Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎

Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Study Committee

Chairperson Jason Thompson‎, ‎Vice Chairperson Dr‎. ‎Richard Stamps‎

Members‎: ‎John Dziurman‎, ‎James Hannick‎, ‎Sue Thomasson‎, ‎LaVere Webster‎

5:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, April 8, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

In the absence of both the Chair and the Vice Chair‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Derek Delacourt‎, ‎

Deputy Director of Planning and Economic Development‎, ‎called the meeting to ‎

order at ‎5‎:‎35 ‎PM‎. ‎

ROLL CALL

John Dziurman, LaVere Webster, James Hannick and Sue Thomasson

Present

4 -

Richard Stamps and Jason Thompson

Absent

2 -

Ms‎. ‎DiSipio stated for the record that a quorum was present‎. ‎

Others Present‎:‎ Derek Delacourt‎, ‎Deputy Director‎, ‎Planning‎

Sandi DiSipio‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt asked the Committee to nominate a member to act as Chair‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Webster nominated‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Hannick seconded that Mr‎. ‎Dziurman act as ‎

temporary Chairperson for tonight‎'‎s meeting‎. ‎All present voted in the affirmative‎. ‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2010-0161

March ‎11‎, ‎2010 ‎Regular Meeting‎

Motion by Hannick‎, ‎second by Webster‎, ‎that the Minutes dated March ‎11‎, ‎2010 ‎

were approved as presented‎.‎

Aye

Dziurman, Webster, Hannick and Thomasson

4 -

Absent

Stamps and Thompson

2 -

COMMUNICATIONS

There were no announcements or communications brought forward‎.‎

PUBLIC COMMENT

No one came forward to give public comments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman noted the brief ‎

comments from the State Historic Preservation Office‎, ‎which he stated were ‎

relatively inconclusive‎, ‎and he said he would read that correspondence during ‎

the subject discussions‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2009-0411

1585 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Road ‎(‎HDC File ‎#‎03‎-‎003‎)‎

Discuss Delisting‎/‎State‎'‎s Comments‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman read the following comments‎, ‎dated December ‎22‎, ‎2009‎, ‎

from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding ‎1585 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester ‎

Road‎: ‎“Public Act ‎169 ‎of ‎1970‎, ‎as amended‎, ‎requires a description of the ‎

boundaries in writing and on maps‎. ‎No maps are included in this report‎. ‎

Since the house underwent a major remodeling in the Neoclassical style ‎

around the time the Eddy’s purchased the property in ‎1936‎, ‎the report ‎

should concentrate on what occurred to the property from that time ‎

forward‎. ‎According to Standard ‎#‎4 ‎of the Secretary of Interior Standards ‎

for Rehabilitation‎, ‎most properties change over time‎; ‎those changes that ‎

have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and ‎

preserved‎. ‎The Report should contain more information about Mr‎. ‎

Wayne Eddy‎. ‎What was his connection to Michigan’s early automotive ‎

history‎? ‎Was there a link between his work and the automobile industry ‎

and the Allen Cooler and Ventilating Company that he founded‎? ‎He was ‎

able to purchase and remodel this property in the midst of the Great ‎

Depression‎, ‎so he must have been fairly successful‎. ‎Also‎, ‎what was ‎

occurring in Rochester Hills during the time period‎? ‎Was he involved in ‎

the community’s development‎? ‎Was it common for people to purchase ‎

and redo old farmhouses in this matter or was this unique‎? ‎The Report ‎

states that the house is not a good example of Neoclassical style ‎

because the front porch columns are not typical of columns used in the ‎

style in that they are thin‎, ‎square columns with trim pieces added‎. ‎

However‎, ‎the description of the Neoclassical style found on page ‎344 ‎of ‎

Virginia and Lee McAlester’s Field Guide to American House states‎, ‎

“After about ‎1925‎, ‎very slender‎, ‎unfluted ‎(‎often square‎) ‎columns began to ‎

be used‎, ‎primary on houses with full façade porches‎. ‎This house appears ‎

to be a local‎, ‎vernacular adaptation of the Neoclassical style that is in ‎

keeping with trends common to the period when the work was undertaken‎. ‎

Is there any information on the reasons the house was designated in the ‎

first place‎? ‎If so‎, ‎it should be included in the report‎.‎”‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman next read the letter from Brian Conway‎, ‎State Historic ‎

Preservation Officer‎, ‎dated March ‎23‎, ‎2010‎: ‎“Dear Mr‎. ‎Delacourt‎, ‎Staff ‎

members of the State Historic Preservation Office ‎(‎SHPO‎) ‎have reviewed ‎

the preliminary historic district committee report for the district at ‎1585 ‎S‎. ‎

Rochester Road‎. ‎Our comments on the report are enclosed‎. ‎We offer ‎

these comments in order to assist communities to prepare final study ‎

committee reports that meet the requirements of Michigan’s Local ‎

Historic Districts Act and that provide a strong legal basis for protecting ‎

historically significant resources‎. ‎These comments and ‎

recommendations are based on our experiences working with local ‎

historic districts‎. ‎The SHPO lacks authority to give legal advice to any ‎

person or agency‎, ‎public or private‎. ‎The report was presented to the State ‎

Historic Preservation Review Board at their meeting on January ‎15‎, ‎2010‎. ‎

They had no further comment on the Report‎. ‎The Report will be ‎

presented to the Michigan Historical Commission at its next scheduled ‎

meeting on April ‎22‎. ‎Should they have any comments they will be ‎

forwarded to you‎. ‎We appreciate the efforts by the City of Rochester Hills ‎

to protect its historic resources‎. ‎If we can assist you further‎, ‎please ‎

contact Amy Arnold at ‎517‎-‎335‎-‎2729‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman allowed comments pertaining to this agenda item‎.‎

Melinda Hill‎, ‎1481 ‎Mill Race‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI‎ Ms‎. ‎Hill stated that ‎

after briefly going over the information presented regarding the request ‎

for delisting ‎1585 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Rd‎. ‎and ‎2371 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois‎, ‎the latter of ‎

which had not had a preliminary report prepared or a public hearing held‎, ‎

she noted that the comments from the State supported her comments ‎

made at the public hearing at the last meeting‎. ‎She expressed that more ‎

time and research was needed for the property and for ‎2371 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois‎. ‎

She was glad to see the report‎, ‎and she noted that the matter would be on ‎

Council’s agenda for Monday‎, ‎April ‎12‎. ‎It helped substantiate the request ‎

for time‎, ‎given that the Michigan Historical Commission would not be ‎

reviewing it until April ‎22‎. ‎She noticed that Mr‎. ‎Anzek had indicated that it ‎

would probably be appropriate for the HDSC to state some type of a time ‎

frame for when they felt that the final report should go before Council‎. ‎

She wished the HDSC to think about taking another three months ‎- ‎May‎, ‎

June and July ‎- ‎to do the appropriate research‎. ‎She was not sure whether ‎

a consultant would be utilized again‎, ‎but then the matter could go before ‎

Council in September‎. ‎She reminded that Council was very heavily ‎

involved with the City’s budget in August‎. ‎In September‎, ‎residents would ‎

be back from vacations and the budget would be done‎, ‎and that would ‎

allow the appropriate time for research‎, ‎which she strongly felt was ‎

necessary for both properties‎.‎

Scot Beaton‎, ‎655 ‎Bolinger St‎.‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI‎ Mr‎. ‎Beaton stated ‎

that he continued to support the wisdom of the Historic Districts Study ‎

Committee‎, ‎and he looked forward to seeing them progress with the ‎

decision‎, ‎whether to delist the subject historic resource or not‎. ‎If the ‎

Committee decided to delist the property‎, ‎which he felt was tied into an ‎

original discussion in ‎2004 ‎whereby a PUD was created‎, ‎if the historic ‎

house could not be incorporated into a retail or office use‎, ‎he would ‎

strongly urge the Planning Department to proceed with trying to revert the ‎

property back to single‎-‎family residential‎. ‎He opined that Mr‎. ‎Earl Borden ‎

had a vision for the City‎, ‎which he said was unlike that of the Planning ‎

Director‎, ‎in which the retail and office in this City would only be developed ‎

at the corners‎. ‎Rochester Hills would never create any continuous strips ‎

of office or commercial use on any mile road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beaton said he read ‎

recently in the Oakland Press that the City’s Planning Director‎, ‎“with his ‎

lack of wisdom‎,‎” said that single‎-‎family residential could not be built on ‎

Rochester Road‎. ‎He found that quite insulting to the residents of ‎

Rochester Hills who already owned property there‎, ‎and he firmly asked ‎

that the Planning Director of the City apologize for those comments‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked if SHPO had forwarded correspondence for all the ‎

properties shown on the agenda‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt said that they only ‎

forwarded ‎1585 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester‎, ‎2040 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois‎, ‎and Stiles School ‎(‎3976 ‎

S‎. ‎Livernois‎) ‎to SHPO‎, ‎and they received comments back for all three‎. ‎

The only significant comments were related to ‎1585 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester‎. ‎The ‎

other comments only referred to maps and boundary descriptions‎, ‎and ‎

boundary descriptions were not included until the final report‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman called for discussion on ‎1585 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Delacourt advised that he forwarded the State’s comments to the ‎

consultant and after reviewing the comments‎, ‎she further researched and ‎

did not find any other information‎. ‎If the Committee decided to do ‎

additional research‎, ‎it would be helpful to have direction as to where ‎

additional information might exist‎. ‎This was the first instance he could ‎

recall that the State’s assumption was that there was not enough research ‎

conducted‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked if there was a recent meeting related to the property ‎

and the PUD‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt agreed that there had been a discussion at ‎

City Council over a month ago related to a revised PUD and the delisting ‎

request‎. ‎There was also a meeting at City Hall at which the property ‎

owner invited residents to discuss the property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked if ‎

there were Minutes taken‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Delacourt advised that they were not‎, ‎

as it was not a City meeting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said he did not get an ‎

invitation‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Delacourt further advised that Staff had nothing to do ‎

with sending invitations‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman stated that the study originally done for the properties was ‎

not done in error‎. ‎He had a copy of the final report dated June ‎15‎, ‎1978 ‎

from the Avon Township Historic Districts Study Committee‎, ‎and he read ‎

the first two pages of a letter sent to the Avon Township Board‎, ‎the Avon ‎

Township Planning Commission‎, ‎the Michigan Historical Commission ‎

and the Michigan State Historical Advisory Council‎:‎

“Pursuant to Township Board action of October ‎5‎, ‎1977‎, ‎the Historic ‎

Districts Study Committee herewith submits its final report for your review ‎

and consideration‎. ‎As charged by the Board and pursuant to Section ‎3 ‎of ‎

Act ‎169 ‎of ‎1970‎, ‎the Committee’s responsibilities were to conduct studies ‎

in research to make a report on the historical significance of the building‎, ‎

structure‎, ‎features‎, ‎sites‎, ‎objects and surroundings in Avon Township‎, ‎and ‎

to recommend areas to be included in the proposed historic district or ‎

districts‎. ‎In compliance with the Act‎, ‎the Study Committee’s preliminary ‎

report was transmitted to the Avon Township Planning Commission for ‎

review and recommendations at their regular meeting on January ‎24‎, ‎

1978‎. ‎At the same time‎, ‎copies of the report were filed with the Michigan ‎

Historical Commission and with the Michigan State Historical Advisory ‎

Council‎. ‎On April ‎11‎, ‎1978‎, ‎following due notice to all property owners in ‎

the proposed district‎, ‎a public hearing was held at Avon Township Hall‎, ‎

chaired by the Study Committee and monitored by Lawrence Ternan‎, ‎

Avon Township Attorney‎. ‎Input from these several sources‎, ‎along with ‎

that from the Avon Township Building Department have been carefully ‎

considered by the Study Committee in preparing this final report‎. ‎The ‎

attached‎, ‎proposed ordinance‎, ‎as revised‎, ‎has the unanimous approval ‎

of the Study Committee‎. ‎In presenting this final report‎, ‎the Committee ‎

wishes to thank Earl Borden‎, ‎Avon Township Supervisor‎, ‎and his staff for ‎

their excellent cooperation‎, ‎and to Lawrence Ternan‎, ‎Avon Township ‎

Attorney‎, ‎for his counsel‎. ‎With this report‎, ‎the Avon Township Historic ‎

District is completed‎.‎” It was signed by Richard Eberline‎, ‎Chairperson ‎

and Natalie Stephenson‎, ‎Secretary‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman next read the preface to the report‎: ‎“Act ‎169‎, ‎as enacted by ‎

the Michigan Legislature in ‎1970‎, ‎states in Section ‎2‎: ‎The purpose of the ‎

ordinance is to a‎) ‎safeguard the heritage of the local unit by preserving a ‎

district in the local government‎, ‎which reflects elements of its culture‎, ‎

social‎, ‎economic‎, ‎political or architectural history‎; ‎b‎) ‎stabilize and ‎

improve property values in such district‎; ‎c‎) ‎foster civic beauty‎; ‎d‎) ‎

strengthen the local economy‎; ‎and e‎) ‎promote the use of the historic ‎

districts for the education‎, ‎pleasure and welfare of the citizens of the local ‎

unit and of the State‎. ‎To implement these objectives‎, ‎the Act spells out in ‎

detail the means of achieving an historic districts status namely‎, ‎first‎, ‎by ‎

gathering facts to a Study Committee and secondly‎, ‎by activating a ‎

permanent administrative body called the Historic Districts Commission‎. ‎

This study covers only the first phase of the process‎. ‎In approaching this ‎

study‎, ‎the Committee was fortunate to be able to call on other ‎

communities for guidance‎, ‎such as Franklin Village‎, ‎Romeo‎, ‎Warren‎, ‎

Troy‎, ‎Waterford‎, ‎Detroit‎, ‎Ann Arbor and others who have obtained historic ‎

district status‎. ‎Assistance was also obtained from Robert E‎. ‎Miller‎, ‎

Historic Preservation Coordinator‎, ‎State of Michigan‎, ‎State History ‎

Division‎, ‎Lansing‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman emphasized that he could not imagine how someone could ‎

say the initial report was done in error with all that background‎. ‎He ‎

objected to those comments‎, ‎and said that he knew that most of the ‎

people on the Committee were on the Commission in the ‎1980‎’s and they ‎

knew the community better than anyone present‎. ‎He did not know if it was ‎

a mistake when Dr‎. ‎Bush did the last study‎. ‎She stated that it was ‎

architecturally significant‎, ‎and he was not sure that was it in its entirety‎. ‎

He reiterated that the reports were not performed in error‎, ‎and that proper ‎

judgments were made along the way‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Thomasson wondered how it would affect what the Committee did ‎- ‎as ‎

the report moved forward to the Michigan Historical Commission ‎(‎MHC‎). ‎

She questioned what might come out of that meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt said that it was very rare for the MHC to disagree with ‎

comments from SHPO‎. ‎If they had anything in addition to SHPO’s ‎

comments‎, ‎they would be sent to the Study Committee‎. ‎The local district ‎

made the decision‎, ‎but the comments would be important to help guide ‎

the Study Committee in making its recommendations to City Council‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said that his comments were really directed at the ‎

consultant and the conclusions she reached‎. ‎He did not think she knew ‎

the background‎, ‎and he did not think she should have made her ‎

statement‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Thomasson said she had the utmost respect for the people she knew ‎

on the Committee‎, ‎but her concern with making a delisting decision at the ‎

meeting was that compared to the other SHPO reports‎, ‎the one for ‎1585 ‎

brought up some questions for which someone had knowledge‎. ‎She ‎

wanted to know if there was further information out there‎, ‎and she was not ‎

comfortable in making a delisting decision without a little more ‎

information or information from the Historical Commission‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman noted that there was some correspondence in the packet ‎

from Mr‎. ‎Anzek about a request for an extension‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt ‎

explained that he had included an Agenda Summary ‎(‎similar to a staff ‎

report‎) ‎signed by Mr‎. ‎Anzek that was going to Council on April ‎12‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hannick asked if there was some historical background on the people ‎

who lived in the home‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said that the designation was based ‎

on the person who lived there at the time‎, ‎but there could have been ‎

others that followed‎, ‎and they did not have the whole history‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hannick ‎

agreed they needed to find out a little more about the people who lived ‎

there and if they had any historical significance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said there ‎

was no question that they should ask for an extension in order to make ‎

sure they had everything covered and for more research to take place ‎

that was brought up by the SHPO office‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wayne Eddy might have ‎

been one of the primary reasons it was designated‎, ‎not the house itself‎, ‎

and many homes over time changed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hannick asked if any of the ‎

people on the original Committee were still alive‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said that ‎

Larry Ternan was still around‎, ‎and perhaps Mr‎. ‎Terry Givens and Ms‎. ‎

Elizabeth Black‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hannick said it would be nice to talk with them and ‎

hear their train of thought‎. ‎He recalled driving by the house when he was ‎

young and observing that the house stood out‎. ‎It was unique‎, ‎and he felt ‎

that every community should have something unique‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt read an email he had received from Ms‎. ‎Kidorf‎, ‎the ‎

consultant‎: ‎“In researching ‎1585 ‎Rochester‎, ‎I searched the following ‎

locations for information on Mr‎. ‎Eddy and the Allen Ventilator and Cooler ‎

Business‎: ‎The Birth and Historical Collection‎, ‎the Detroit Public Library‎, ‎

the internet‎, ‎the Rochester Library‎, ‎Oakland County’s archives‎, ‎Rochester ‎

Library’s Local History Museum‎, ‎the Rochester Hills Museum and any ‎

information the City had on Mr‎. ‎Eddy or the business‎, ‎and it did not lead ‎

to anything other than what was already given‎.‎”‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt said that if anyone wished to branch out and do additional ‎

research in other places or knew of somewhere else to direct Ms‎. ‎Kidorf ‎- ‎

he would gladly accept that information‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked the time limit for the other two agenda items ‎(‎2040 ‎S‎. ‎

Livernois and ‎3976 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois‎). ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt said that public hearings ‎

were held on February ‎11‎, ‎2010 ‎for ‎2040 ‎and ‎3976‎, ‎which had one‎-‎year ‎

time frames to report back to City Council‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman thought that the ‎

Committee should ask Council for an extension until September for ‎1585 ‎

S‎. ‎Rochester and ‎2371 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois‎, ‎and that they should table ‎2040 ‎S‎. ‎

Livernois and ‎3976 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois until all the members were present‎. ‎He ‎

did not like doing things of this nature without a majority‎. ‎He suggested ‎

making a motion asking Council for extra time‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Hannick moved ‎

the following‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Hannick‎, ‎seconded by Thomasson‎, ‎that the Historic Districts ‎

Study Committee requests that City Council extend the time for reviewing ‎

the request for delisting ‎1585 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Road and ‎2371 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois ‎

until the available September ‎2010 ‎City Council meeting‎.‎

A motion was made by Hannick‎, ‎seconded by Thomasson‎, ‎that this matter be ‎

Accepted‎. ‎The motion CARRIED by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Dziurman, Webster, Hannick and Thomasson

4 -

Absent

Stamps and Thompson

2 -

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said that he would like to hear from SHPO regarding ‎2040 ‎

S‎. ‎Livernois and ‎3976 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois‎. ‎It was the first time that Council ‎

appeared to be interested in declaring Stiles School ‎(‎3976‎) ‎part of a ‎

historic site with only the area around the original school designated‎. ‎

That did not follow the standards‎, ‎and it did not follow what he would ‎

consider the SHPO standards he was used to‎. ‎The State talked about it ‎

in their reply‎, ‎and he had brought it up about a month ago when he had a ‎

meeting at SHPO on some other issues‎. ‎It seemed that it was a ‎

departure from the way they looked at things‎, ‎and the people he talked ‎

with were surprised about it‎. ‎He reiterated that he thought they should ‎

postpone the last two agenda items until the full Committee was present‎.‎

2009-0437

2371 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois Road ‎(‎HDSC File ‎#‎04‎-‎006‎) ‎

Discuss Delisting ‎- ‎Next Steps‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman asked Ms‎. ‎Hill if she would like to speak about ‎2371 ‎N‎. ‎

Livernois‎.‎

Melinda Hill‎, ‎1481 ‎Mill Race‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI‎ Ms‎. ‎Hill noted the ‎

request for additional time‎. ‎At the last meeting‎, ‎there was discussion ‎

about altering the preliminary report and eliminating the indicated ‎

conclusion‎, ‎and she wondered where the Committee stood‎. ‎She did not ‎

see anything in the packet about it‎. ‎There were some action steps she ‎

recalled reading‎, ‎and it said that the Study Committee would need to ‎

revise or accept the preliminary report ‎(‎see suggestions in Kidorf letter‎). ‎

She wondered if there was a new letter from Ms‎. ‎Kidorf indicating possible ‎

revisions to the report‎. ‎She would not like to see a conclusion in the ‎

preliminary report sent to SHPO‎; ‎she would rather see a statement that ‎

says a determination of insignificance still needed to be made‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman agreed for the most part‎, ‎and said that was why they ‎

needed the extra time to react to it ‎- ‎pro or con‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt said that the Study Committee believed that the original ‎

Study Committee report was in good standing‎, ‎and that nothing provided ‎

to date had changed the original recommendation‎. ‎If the Study ‎

Committee felt that it was a valid conclusion‎, ‎he did not know how much ‎

more studying needed to be done‎. ‎If they felt that the information ‎

gathered did not change the recommendation in the original study‎, ‎the ‎

Committee could change the report to say that‎. ‎The ordinance was very ‎

clear that all they had to show was that it was either or either not different ‎

than originally thought by the original designation‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Kidorf’s ‎

recommendation was just based on her experience‎. ‎Ultimately‎, ‎it was a ‎

decision to be made by the Study Committee‎. ‎They could change the ‎

recommendation to say that the information as presented in the ‎

preliminary report did not change the original thought of the Study ‎

Committee‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman stated that he did not believe the research was complete‎. ‎

He felt an obligation to present something that supported his feelings‎, ‎but ‎

he had a question mark‎. ‎He could not see how the original Committee ‎

faltered‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Delacourt said the report could say that‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said ‎

that maybe it would‎, ‎but he still wanted to be able to try and talk with some ‎

of those people‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Delacourt advised that the Chair was on vacation and would not be ‎

back in town when the matter went before Council on April ‎12‎. ‎He asked if ‎

there was anyone from the Study Committee that wanted the opportunity ‎

to speak directly to Council‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman said he would have gone‎, ‎but he will also be out of town‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dzuirman suggested that he could write a letter‎. ‎

This matter was Discussed

2007-0313

2040 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois Rd‎. (‎HDSC File ‎#‎98‎-‎012‎)‎

Discuss Designation‎/‎State‎'‎s Comments‎

This matter was postponed.

2005-0537

3976 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois Road ‎(‎HDSC File ‎#‎05‎-‎002‎)‎

Discuss Designation‎/‎State‎'‎s Comments‎

This matter was postponed.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no further business brought before the Historic Districts Study ‎

Committee‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Study Committee that the next regular meeting ‎

was scheduled for May ‎13‎, ‎2010‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Study Committe‎, ‎and ‎

upon motion by Webster‎, ‎second by Hannick‎, ‎the Chair adjourned the ‎

Regular Meeting at ‎6‎:‎24 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

______________________________‎

John Dzuirman‎, ‎Member‎

Historic Districts Study Committee‎

______________________________‎

Transcribed by Maureen Gentry‎

Planning and Economic Development‎