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, Peggy Schodowski, Sue Thomasson, LaVere

Webster

5:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, January 14, 2010

MINUTES of a ROCHESTER HILLS REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICTS STUDY

COMMITTEE meeting held at the City Municipal Offices, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive,

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

Chairperson Thompson called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Richard Stamps, Jason Thompson, James Hannick and Sue Thomasson

Present

4 -

John Dziurman, LaVere Webster and Peggy Schodowski

Absent

3 -

Others Present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning (arrive 6:15 PM)

Judy Bialk, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Thompson stated that Mr. Dziurman had indicated he would arrive late

due to a scheduling conflict, and Ms. Schodowski and Mr. Webster had left prior

notice they could not attend this meeting and were excused.

Chairperson Thompson stated that Mr. Delacourt had a conflict with tonight's meeting

and would arrive late.

On behalf of the Study Committee, Chairperson Thompson welcomed Ms.

Thomasson to the Committee. He noted Ms. Thomasson had recently been

appointed by City Council for a term ending December 31, 2011.

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Thompson stated for the record that a quorum was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

4.

4A.

2010-0015

December 10, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes

Chairperson Thompson asked for any comments or corrections regarding the

December 10, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing no comments or

corrections, he called for a motion to approve.

A motion was made by Hannick, seconded by Stamps, that the Minutes be

Approved as Presented. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Stamps, Thompson, Hannick and Thomasson

4 -

Absent

Dziurman, Webster and Schodowski

3 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the December 10, 2009 Regular Historic

Districts Study Committee Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMUNICATIONS

5.

1. 01-06-10 Memorandum regarding Stiles School

Chairperson Thompson stated the Committee had received a copy of a Memorandum

including Ms. Kidorf's opinion regarding the proposed Historic District boundary of

the Stiles School property. He noted this matter was not on the Agenda for this

meeting, however, the Committee could discuss it further under "Any Other Business".

Chairperson Thompson asked if there were any other announcements or

communications. No announcements or communications were provided.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

6.

Chairperson Thompson called for any public comments.

2009-0411

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

- Preliminary Report

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, stated after reading the December 20, 2009 Study

Committee Meeting Minutes, she was somewhat surprised and a little disappointed to

see what came up in the Preliminary Report on 1585 S. Rochester Road for several

reasons. She understood what was said in the report regarding the condition of the

house, but after reading what Ms. Kidorf wrote regarding the guidelines for

designation - that home was designated in 1978 and at that point the State Act did not

have the "shall be guided by" National Register criteria when making an evaluation

whether to look at listing or designating a particular property. She stated the

consultant explained some of that, but what she explained in the report, Ms. Hill did

not feel the conclusion truly followed what was said because there was lack of a

defective process, which the report indicated, there was not necessarily lost physical

presence. To say it was insignificant basically due to the fact that it was not "as the

original study committee thought it was". She stated it was hard to read their thoughts

and she found that different from being the same as "not as significant as previously

defined". She stated "previously defined" and "what one thinks" are two different

things. After the years we've spent looking at that property, just because there was

some aluminum siding, there clearly physically was no change. She thought there was

a great deal of significance from the standpoint of it being the Fairview Farm, and

there was information about that as being one of a very progressive farm for its time in

this State, and as it moved on to the Eddy's, they really did not change it. It was one

of four neo-classical styles in the Community, one across the street which has been

restored. This was the second-most significant, it has not been restored. The other

two houses we are saying don't hold as much significance. But to say we have one

and so that's it, and that's why in today's context not as important. But, she had

already said, and the report had indicated we were not basing that and that actually

Community's at the time had their autonomy to decide what they felt was worth saving

and what was significant. To come back and say according to 2002, it isn't, she had a

great deal of problem with. She wanted to have that on the record. She stated she

would come to the Public Hearing. When she finished reading the Report, she did not

come to a conclusion that said it was not worth keeping. She was somewhat

disturbed when she read the Minutes that the Committee agreed with everything she

said, because she did not think that much was said about it. She hoped that as this

moves forward, we can hopefully find some more information regarding this property

and the home itself. Even though we understand why the outbuildings are gone

because they were not part of the original designated area and were demolished prior

to the total parcel becoming the designated district.

Public Comment Received

Chairperson Thompson stated that Public Hearing would be held on Thursday,

February 11, 2010 at 5:30 PM. He called for any other public comments. No other

public comments were received.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.

7A.

2008-0663

National Twist Drill (HDSC File #08-002)

- Discussion

Chairperson Thompson stated the Study Committee had reviewed some options on a

proposed historic district for this property, including one option that tried to balance

the most significant portions because it might be more acceptable to the property

owner and City Council. Ms. Kidorf had offered to review the proposed options

against the contents of the Preliminary Report and had provided her opinion. She

disagreed with changing the scope of the proposed district. He suggested the

Committee discuss how they wanted to proceed noting the Committee still had the

ability to make whatever recommendation they felt appropriate.

Dr. Stamps asked why the consultant felt that the Committee should not propose just

a portion of the property. Chairperson Thompson stated Ms. Kidorf believed the

entire parcel, with the exception of one building, contributed to the significance of the

district. He noted there was discussion at the last meeting about the various proposed

boundary lines, and it was decided that Ms. Kidorf should review the matter. The

Committee reviewed the various boundary options.

Chairperson Thompson stated that part of the discussion at the December meeting

included whether just portions of the various buildings fronting Rochester Road could

be designated particularly because they were not separate structures with additions

added to them. Such a boundary designation would essentially "chop" the buildings in

half.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, commented she had read the opinion and the

Preliminary Report and was very impressed by the report because there is a great deal

of content in the report. She agreed with Ms. Kidorf's opinion that we're asking for

problems trying to cut off some portion of the property, because the great part of what

was there is there is so much of the original existing there. Whether it is all that

important to people today or not is something that will have to be determined or if at

some point it goes all the way to City Council, they will make the determination on

what to do. She would not want to see it divided up because she thought it stood on

its own and has a great deal of merit on its own. There was no reason to try to split it

up into something else. She understood that Building B had been changed some, but

that was something that could be addressed somewhere down the road.

Ms. Thomasson asked if the thought behind trying to split off portions of the buildings

was to allow the property owner to use the balance of the property in another manner.

Dr. Stamps thought that summarized the reason, nothing that the current property

owner did not want any of the property designated. The Study Committee was aware

the property owner felt he had a large, developable piece of property that no one

wanted to purchase with the old factory buildings. He noted City Council gave a lot

of weight to the property owner's opinion.

Dr. Stamps recalled that portions of buildings were architecturally significant with the

art-deco fronts on the west side, and the Committee was exploring options and

realistic possibilities. The Committee could recommend the entire parcel as historic as

it is a significant piece in the arsenal of democracy where they made drills and tools to

make parts to make tanks during the war. In the political sense, having participated in

the last few recommendations brought to City Council that were not designated, the

Committee spent some time exploring other options. Ms. Kidorf's opinion was right

from a preservation point of view. The Committee had to decide if it was worth trying

to save a portion of the site, or the whole site. He asked if the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) had provided a clear response about saving a portion of

a building. He commented if SHPO agreed with the Stiles School proposed district

boundary that might be considered a precedent. He had not made up his mind and

would like to continue exploring the options.

Ms. Thomasson commented that corner was a valuable piece of property.

Chairperson Thompson reminded the Committee their focus was rather narrow and

limited to a review and recommendation. The Committee did not make the decision

to designate. He asked if the Committee felt it would be beneficial to discuss this

property with the Consultant.

Mr. Hannick asked if the Committee would have received some feedback from

SHPO by the time of the Public Hearing. It was noted that SHPO would not respond

until after the Report was brought before the Review Board, which meets on a

quarterly basis.

Dr. Stamps agreed the focus of the Committee was to determine if the property met

the criteria, with the decision on designation left to City Council.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, agreed with the comments made and we should not

be second guessing. It was unfortunate the political climate swings one way or

another and ends up rejecting something that could be significant. She thought this not

only had architectural significance, and that would be one thing that would be

happening, it would be limiting the number of areas of significance if one starts to

break this apart. It truly does benefit to a number or areas. In fact, all three, which

really makes it one of the top pieces. Whether or not the property owner likes it, that

is just too bad. It was unfortunate we don't have or have not had in the past a Council

that looks at the value of historic property and the potential for those. This is not

something that we're putting under glass in a museum and saying "don't touch." That’s

not the point, because there so much in so many other places across this country and

around the world that have taken architecturally significant pieces and retained this

history and done some great things. The other part of it was that even the two that

nothing happened with, that they did not chose to designate, did not preclude the

opportunity of going back to Council at any point in time and making that same

recommendation. There is still potential for that. Fortunately, in maybe both cases,

they have not been destroyed. They still exist in the Community and there is always

that potential and there is nothing stopping that from happening. She looked at this

one and at some point it would be nice to make the recommendation, whether they

don't care to do that, then "I guess you get to the point where is it totally flattened".

There is always the option of having the HDC request a moratorium from Council.

She thought there were so many areas of significance with this piece of property.

Chairperson Thompson stated this was a unique piece of property within the City and

in the area. If designated, it would have to be adaptively re-used, although this region

of the country did not seem to accept that concept. He stated it was his thought to

retain the original recommendation in the Preliminary Report, but noted this was still an

on-going discussion.

Dr. Stamps asked if any descendants of the McGregor family still resided in the area.

He thought perhaps the portion of the report about that family could be added to if

they could find some relations and some additional information. He commented he

had a former student he thought was related to the family, but did not know if they

remained in the area. If that student could be contacted, they might be able to provide

more history on the family.

Mr. Hannick inquired whether the Alumni Association would have contact

information. Dr. Stamps stated he would see if he could obtain contact information.

Chairperson Thompson stated this matter would be scheduled for the next meeting.

This matter was Discussed

7B.

2009-0547

2009 Annual Report

Chairperson Thompson stated the 2009 Annual Report had been provided to the

Study Committee at the December meeting for review and comment. He reminded

the Committee the report was prepared as part of the Certified Local Government

(CLG) designation received by the City in 2009.

Ms. Thomasson inquired about the CLG designation. Dr. Stamps stated receiving the

designation allowed the City to become eligible for Federal grant funds and resources.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, agreed the report was a well put together piece

especially because it was new. She stated she made some comments to the recording

secretary. The part about the Preliminary Reports that Council was requesting when

they really were requesting a full report within 180 days, both on 1585 S. Rochester

Road and 2371 S. Livernois Road. She made mention about putting dates after

Wayside Park and the South Boulevard property so one knew at what time frame

those were not designated so that was clear in the report. The only other piece she

had was at the very end where it said something about this body making or going

before Council to ask what study to do next. A lot of times she thought the

Committee probably has ones they felt were a good priority to be studied, and she

wondered if that wording might be better said somehow in the gist of the Committee

was making recommendations to Council and requesting permission to perform

studies on those recommended properties versus asking them what the next study

should be. That was only just a little thinking about the rewording and was her own

suggestion. She did not think Council ranked them and decided what it is, and the

Committee had done that type of work.

Chairperson Thompson noted under the current Ordinance, City Council had to

provide permission before the Study Committee began a study. He agreed with the

point about the motions made by City Council and asked whether the Committee

wanted to change any of the other portions of the Report. He commented the Study

Committee could schedule a review of the potential list to prioritize and rank them for

future studies. He stated oftentimes the studies depended on other circumstances and

the order was changed based on development pressures or other matters.

Dr. Stamps agreed it was a good idea to review the Potential List and to provide City

Council with a proposed list of properties for study.

Chairperson Thompson stated Council would be provided with a copy of the 2009

Annual Report, and a list of the potential properties remaining to be studied could be

included. He suggested the Committee could review the Potential List and rank the

studies.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, thought that would be helpful for the Committee,

even if they had the next five. She commented the Committee may go to Council six

months from now and tell them they would like to study certain properties, and

Council would see that those were the next ones. She thought Council had expressed

in the past that they certainly would like to see these studies be completed. At least

the Committee was showing they have some ranking or some priority so they could go

in front of them to ask for permission.

Chairperson Thompson suggested the wording regarding the City Council motions be

corrected, noting the discussion about the report was on the record in the meeting

Minutes.

This matter was Discussed

7C.

2010-0016

Review Public Hearing Schedule

- February 11, 2010 / 5:30 PM

Chairperson Thompson stated a Public Hearing would be scheduled for Thursday,

February 11, 2010 at 5:30 PM for each of 3976 S. Livernois (Stiles School); 1585 S.

Rochester Road and 2040 S. Livernois Road. He asked if any Committee member

had a conflict with the date and time, noting the importance of establishing a quorum.

Ms. Thomasson asked for a quick synopsis of the procedure for the Public Hearing.

Chairperson Thompson explained that Notice of the Public Hearing was published in

the local paper, and copies mailed to the property owners along with a copy of the

Preliminary Report. The Committee would hear public comment on each of the

properties noticed. There was no debate among the Committee members during the

hearing, rather the Committee just listened to the comments. If the Committee wanted

to respond to something said during the Public Hearing, it could be addressed later in

the meeting under Any Other Business.

(Arrive Derek Delacourt, 6:15 PM)

Ms. Thomasson clarified that a Public Hearing was not being held on any other

properties at this time. Chairperson Thompson explained that Hearings were not

scheduled until 60 days after transmittal of the Preliminary Report to the State.

Mr. Delacourt explained that one year after the Public Hearing is held, the Committee

would submit its Final Report and recommendation.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, reminded the Committee that with respect to 1585

S. Rochester Road, City Council had requested input back within 180 days after

forwarding the matter to the Study Committee. She noted it was scheduled for the

February Public Hearing but that one needed to move forward and faster, it did not

have a whole year.

Mr. Delacourt noted that both 1585 S. Rochester Road and 2371 S. Livernois Road

had been forwarded to the Study Committee by City Council with a response

requested within 180 days.

Chairperson Thompson explained those matters would proceed in accordance with

the resolution passed by City Council.

This matter was Discussed

NEW BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2009-0437

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

- Preliminary Report

Chairperson Thompson stated the Committee had received copies of a Preliminary

Report, noting this study was begun based upon a request for delisting that was

forwarded from City Council.

Mr. Delacourt stated the property owner had submitted a request to City Council

indicating their concern with the original designation and whether or not the property

and the house met the criteria. The basic argument was that it was a defective

procedure when it was listed, and even if there was not a defective procedure, it did

not meet the criteria for designation. Council had referred the matter to the

Committee for study. The Committee followed the normal procedure in sending it to

the consultant, who drafted the Preliminary Report which had been provided for the

Committee's review. A recommendation was included for the Committee's review

and discussion.

Mr. Delacourt asked for comments from the Committee on the draft Preliminary

Report, the recommendation from the consultant, and how they would like to

proceed.

Chairperson Thompson thought the Preliminary Report looked solid, noting the

Committee had briefly discussed the property at the December meeting. He asked if

the Committee was ready to accept the Report and transmit it to the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO).

Mr. Delacourt reminded the Committee that even if the Report was submitted to

SHPO, they still had the opportunity to revise the conclusion or the recommendation

as part of the Final Report process. That can be done at any time.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, stated she had read the report and had similar

comments to the comments she made about 1585 S. Rochester Road. In fact, she

was bothered that the report read almost identical to that one in some respects. She

had a problem with the conclusion from the standpoint of it saying things were different

from what the committee originally thought. She did not think we knew what the

committee originally thought. It is not the same as "previously defined". The house

has always looked the same. She had trouble with the style of architecture because it

truly has the appearance of a Greek Revival Plantation style piece and has always

looked that way. If one looked that up, as she was not an expert in the field, she was

curious if there was perhaps a mistake because it talks about it being a Colonial

Revival style. It has the appearances, but not the same as the plantation by any

means. Again, there were not that many examples talked about in Rochester Hills for

one thing of that style. When it talked about Criteria B about moving a house and not

meeting National Register Standards that again is addressing it in today's context, not

in the context of when it was moved where it had no obligation or requirement to meet

National Register criteria to be designated. To state that is one of the reasons that it

failed is not really appropriate. That may be what happens today, but it certainly was

not at the time it was designated. Again, she has a problem when the conclusion says

it was not what it was thought to be by the original Study Committee, because it is

exactly what is was defined as by the original Study Committee. We do not know

what they were thinking or they did not have as much to research, but we have not

shown either in this report very much research. She also was not sure she could agree

with the conclusion just because there was not a lot known about Jack Burns as an

architect or that we had not found a lot of evidence or he was insignificant for the time.

She stated he did the "Black and White Cow" house, but was he really a well thought

of architect at that time or very prominent she did not know as that would take some

more research. Maybe there is more that can be found to add to this Report, but it

disturbed her a little that the Committee would say they agreed it did not have any

significance or it was insignificant. That same thing about Rochester Road and that

was what bothered her about the report in both cases.

Mr. Hannick stated the Committee looked at older homes that the owners had made

changes to because they liked a particular style which changed the look of the house.

He questioned how that was reviewed or if it followed the review standards versus

reviewing a house that always looked the same. He commented if the house was

moved or a porch or addition was added, that had an effect on the house. He stated

if the Committee was operating under those guidelines, then this house did not fit the

guidelines because it was moved, and had been changed drastically in its style. The

style added by a former owner changed the original house. It was not the same as a

house like the Brooks farm house in Troy, Michigan, south of the Kresge building, that

house had not changed. He asked if the Van Hoosen farm house had changed or if

additions had been added. He wanted to know where the Committee drew the line.

He noted Mr. Webster's house was a historical house and asked if that house had had

any changes.

(Enter John Dziurman, 6:23 PM)

Chairperson Thompson stated that in some instances additions were inappropriately

added and they did change the structure. It also depended on when they were added,

where the additions were located and if they had been approved by the Historic

Districts Commission.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, stated that both this property and the other were

designated after they had been moved and after they had been changed. Since the

time of designation back in 1978, nothing had changed. That is what one is judging it

on, not what it looked like when it sat at the corner of Auburn and Rochester Road.

That is not what was being talked about. What was being talked about is the structure

as it existed in 1978 on the property known at 2371 S. Livernois. That is what one

should be judging its significance against. Yes, properties have changed, but they

were not designated, or even the Rochester Road one, it was changed but changed in

1971 and then designated in 1978. So the people in 1978 who looked at these

properties looked at the histories of them and designated them at that point for certain

reasons. But if it was for an architectural style, they were designated for the style at

that particular point in time.

Dr. Stamps stated he heard Ms. Hill clearly about imposing modern day criteria on a

former decision. He wondered if there were times when it could be said that maybe

they had made the decision but they did not have all the information.

Mr. Delacourt stated that unfortunately no documentation was included from the

original designation in this instance. The survey sheet available for the structure did not

list the year of construction for the house. The original Study Committee report does

not identify why, and the current Study Committee did not have the benefit of that

information to know what criteria or standard was used to qualify. The only thing the

Committee can look at is what stands today.

Dr. Stamps stated even though he understood Ms. Hill's comments, and the

Committee had to be careful about judging on a different set of standards, maybe

sometimes that had to be done. He asked if the house was really that significant. He

referred to the comment about the architect, and noted if the architect was a significant

architect, the Committee would have known that. He commented that to say "we

should save it because of he was a great architect", and pointed out that most great

architects get their name listed in the Architects of Michigan or Architects of America

or some other publication. He thought the architect probably did not reach the level of

significance that would justify. This is in part why the Committee turned to a

knowledgeable consultant, and took the consultant's word for it. If someone could

provide new information that indicated that "this was designed by the architect who

built the twin towers in New York" then the Committee would have to consider that

information.

Chairperson Thompson stated the original 1978 Study Committee did a good job

considering how many of the properties they designated remained designated.

However, they had looser standards at that time and he asked what criteria this Study

Committee should set and whether the Committee was obligated by the standards that

were almost non-existent then or apply the current standards. He did not think he had

a definite answer, but would not want to see all properties designated in 1978 coming

back requesting delisting.

Mr. Delacourt stated that research done validated over 95% of what was designated

in 1978 although those properties did not have individual reports from 1978. He

commented that this property and the 1585 S. Rochester Road property were both

probably marginal by today’s standards, although he did not have the benefit of

understanding what the standards were in 1978.

Chairperson Thompson did not want to criticize what had been done in 1978 because

they did a wonderful job considering there were not a lot of guidelines at that time. He

agreed that 95% of what had been designated was still standing and solid.

Dr. Stamps recalled that the Historic Districts Commission stated at every meeting that

they made decisions in accordance with the National Register Department of Interior

guidelines. If the Committee follows those standards, they could be holding the

buildings to a higher standard than what they were originally designated under.

Mr. Dziurman noted he had arrived late and had not heard the earlier conversation,

but stated he could assure the Committee "they did not have that information back

then". With respect to moving buildings, he commented there had been a number of

buildings moved in the Community, although he was not a proponent of that. He gave

a lot of credence to the original Study Committee and the good job they did. He

commented he had not had an opportunity to read the entire Preliminary Report, and

asked if the report indicated the property did not meet the National Register criteria.

He reminded the Committee that the State allowed a Community to retain its own

local district, and it did not have to be the National District.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the Preliminary Report concluded the house was not

significant in architecture.

Dr. Stamps noted Mr. Dziurman was an architect and asked if Mr. Dziurman thought

the house was significant. Mr. Dziurman stated he knew the building and he always

thought it was a nice looking building. Dr. Stamps agreed it was a lovely house.

Mr. Dziurman referred to the National Twist Drill property and the consultant's

opinion that the entire site should be recommended for designation, but that was not

what happened with the Stiles School because the State said the Committee could do

that.

Dr. Stamps asked if the State had responded on the Stiles School.

Mr. Delacourt clarified the State had indicated the Committee could suggest that type

of a district, but had not said they would agree with it.

Mr. Dziurman stated he was trying to relate that to the report where the consultant

made a comment that he normally would support.

Mr. Delacourt clarified the difference between the Stiles School property and the

National Twist property was that the recommendation for the Stiles School included

all the portions of the building that contributed to its integrity. With respect to the

National Twist Drill property, the portions that were being excluded were also

considered contributing portions. That was what the consultant based her

recommendations on.

Mr. Dziurman stated that the National Register standards are very clear the entire

property should be included in the designation. He was confused by the State

because they have been sending mixed signals over the last few years and did not

appear to be following the guidelines.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, stated she did not say this was not being suggested

for significance because of the architect. What she disputed, debated and questioned

was the fact about what criteria one needs to follow in this designation. Frankly, it

was open to what it used to be prior to 1992 when the State Act made a change that

said "shall be guided by" and then in 2002 SHPO set forth some criteria rules. We

are prior to either one of those and that is what allows us to look back at the report

that was there and decide were those people correct in the fact that they felt this

particular structure was worth saving and preserving. They felt it was and the City at

that time felt it was. Does that make it any lesser of an entity today than it was then

and in trying to apply the moving criteria when she said right in the report that it has no

bearing so to speak, and all of a sudden she contradicts herself in this report. Really,

the question is "does this body feel that it still has the significance that it had then"

because there was no other. She's saying "we don't think it does compared to what

they thought" and that was still her argument about what was it identified as and what

was identified as a certain structure, which is still the exact same structure today. She

did not think that argument held water. She would like to see anything else that we

could obtain to make the report a better report about the structure. To come to the

conclusion that it was not significant and we should not have it listed anymore, she had

a difficult time with.

Chairperson Thompson stated it appeared the Committee would like more time to

review this more thoroughly. He suggested the matter could be rescheduled for the

next meeting.

Dr. Stamps stated he could agree to delist it and pointed out it was still a beautiful

house.

Mr. Delacourt suggested that the consultant could be invited to attend the next meeting

to discuss the research and report.

Chairperson Thompson reminded the Committee the Public Hearings were scheduled

for the February meeting, and he did not know if there would be sufficient time to

address additional Agenda items prior to the Historic Districts Commission meeting

beginning at 7:00 PM. He suggested the Committee could consider a special meeting

with the consultant or schedule this matter for the Regular March Meeting. He asked

that Staff contact the consultant to see when she was available to meet with the

Committee.

This matter was Discussed

8B.

2010-0017

Election of Officers - 2010

- Chairperson

- Vice Chairperson

- Secretary

Dr. Stamps asked if the current officers were willing to continue serving, or if someone

else would like to be nominated for one of the officer positions. The current officers

indicated they would be willing to continue serving.

Dr. Stamps nominated Jason Thompson as Chairperson; Mr. Thompson nominated

Dr. Richard Stamps as Vice Chairperson, and the Planning and Development

Department staff was nominated as Secretary. The nominations were duly seconded.

Chairperson Thompson called for any other nominations. No other nominations were

made and the floor was closed. The following nominations were unanimously

approved:

Jason Thompson was unanimously elected to the office of Chairperson of the

Historic Districts Study Committee for a term ending December 31, 2010.

Dr. Richard Stamps was unanimously elected to the office of Vice

Chairperson of the Historic Districts Study Committee, for a term ending

December 31, 2010.

Staff from the Planning & Development Department was unanimously elected

to the office of Secretary of the Historic Districts Study Committee for the

term ending December 31, 2010.

Officers duly nominated and unanimously elected.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Thompson stated that the next regular meeting was scheduled for

Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 5:30 PM and reminded the Committee the Public

Hearings would be held on that date. Chairperson Thompson asked if there was any

other business. No other business was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Thompson adjourned the

meeting at 6:43 PM.

__________________________________

Jason Thompson, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Study Committee

__________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

(Approved as presented at the March 11, 2010 Regular Historic Districts Study

Committee Meeting).