and after moving out,
rented rooms through the 1920s.
In 1929, the house was bought by Joseph W. Robertson, a retired blacksmith for the Monon Railroad, working
as a custodian for the Bloomington Eagles Club. His wife Laura, described as a lovable woman, lived
with him in the house alongside their boarders, most of whom were Indiana University students. Their
son Layden and his wife owned the house until 1979, continuing to rent out rooms.
In 1973, the House received the distinction of being one of the first rental properties to appear before
the Bloomington Board of Housing Quality Appeals to address multiple safety violations. The recommendation
from staff is for the release of demolition delay 2614. This two-story Queen Anne House is larger and
perhaps older than most of the properties that are considered for demolition delay by the BHPC. It needs
to be considered in its context.
The area between 3rd and Smith has a number of similar Queen Anne style homes, rated contributing notable
and outstanding for their architectural character. Two notable and one outstanding Queen Anne houses
can be found, for instance, at the intersection of Smith and Dunn, which exhibit a high degree of integrity
and a number of distinctive original features. One block north are two Queen Anne houses, which retain
some characteristic spindle work and siding,
but have been labeled as contributing by the state DHPA survey for displaying a lower level of integrity
and distinction. 331 South Grant is closer to these properties in terms of architectural significance.
Barring any outstanding historical significance, or unless there's a reason to reevaluate 331 South
Grant's architectural significance, staff does not believe that it is eligible for individual designation.
Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add at this point?
Let's just add quick that if you walk by the property, many of the historical items that were at one
point have been removed, changed. It is six units now. It's not a single house anymore. They have six
different rentals, I believe. And just from observing, it seems like there's a variety of different
materials that have been used on it.
Just taking that as far as, you know, what comes out. Thank you. Would anybody from the like to speak
to this demolition delay? You state your name first, please. Jenny Southern. I live in the
Heights Neighborhood Association on the committee is outside our district by very familiar with the house.
I guess it stated this is 1900. I would have guessed it a little older, but if that's as far back as
we can track it, that's, I believe that. I've been in this house many times. It's got a dug dirt cellar,
or at least it did when I was in college and I was in it. It has some fine features on the inside, at
least it did, and it's housed a lot of people. It's a really, it's not,
I'm just wondering how far over we're going to demolish into that area. There are some neighborhoods
that have been kind of eaten away. And it's always said, oh, well, there's some other nice ones farther
up the block, up the street. And then that one goes. And then it's inched around this way. And there's
some very fine houses in that area. And I, as a single person, can't say, oh, we should have another
district down there.
But I'll remind everyone, this is where the Wiley house is. There's some very nice, as Noah said, some
buildings in there. There's a beautiful arts and law. So I'm not going to say, oh, let's save this house.
I don't really know that much about the house. I love the house. It's got a nice walled pool. But I'm
worried about that whole area there.
And it extends down to Third Street Park. There's some really fine houses down there, big, great, beautiful
ones with sleeping porches and stained glass, and it's all still there. But it won't be for long if
we keep going in the same direction. So I would like you guys to start thinking about possibly maybe
we could designate something in that area before people invest
with the idea of tearing things down and replacing them with larger things. I know it's zoned pretty
highly there, so it's pretty open for everybody there. I believe it's, is it H? Okay, I'm not familiar
with it. It used to be RH. I'm not sure what the district is now. Do we know what the planning zone
is in that area? It's not important really for this discussion, but it is high. So these could go down
with apartment buildings, I believe.
at any time, and it's just according to how we envision this area in the future. We no longer have very
many owner-occupied houses down there. There are few, very few. So it's not like we as the people at
Elm Heights can get together and say, hey, we all live down there. We want you to save it because it's
been a rental area for a long time.
So the city would like to say this is for future generations, that somebody else in the nest will have
to take a look at it and step up and think about this as a future idea. That's what I had to put in
there. Oh, and my husband, Tim Miller, lived in that house. When I dated him, I was in college. So that's
the only person I ever looked at him. So thank you very much. Thank you.
Would anyone else from the public like to speak? We're back to the Commission. Commissioner, questions
at this point? Commissioner Castaneda? No question. Thank you. Commissioner Golden? No question. Commissioner
Duffy? I have a question about, do we know what the plan would be for the limestone wall? Well, first
do we know
anything about the age of the advanced number? Age, I'm not sure. I mean, to answer Ms. Southern's question,
the house is built between 1890 and 1897. So we know it shows up the 1897 fire tracks map. Does not
show up in the 1890 census, or I don't think there's a good map for fire that will show that.
But it's definitely 1890s. The wall, I don't know. There's a picture from the History Center, which
still has the watermark because I didn't pay for it, that shows the wall along with the older, I guess
you'd call it a classic queen porch. They spend their while as to what the plan is for whether the wall
is going to be demolished. I'm not sure. OK, thank you.
Well, I think the most important question and for probably the historic perspective is the Maddie Fuller
connection or possible connection. So it seems to me that we don't know who built the house.
Is that correct? Okay.
And we don't know anyone who owned it or lived in it until the first one listed up there, which is,
what, 1909, I believe? 1900. Or 1900. And the first one is Mary Fuller. OK. So she could have been the
builder or could have owned it for some time. We don't know who this Mary Fuller is. So Maddie Fuller
is very important in African-American, local African-American history.
She helped build the church by Fairview, the AME church with money that she made as a singer, I believe.
So she's someone very important. And so if she built this house or was renting out this house as a boarding
house for African-American students at IU, that would be an important and exceptional thing.
But since we don't know about it, it really gives me pause one way or the other. I know that you've,
I'm sure you've done a pretty good search. My question is, can you think of any other places we could
turn to to try to pin this down? Do we have some oral history or just any other avenue? Anything you
might be able to think of at the history center? Like any documents you have on?
I would if you haven't talked to Liz Mitchell yet, because she's done extensive oral histories with
some of the older black families that have been long established here. And so she may remember someone
talking about something. We haven't gotten those from Liz yet, but we're dying to get our hands on and
just transcribe them so we can have it at her fingertips.
But Liz would be where I would, I'm guessing Megan and Hillary would feel the same. We would start with
Liz and move on from there. Thank you. That's my question. That was my question. Commissioner Schley.
Nope. That was my question as well. I'm just sad to see him out. I don't know when it's going to drive
around the neighborhoods to look at. Well, it's more of a comment. I'll save it.
Mr. Cross. So we have options at this point. If no motion is made, then all of these DDs are on their
own time limit and will time out at some point and be released for demolition. Or we could have a motion
that could go up or down. Yes? When was this one filed?
I believe this was September 9th. I have a question, just a procedural question. Do we do commissioner
comments before we make any sort of motions? Yes. Let me get through what I'm trying to say. The options
we have available are also to ask Noah to go in deeper, try to find information.
for us and then pursue it at some other time. So we have three or four things that can be done this
evening. With that, I think our question period is over. We're ready to go into comments. Commissioner
Cross, would you like to start that?
I have a feeling I'm thinking very similar along your line, just because we have so little African-American
history that has been saved in our town. Most of it has, unfortunately, at times with intention, been
raised when it was known. I know that's not the case right now. Please know that. But if there is, like
you mentioned, Treasurer Butler, if there is potential that Maddie Jacobs Fuller had a hand in having
this house built, I mean, I think that I would be
willing to make a motion if we could delay our vote. I don't know proper procedure interim chair Baker,
but if we be able that's why I was asking about the time frame to see if we can give Noah enough time
until our next meeting to check with Liz or anyone else she may recommend to see if we can find if there
is a link or if we can definitively say there's not a link.
that would ease my mind considerably. But raising a house like this and then finding out she had a hand
in it, it's not going to look very good. Let's go through the rest of comments and come back. My comments
concur with what Commissioner Schlegel said. And I plan on making a motion to delay when I
get the opportunity. So I just want to put that on the table that I intend to do.
I don't have any additional comments. Thank you. My only comment is I did look up his own units RH so
it would be torn down. Most definitely. Let's go back then. If you wish to make a motion at this point.
I would like to make a motion now. How do I phrase it to be to give Noah time to
But what are you wanting to do? I would like to give Noah time to look into perhaps this oral history
avenue to see if we can more fully delineate whether or not she had a hand in this building. So I don't
know if I need to frame that as a motion to continue. Is that what I would do? Frame it as a motion
to ask Noah to do further research
into the house. If we want to put a time limit on that. So the next regular meeting. Yes, that would
be great. So I'd like to make a motion to continue for NOAA to have time to look into this angle and
to be able to report it at the next meeting. Point of information. What do the guidelines say about
what's required for demolition delays? The guidelines speak to
the process that needs to happen when a request is made for more time. I think it's 1K. Could you check
that for me, please? If I could jump in for a minute with Chair, I'm sorry, Commissioner Butler. I think
if your motion is clear that what you would like to do with these two
Continue the demolition delay and provide an opportunity for staff to do some additional research and
continue the case to the next meeting. That would be a proper motion at this time, because you do have
that option to ask for additional time for research. And that's what the 90-day demolition delay is
for, is to provide that opportunity. All right. That is IK Chair. Did I have a floor? No.
I didn't have a floor. We have a motion on the floor that we need to carry through first, and then we'll
decide in a moment. Right. The motion is for Noah to do further research and report by our next meeting.
Let's call the roll on that motion.
Okay, so we have a motion on the floor in Demolition Delay 2614 to continue this item to allow additional
time to be for the next meeting of the HPC. We'll take a roll call vote on that motion to continue.
Interim Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes.
Commissioner Golden?
Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion to continue passes. 6-0. All right, thank you. Motion passes.
Chair. I'm going to move on to... Chair, I raised the point of information and I asked that the guidelines...
We are in the demolition delays... Points of order, Chair. We need to continue on with the demolition
delays. Chair, I can raise a point. We'll get to your questions when we get to Commissioner
Chair, are we going to follow the procedures and guidelines in Robert's rules, or are we not? We are
going to proceed with demolition delays right now. So you're denying my point of order? I am not recognizing
you. Okay. Let's move on with demolition delay 26-15. Demolition delay 26-15 for 503 North Grant. A
petitioner is Alexa Lewis, I believe.
Somebody is present on the petitioner's behalf. If I may. Built in 1930, 503 North Grant is a side gabled
buff scratched brick four square with three tapered porch posts and original three over one and four
over one windows. These unusual bricks can be found on several contemporaneous commercial buildings
built by the Mitchell brothers.
The house is a small rear shed addition. This house replaced an earlier single story house with a similar
footprint. 503 North Grant was first owned by barber Alfred Bryant and his wife Klaue, proprietors of
Bo Bromwell Barber and Beauty. After several years, the couple sold the house to Marie and Ruth Scherer,
an express delivery man. Maurice moved to the country
in the late 1930s where he and his wife were active in the Monroe County Agricultural and Horticultural
Society and other local volunteer organizations. From the 1940s through 1955, the house was occupied
by the Dess family. Morris and Sophie Dess were Jewish immigrants from the former Russian Empire, and
Morris worked as a purchaser for Fell Iron Works. Their son, Dr. Howard Dess, worked as a division director
at Union Carbide
prior to becoming a library science professor at Rutgers University. The desk sold the house to salesman
Thomas Lafferty and his wife, Jo. The couple's son, Mike, grew up in the house and will later become
an active member of the Brown County, Indiana music scene. From 1975 through 1977, the house was occupied
by Elizabeth Noyes and her two children. At the time, Noyes was earning her JD from Indiana University
and would go on to serve as a judge in the Monroe County Circuit Court.
The staff recommendation is for the release of Demolition Delay 2615. Do we have a petitioner that wants
to say anything?
Hi, Tim Kober with Legate Architects, just representing Alexa Lewis. Again, we are just requesting the
demolition delay be released. The house has been modified over the years in addition to put onto the
back of it as well. So I guess that's all I have. Thank you. Anyone from the public would like to speak
to this demolition delay?
to the Commission. Questions? Let's start with Commissioner Cross. No questions. Mr. Slagle. No questions.
Commissioner Butler. I have procedural questions. We don't have anyone online tonight. The only two
people that we have online, well right now
For a moment there it was our corporate council, but right now the only other person online is Anna
Holmes. OK. I guess I'll just save it for comments. So I don't really have any questions. Thank you.
Commissioner Duffy? No questions. Commissioner Quigley? No questions. Commissioner Stostedad? All right.
Let's start in with the comments. Let's go back the other way. That's right. First chance. I have no
comments either.
Mr. Gold? Again, this is the zoned RH, and it is in an area of town that has been significantly changed.
So I don't support releasing the demolition delay. Commissioner Duffy? I just thought of a question
I had. Go ahead.
This is the one with the brick that's like Mitchell Brothers. The wire cut. Yeah, it's really an interesting
brick. Does that suggest to you that it was built by them? And does that have any significance?
Hard to say. So I know of four buildings in town that have this scratched brick.
Two of them are commercial buildings built by the Mitchell brothers. One of the ones is, you know, the
one that the car ran into earlier this year, if you remember that. They were actually looking for this
kind of brick, so. If demolition delay is released, you know, you might consider finding a purchaser.
Anyway, a digression. There is one other house that has this style of scratched brick, which is a bungalow
that is locally designated along North Walnut. So this is,
I believe it's actually now within the boundaries of the Cottage Grove Conservation District. So all
of these houses were built around 1930. OK. Thank you. I don't have any comment. Well, I have some comments.
First of all, I agree the area
Near it, some of the houses have been lost and there are some apartment buildings, but right around
this house and going the other way, it's very much still a neighborhood. So it's sort of on this cusp.
So I wouldn't just throw it out because there's some bad bath water up the street. Individually, I think
this house is very interesting, particularly because of the bricks. It's an unusual house.
The fact that the house adjacent to it is also coming up for demolition delay. And the two houses work
together. If you take the time to look at both of them, the front porches sort of mirror, they each
have the same style of columns. One has the three, one has the two. It's very interesting how these
houses work together. And so for those reasons, it's actually
would qualify for either E or G on our list of things that we can use to save buildings. It contains
any architectural style, detail or other element in danger of being lost. There's four of these buildings
in the city.
of however many hundreds, thousands of buildings, that's in danger of being lost. It's a visual feature
of the neighborhood, that's the rest of E, which I would argue those two anchor that block. And then
G portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by distinctive architectural style. These
houses are very, it has an addition on the back, but otherwise it's very architecturally pure. And so
I'm going to,
seek to continue this one as well when I get a chance to. So those are my comments. Thank you. Commissioner
Slater? I have nothing to add. Commissioner Cross? No. All right. We're back ready for something I forgot
to say when I said we had options. The obvious option is to make a motion
and send it to City Council for designation, which we also can do. So at this point, is there a motion
on this demolition delay? I'd like to make a motion to continue this so that we can have more discussion
and debate about recommending it to the City Council. Again, a motion
Appropriate motion would be to ask NOAA to do further research and report back the next meeting. But
also I would just encourage. So a motion for NOAA to do further research and report back. And my fellow
commissioners to take a minute longer to look at it and then ask. Do we have a second? We do have a
second. We have a motion and a second.
Okay, so this would be for demolition delay 2615. A motion to continue has been seconded. We'll take
a roll call vote on this. Interim chair Baker. Yes. Treasure Butler. Yes. Commissioner Castaneda. Yes.
Commissioner Duffy. Yes. Commissioner Golden. No. Commissioner Schlegel.
The motion to continue passes five to one. Thank you. Motion passes. All right, let's continue on with
DD25-16. OK, so this house is next door. Same petitioner. Very similar style. Built in 1931, so a year
later. 509 North Grant Street is a hip to roof brick four square.
with a half-width porch and tapered posts and six-over-one wood windows and two stone accents protruding
from the wall beneath the centered second-story windows. The house was a small shed addition. Like the
house next door, it replaced an earlier single-story house with a similar footprint. I checked. They
had similar footprints, but they were single-story. And they were wood, so I don't know what's going
on. The house was first owned by Harold P. Burgess,
a salesman for Shell Petroleum and his wife Violet. From 1936 to 1940, they rented the house to several
other young families. The house was bought in 1940 by Clarence Parrish, a cobbler and farmer who raised
chickens and pigs, had a second property in the country where he and his wife Grace moved in 1943. The
house was then bought by Helen Noel, a secretary for the zoology and economics department at Indiana
University.
at Indiana University, who rented spare rooms to students. In 1964, Paul Andremma, aka P.G. Stevens,
bought the house. Paul was a mailman who had spent time as a prisoner of war in Germany, and P.G. served
as a state delegate for the Indiana Democrats. The Stevens moved out in 1985. The recommendation here
is for release of demolition delay 2616.
Does the petitioner have anything he would like to add about this property? No, thank you. Anyone from
the public like to speak to this violation of the law? All right, we're back to the commission. Questions?
I think we'll start with you. No questions at this time, thank you. All right. No questions. No questions.
Commissioner Duffy? No questions. Commissioner Butler? No questions.
Well, the same thing I said about the last house, I think applies to this house. There's sort of this
match set. And so I think if we're going to consider the one, we should consider both of them.
Once again, this is a unique era.
1930s houses are hard to come by. It's just it was a decade when not a lot was built for obvious reasons.
So there's that, there's the unique style. There's also sort of, it's a worthy house to save. It's a
story of the three little pigs. You start out with a house of sticks, and then you have a house of boards.
But the house with bricks is supposed to last.
I think that it's worthy of consideration. So once again, I'm going to make a motion to continue this
so the commissioners and NOAA can have time to do a little more research until next week or next meeting.
Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Comments? Well, my only comment is this reminds me of the pair of houses at
the corner of Eagleton and Walker.
And I remember commenting on the relationship between the houses. And my understanding was that there's
no way to propose a set. But we can propose them, well, unless you can do some research into it. Is
that a question? No.
comment is, if it might be possible, maybe there's a better justification for it in this case, if you
find some information that gives you reason to believe they're built by the same person, for example,
which we knew those two were not. So I would support looking into this a little further. Mr. Golden?
My only comment is
The demolition delay is a high bar. If we start sending multiple properties to the city council, maybe
they're worthy, maybe they're not. I think in this process, we need to be really careful about what
we save. And what I heard about both of the last property in this one is
They're distinctive homes. There was no historic, as far as we live there, of note, and that we can't
save everything. That's all. All right, let's come back. I'd like to make a motion to continue.
this into our next regularly scheduled meeting so that staff and commission members can have more time
to investigate the house. With that we have a motion on the floor. If you would call the roll please.
Certainly this one is on demolition delay 2616. The motion to continue this item to the next meeting
of the HPC.
We'll take a roll call vote. Interim Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda?
Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? No. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. The motion to continue
passes five to one. All right. The motion passes. Thank you. Moving on to DD 26-17 and 714 East Cottage Grove.
This is going to be the last one of the evening. 714 East Cottage Grove Avenue. Petitioner is Ernest
Chi. Is there anybody present online or in the room for this petition? I am. OK. Then I'll begin with
a report. Built shortly after the turn of the century, his neighborhood was platted in 1900. 714 East
Cottage Grove is a pyramidal roofed cottage with two gabled wings, a two-side wraparound porch with
three entries.
Alterations include the replacement of windows and porch posts. 714 East Cottage Grove changed hands
frequently in the early 1900s, first appearing in the city directory as the residence of Indiana University
janitor Cooper Ellsworth in 1916. Over the course of the following decade, the house was sold to machine
operator Forrest Hall and grocer John Mahan. In 1928, the house was bought by Frank and Catherine Harrell,
a semi-retired farmer, Frank sold livestock and worked at a furniture store owned by a relative. The
couple rented out the house through the 1930s, including their son Ralph, who worked as the chief clerk
for the Indiana University Purchasing Department, and Harry Krigler, the director of the Bloomington
Community Bank. Frank and Catherine moved back in in 1938, and Catherine lived in the house until her
death in 1950.
The house was then bought by a landlord named Joseph Crouch, whose mother, Mamie, moved in in 1957.
Mamie was a milliner, in other words, a haberdasher by trade, who allegedly learned her trade from Louisa
Frederici, the wife of Buffalo Bill Cody. This is from her obituary, so maybe it's a family tale. I
don't know. She operated her own store prior to retirement and lived at 714,
from after her retirement until her death in 1984. The recommendation from staff is for the release
of demolition in 2016-17. Thank you. Comments from the petitioner? Comments from public?
the question because it says cottage go on it. This is not an historic district. No, it's not. OK, I
was just confirming that. Thank you. Sometimes it's a little confusing. They have the same names. Anyone
else like to speak? All right, we're back to the Commission for questions to start with you. Mr Kostanow.
No questions, thank you. Mr Goldman. Mr Duffy.
Mr. Schlegel. I'm just curious what this one is rated or zoned. I'm looking at it. You are? OK. Sorry.
I mean, the rating is contributing. It's zoned. RM. Which one's that one? I'm sorry.
Not quite as high as our age, but it's. OK, thank you. No other questions. Commissioner Cross, do you
have questions? Alright, that's reverse. So do you have comments? No. Not the moment. Mr Butler. So
Commissioner Golden was
saying earlier, we can't save them all. I agree. This is one that I think that, you know, I'd love to
be able to save it. I don't see an avenue that would be reasonable in trying to save it. But I think
that, you know, not being a rubber stamp is good and forwarding things to the city council is good and
it is a two part process. And so if we let them do their part of the process,
I don't think that that's, you know, abrogating our responsibilities. We don't need to be the judge,
jury, and executioner of every single building that comes before us. We don't need to make all the decisions.
So, you know, even if we recommend something that we're just recommending it for step one and then the
public debate and the city council will still weigh in. But in this case, I'm not going to make any
motions. I'm going to just let this one go. Commissioner Duffy. No comments.
Does anyone wish to make a motion regarding DD?
We have a motion and a second to release DD-2617. With that, I think we call the roll. Okay, so there's
a motion on the floor for demolition delay 2617 at 714 East Cottage Grove. We'll take a roll call vote
on that motion to release interim Baker, interim Chair Baker. Yes.
It's 714. 714, that's right. Sorry. Thank you. I thought I said 714, my apologies. Treasurer Butler.
Yes. Commissioner Castaneda. Yes. Commissioner Duffy. Yes. Commissioner Golden. Yes. Commissioner Schlegel.
Yes. The motion to release passes six
All right, DD 2617 is released. And we have a document that needs to be. Do I read that now? Today regarding
the property located at 714 East Cottage Grove Avenue.
The Historic Preservation Commission declares that it got notice of proposed demolition and, after today's
discussion, sees no need to review the plans any further and waives the rest of the 90-day demolition
delay waiting period for one year. The HBC may later recommend the property for historic designation
to the Common Council. Thank you. All right, we're moving on to old business. Noah, do you have any
old business to bring up?
It's something I put under new business, but I think it might be worth bringing up under old business,
because it is pretty old business, if you don't mind. That is, do you folks remember the core building?
The old Bloomington Hospital building? It is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
So this application was part of a tax credit application for
turning it into affordable apartments. And they're getting their approval from National Park Service,
so that's some positive news. That's great. Anything else you have? For old business, oh no, unless
there's any questions. Let's move on to new business. I have something for old business.
It's been brought to my attention by a member of the public that the April 9th, 2026 meeting packet
that is published online right now has a mistake about a property at 1101 North Lincoln. The description
for the property is not the description for the property. It says it's a colonial revival. It's that little
1950s three or four room house up in Garden Hill that we released. So it's got the wrong description
on it. So it's like a clerical thing, but people were concerned. So I'm bringing that. Yeah, I can amend
that. OK, thank you. Thank you. All right, let's move on then to new business. Anyone, would you like
to start with the vote?
Is there a motion for the vote for electing the chair? Well, that's where I'm heading with the new business.
Because I have some new business as well. So we can resume the discussion on the chair. I may not be
completely up to date on the rules here, so I may need some advice from Noah and from legal. My understanding
was that the vice
The vice chair continued until there was a new executive, a new chairman was elected. Apparently, there's
some discussion that that's not the case, but when the timing is right to do that, if someone, as far
as I know, if someone wants to put themselves out there, they can make a motion at any time that they'd
like to be nominated for the chairman.
Without that, as far as I know, we continue on with the vice chair replacing until someone is elected
into that position. And I had some questions about that before we go too far. I don't know if that was
an okay time. Yeah, please. Please, we're here for discussion. Okay, I wanted to confirm and know I
know you've told us and I'm sorry I have forgotten.
Do we just have two more meetings because November and December are all, I'm correct in thinking this?
Unless whoever the chair happens to be after this meeting has a reason to call a special meeting, then
we have two left. Okay. Okay. And then how many, we have six voting members. Like we're just shy. Like
one person can miss and we make quorum.
With City Council, they have to approve our new folks. So how many open positions do we have? And then
also in that vein, how close or where are they in the process of getting us more folks so we're not
running such a... So there's three unfilled voting positions and three unfilled non-voting positions.
We have, I would say, at least three very qualified applicants.
I've given recommendations to city council or sorry to the mayor's office because I think we're sort
of more urgently in need of filling more voting positions. What I've heard and this may or may not,
I can always be surprised is that they want to vote until or they want to wait until positions roll
over at the beginning of next year.
We don't have anyone rolling off of their current folks, right? Like, unless anyone resigns. Oh, my
term ends this December, yeah. Oh, you do? Yeah, which I'm hoping will reapply for it, so yeah. OK.
Have you submitted your application for your term? I have not. Yeah, you'll have to do that. It's not
on there. Usually, yeah, I would get an email for the request if I do that.
the mayor they don't want since we only have two meetings left there's no real intention on getting
us some folks they want to restart I could be wrong that's just the last that I heard thank you no any
other comments on this yes
Accepting that, we have accepted Robert's Rules of our parliamentary process. Robert's Rules 4120 says
matters that the bylaws required to be considered at a particular meeting, such as a nomination or election
of officers, may be regarded as a special order for the meeting and be considered under the heading
of special orders in the order of business. Robert's Rules
also lists in 41.5 the sequence of meetings unless the body has adopted a different order of business,
which to my knowledge, that is not the case. It starts with reading and approval of minutes, reports
of officers, boards, and standing committees, reports of special committees,
and special orders, which means that by Robert's rules, the election of offices, which is a special
order, should come after the approval of minutes. And I see nothing which would indicate that that can
be set aside. So, it also speaks to points of order and the fact that
points of order is a privilege of the member and cannot be dismissed. It must be heard and it goes on
and on and on. My concern is, are we going to follow Robert's rules or are we not going to do it? Because
Robert's rules defines the process in very specific ways. It defines roles and responsibilities and
who has the right to do a thing, like a point of order and make a request.
where it can be made and what the responsibilities of the chair is. None of that has happened today.
So I would just like it to be clear. Are we going to follow Robert's rules? Because Robert's rule says
here clearly that this election should have taken after the minutes. But I was told, or we were instructed
to do otherwise, but no citation reference precedence was
used to support that. I didn't hear that. Right? I raised points of information and I was cut off. I
raised points of order and was cut off. Do we still have legal or law? She'd like to know. Could you
speak to it, please? Sure.
So in our own article, our bylaws, we do talk about officers. We talk about electing them annually at
their first meeting, which, again, as we've discussed, we don't always do at the first meeting if there
is a reason to delay that vote because of membership or because people want to take a minute to think
about things. And this is our first meeting. You're right, Mr. Pross.
But this is the first meeting since the retirement of the chair. We have put it on under New Business
so you all can have a thorough discussion about whether you want to take that up or whether you want
to put it on the agenda to have a vote on a chairperson for the next meeting. I think that's totally
fine to do it that way. And you can take, or you can take it up now. I mean, we do have a vice chair
that is perfectly capable of serving until such a time as that in your chair.
is selected. So if you want to take that up, you can. Thank you. If I may, Chair, may I? A special order
is an order of the day. The Chair has an affirmative duty to take up the election in the proper sequence
before unfinished business and new business. He has that duty, even if no one raises the point of order.
doesn't give us the authority to decide to do this in a different way. It does not. It doesn't allow
us to do it. And if it is that you are going to argue tradition, then if there is a rule which speaks
against that tradition, and there is a conflict, the rule wins. Robert's rules again. So I
I am confused. I am essentially a rule follower. And especially when the people's business is at issue
and legislation is made to empower us through the democratic process, I have an issue with just sweeping
these things aside.
have adopted Robert's rules, we should follow them. And if we don't, there should be some sightable
authority which allows us to not follow them, to bend them, to delay them. And I do not see where there
is that authority granted to delay a codified requirement in our bylaws to elect
a new chair. If it is, I suspect if the interim chair wants to nominate himself and he votes for himself
and he wins by one vote, then that process has been followed. Right? I honestly do not see and I open
myself to be enlightened as to a reason that prevents us from obeying what
or own guidelines mandate us to do. I raised a point of order. It was not heard. Robert's Rules does
not allow someone who raises a point of order to be dismissed. It is the right of the member. He must
be allowed and the chair must rule in one of a few very specific ways as itemized in Robert's Rules.
But I had the floor. Persons interrupted me.
But if I had insisted that I not be interrupted, one of several adjectives would have been used to describe
my defending my right under the rules. And I could go on and list the number of things that happened
in this meeting up to this point that were in breach of Robert's rules.
So it needs to be made clear. Are we going to be servants of our guidelines, of our rules, or are we
just going to just fly by the seat of our pants? I'm exhausted. Are you finished? Yes, sir, I am. Then
I have the floor.
I want to respond to you as best I can. Robert's rules are not a law. It's a flexible structure. It
needs to be a flexible structure. Yes, it says we should do things at certain times, and we do to the
best of our abilities. We try to follow it here, and I think we do a pretty good job of it. When it
comes to the voting,
for president, someone has to put their name out there, and they can do that at any time they want,
and we can take it up. No one has, and I've asked. So, I mean, to belay the, to keep making the point
that we're not following it is to say, I can't force someone to put their name out there to become president
of this organization.
If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. John, please, go ahead. I have two points. My first point is
Robert's Rules is incredibly cumbersome, and I think it was probably a mistake on our part to adopt
it with, I mean, I thought we had a gun to our heads that we had to adopt it, but it's really an awful
lot of rules to adopt, and it's really hard for everybody to navigate that. Having said that, I would
like to put my name forward
for the chair position, let's have an election. I'd also like to nominate Commissioner Baker. And then
we can have an election and then we can move forward. Do I need to make that into a motion? So I'd like
to, well, so first I'm making two nominations and then I would like to make a motion that we have an
election. Is that possible? Oh wait, they need to be seconded, yes.
Yes, I would like to nominate Commissioner Baker for chair. If I. I'm sorry for what for chair I nominated
you for chair no. I don't accept. I'm vice chair. Yes. Chairman no. I think.
that I reach out. I say that I've given it a lot of thought, and I have considered it. Early on when
I came in, I made a motion to nominate myself. I did that to get things moving. I was voted down. That
was fine. I was happy that commissioners didn't want me for chair. They wanted someone else. But it
got the process moving. And since then,
I'm happy to serve the organization, and I'm happy to do it as vice chair. But I would like to see someone
younger than me, preferably by about 20 years, would be good that has the energy and the time to take
this on. We've had two good chairmen, I think. Two people, unfortunately, that just couldn't continue
to serve, and I wish they could have,
felt like both of them were very good. And I think we need someone like that to put the energy into
the organization. So I'm sorry, that's my answer to you. Would anyone else like to be nominated? Well,
first, I'm going to make a nomination. But I'd like to correct the record. You said that you asked if
anyone wanted to nominate anyone. So you asked if there were any nominations.
Earlier in the meeting, when I brought up the whole issue of voting for a chair, you asked that question,
and I said, yes, I would like to nominate somebody. And then there was a discussion, and then it was
moved. It was decided to move to the end. So when you said that, you asked for a nomination, and nobody
indicated that they wanted to nominate anyone. I just wanted to correct that record, because I said
I wanted to nominate someone. As an advisory member, you can't make a motion
or a nomination. Sorry. Where does it say that? That's what the Anna Holmes, our assistant... Yes, but
I checked the record and there's nothing which says, I can't vote... I'm just reading what I'm being
told to say. I know. It's clear that I can't vote on... I can't make motions, second motions, or there's
something else I can't.
But with regards to the election of officers, that's a nomination, that's not a motion. In any event,
I can make my opinions noted even without making a nomination. Maybe somebody else can pick it up as
a nomination. I think you're looking at me and probably you're trying to address
somebody that has a say. I'm just a staff person taking notes. In any direction that I look, I'm going
to be looking at somebody. Please stop the conversation between the two of you. You should be directing
to me. Oh, yes. Sorry. I believe that John Butler would make an excellent chair for this commission.
And regardless of whether I can or cannot nominate him, I believe that it is my opinion that he has
all the qualities, the bearing, the intelligence, the experience, the knowledge, the temperament, that
would make an excellent chair. So I'm hoping that somebody who can nominate someone will nominate.
Thank you. So are you formally making a motion to nominate yourself for president of the commission?
And do we have a second? We have Commissioner Duffy seconds. All right, fine. Then let's vote. Let's
call the vote. OK, there's a motion on the floor to nominate John Butler as the commission chair. We'll
go ahead and take a roll call vote on that. We'll start with interim Chair Baker. Yes. Treasurer Butler. Yes.
Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel?
Yes. Okay, that motion passes 6-0. All right, thank you. The motion passes. You are president of the
commission. Now, as far as my role is concerned as vice, as far as I know, I continue on? Yes. Unless
you want to step down, but you can continue on. I'll continue on until...
Can we nominate Schlegel, Commissioner Schlegel, as treasurer? Since he just stepped in. Have we lost
our treasurer? We lost our treasurer. All the books are in auto. I turn over the books to the commissioners.
I nominate him as treasurer of the organization.
You have seconded. All right. Do we have a motion on the floor? Please call the roll. I will. There's
a motion on the floor that's been seconded to nominate Daniel Schlegel, Commissioner Schlegel, as treasurer.
We'll take that roll call vote. So much movement going on today. Vice Chairman. Yes. Chair Butler. Yes.
Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel?
Yes. That motion passes 6-0. We also have a new treasurer. All right. Thank you very much. That's our
responsibility. Do we have any commissioner comments? Oh, do you mind if I bring up some new business?
New business. Yes, please. You should. I don't want to take up too much of people's time. I'm speaking
about this because it's something you should all be aware about, but I can't speak
as a representative city, even though I believe the mayor has commented on it. There is a Senate bill
that's been proposed for the U.S. Senate to deregulate a number of, I guess, federal regulatory procedures.
I believe the last section of the bill deals specifically with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
which basically what section 106 does is, if you're not familiar, when there's a federal undertaking,
so money being spent or a permit being issued, there has to be an investigation of if it's going to
impact any historic archaeological or Native American religious sites. And then there has to
be a consultation made with the public and with
state and tribal historic preservation officers to determine whether there will be any adverse effects
on any of those resources. And then there has to be a discussion about how those effects could be mitigated.
The federal agency does not necessarily have to mitigate those effects, but they at least need to demonstrate
that they've had a public conversation about it and why they decide not to mitigate.
Some of the changes that are proposed in this new Senate bill, which is SB 5653, would include basically
hands over all the power to each federal agency to make these decisions at their own discretion, including
contacting or consulting with anybody besides state historic preservation offices.
It would also allow the Department of the Interior to speak on behalf of tribal historic preservation
offices, even though they don't necessarily have information that is privately held by tribal historic
preservation offices. It would get rid of requirements for public notice of federal undertakings. It
would prohibit injunctive relief if a mistake is made by a federal agency.
And there's other things in there, but I mean, that's the gist of it. I think you should all know that
this is going on, and it's a very big deal for historic preservation in the US. It won't affect what
we do in this room for the most part.
But I encourage you all to look into it. Would you characterize this as a weakening of historic protection?
Yeah. That's what I have the impression. I was like weakening is maybe an understatement. Anyway, that's
my new business, Core Building in SB 5623. Thank you. All right.
Mr. Comments, any? Was that you? That was a yes, I have a comment to make. May I? Yes. Okay. Our new
chair made a comment a while ago about Robert's rules being, what's the adjective you use? Cumbersome.
Cumbersome.
I agree it is. It is about an inch thick, probably over 500 pages, and it is not easy to read at all.
But we have adopted it, for good or for bad, right? If we don't want it, I suspect there's a process
to eject it from our guidelines. But until we do, it's there.
And it's only one portion of the guidelines. We do have another four or five pages of the guidelines
that existed before Robert's Rules was included. And that carries precedence. Robert's Rules comes into
play when our own guidelines are silent. I am a policy wonk. No small order. I live off this stuff.
I read it.
It's my North Star. It keeps me honest. And it's necessary. Process is boring. Process is tedious. But
it is necessary. Or constitutional rights live in the black and white in these processes. Or First Amendment
rights. Or a right to due process. Or a right for equal protection. Or a right to free speech and secret dress.
lives in the process. So the Constitution is all well and good. It fits on a single page. But how you
enjoy those rights, how you defend it, is all in the process. Robert's rules exist for only one purpose,
to facilitate debate. It is not a checklist that you just go down. If you look at what's in Robert's
rules, there are specific
process is designed to allow members of a deliberative body to have their say and to not have the right
to that say taken away from them without good cause. That is essentially what the entire parliamentary
process is. When somebody has the floor, he has the floor and nobody is allowed to interrupt him unless
he's ruled out of order. And somebody must raise an objection
And it must be ruled on by the chair. And the chair cannot arbitrarily or capriciously rule on it. The
chair is restricted in how he can rule on that objection that's raised. Because the aim is to allow
you, each of us, to enjoy our First Amendment rights, to free speech and due process. That's what it's
there for. Whether you like the speech or you don't like it, whether it's loud, whether it's
argumentative, whether it's combative, whether it's distasteful, you get the right to speak. And that
is fundamental. It also has other procedural guidelines in there. And they're there for a reason. We
have a duty to become experts
Not only in the particulars of historic preservation, but once you become a member of a commission or
a board or a deliberative body, you have to become expert in the rules that govern how such a body is
operated. The HBC is a creature of statute. The rules that we adopt are done with the authority given
to us by statute. So I don't know what the technical legal term is, whether it's a law or regulation
or whatever.
But these are rules that we are obligated to follow. We do not decide unless we are given the discretion
or authority to waive or set aside something. We must assume that we don't. The people who decided that
did so through a democratic process, whether you agree with it or not, that's how democracy works. They
vote on it. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
But once you win and it's there, we have a duty to follow it. We also have a right or a duty to hold
ourselves accountable and to allow for debate, especially when it comes to the rules that were democratically
adopted that are put in place in defense of our First Amendment rights.
Thank you. Does anyone from the public have any comments? Very none. We have an exhibit on First Amendment
rights at the museum. Second thing is we have a disability exhibit with the reception open two nights
from 6 to 8. So you can go see our disability exhibit just to help raise awareness. People always think
it's just someone in a wheelchair. You have to have 36 inch wide.
so much more than that, and our exhibit goes into that. And while you're there, pop over and see the
Christian Amendment exhibit. Thank you. Thank you. We're adjourned.