Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Commission

Chairperson Brian R. Dunphy, Vice Chairperson Paul Miller

Members: Maria-Teresa L. Cozzolino, John Dziurman, Nicole Franey, Micheal Kilpatrick, Dr.

Richard Stamps, Jason Thompson

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, February 11, 2010

MINUTES of a REGULAR ROCHESTER HILLS HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION

MEETING held at the Rochester Hills Municipal Building, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive,

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

Chairperson Dunphy called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, John Dziurman, Paul Miller, Richard Stamps, Brian

Dunphy and Jason Thompson

Present

6 -

Micheal Kilpatrick and Nicole Franey

Absent

2 -

Also Present: Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that Ms. Franey had provided prior notice

she was unable to attend this meeting and was excused.

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Dunphy announced a quorum was present.

STATEMENT OF STANDARDS

4.

Chairperson Dunphy read the following Statement of Standards for the record.

"All decisions made by the Historic Districts Commission follow the guidelines

of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, MLHDA

Section 399.205, and City Code Section 118-164."

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.

5A.

2010-0079

Minutes of the January 14, 2010 Regular Meeting

Chairperson Dunphy asked for any comments or corrections to the January 14, 2010

Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing none, he called for a motion to approve.

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

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

Aye

Cozzolino, Dziurman, Miller, Stamps, Dunphy and Thompson

6 -

Absent

Kilpatrick and Franey

2 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the January 21, 2010 Regular Historic Districts

Commission Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMUNICATIONS

6.

1. November 23, 2009 Letter re 3610 S. Livernois

Chairperson Dunphy stated the Commissioners had received a copy of the letter discussed

at the January meeting regarding the property located at 3610 S. Livernois reminding the

property owners about their duty to maintain this historic property, specifically in relation to

the historic barn on the site.

(Arrive M. Kilpatrick 7:09 PM)

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, John Dziurman, Paul Miller, Richard Stamps,

Micheal Kilpatrick, Brian Dunphy and Jason Thompson

Present

7 -

Nicole Franey

Absent

1 -

2. February 4, 2010 Letter from City Attorney

Chairperson Dunphy stated the Commissioners had received a letter from the City

Attorney, who had been requested to provide a summary of his views on the limits on

the use of e-mail by Commissioners. There has been some concern about this in the

past, and he felt strongly that the Commission's business was to be conducted in

public and not via e-mail. Attorney Staran provided a good summary about the pro's

and con's and the guidelines for sharing information, but not discussing or lobbying

other Commissioners in regard to that information.

Dr. Stamps requested clarification that it was okay to talk with one person and maybe

lobby them, but more than one got them in trouble.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that Attorney Staran's opinion said specifically that "it is

not appropriate for an administrative board member to attempt to lobby or persuade a

fellow board member." That meant it did not matter how many people a

Commissioner intended to lobby, it is inappropriate no matter how many others are

involved.

Dr. Stamps felt it that really tied the Commissioner's hands behind their backs. He

clarified that meant the Commissioners could not discuss anything unless it is in a

meeting that has been officially called to order.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that was what the Open Meetings Act required.

Mr. Miller did not think that required the Commissioners to give up their constitutional

right of free speech. They were Historic District Commissioners at all times, not just

when they were sitting at a meeting. The Commissioners are allowed to express their

opinion as an individual and a citizen of the United States, as opposed to expressing

an opinion as an official Historic Districts Commissioner. He was not aware that

administrative boards were held to a higher standard than legislative boards, but the

Commissioners needed to be very cautious avoiding a lot of discussion between

Commissioners on something that is before them or something that will be coming

before them. Other than that, he believed the Commissioners could discuss anything

they wanted to discuss.

Chairperson Dunphy agreed, noting he was not saying that the Commissioner's were

giving up their constitutional rights, although he was not an attorney and anything in

more detail he would want to have Mr. Staran reference specifically. He did not want

to make the Commissioners feel they cannot share information with each other

because he thought that was appropriate. The point where he thought it crossed the

line was in advocating a certain position and specifically asking fellow Commissioners

to vote or consider voting in a certain way. Personally, he thought if the

Commissioners had additional questions about this, or they felt they needed to dig

deeper into the issue, he would be happy to ask the Commission's liaison to have Mr.

Staran join the Commissioners to talk about it in more detail and answer the questions.

Mr. Dziurman thought that would be appropriate. Chairperson Dunphy stated he

would ask the request be relayed to the Staff Liaison.

Mr. Dziurman stated he was confused about why it was so much more restrictive for

an administrative board than a Councilman. That did not make sense to him.

Chairperson Dunphy noted the letter from the attorney stated the law allowed for

greater flexibility for the legislative bodies. He would ask that the Attorney attend a

meeting and address those issues specifically.

Dr. Stamps thought it was okay if he ran into someone at the restaurant he could say

"that building needs some attention; it seems like its demolition by neglect," but he

could not say "we really should push for a letter being sent to them". Or they could

talk about science of it, but as long as he was not lobbying or persuading, he can talk

to his colleagues.

Chairperson Dunphy stated the issue clearly was that the Commission's deliberations

are intended to be public. He thought as a general rule the Commissioners needed to

be very careful about taking things off-line. It was a matter of law and he thought the

Commissioners had an ethical responsibility to conduct business in the open. He

would be happy to ask Mr. Staran to attend a meeting to address any questions the

Commissioners might have and explore any issues or nuances there might be.

Mr. Kilpatrick thought part of the distinction is that administrative was a quasi-judicial

capacity versus a legislative capacity. Since the Commissioners made decisions with

respect to Certificates of Appropriateness, and residents came to them for relief, that

was where the distinction lies and what Attorney Staran conveyed, which is why the

Commissioners did not have as much latitude. That way "the deal is not already done"

before a resident came before them, where the Commissioners had advocated a

position one way or the other.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other announcements or communications. No

other announcements or communications were presented.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

7.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any public comments. He advised the

audience members in attendance that if they wished to speak on any non-Agenda or

Agenda items, they should complete a speaker's card and turn it in to the recording

secretary. He reminded the speakers they had a maximum of three minutes to speak.

Alice Benbow, 1582 Northumberland Drive, stated she had not planned to speak

about the Attorney's letter, but wanted to make a statement to Mr. Staran. She

wished he would remind the City Council members of the Open Meetings Act as well.

If one looked back at the statistically significant voting record of the City Council

Members, it was blatantly obvious that things are not done in the open. That was not

only her opinion, but other people's opinion as well. She stated if she was a

Commissioner, she would be absolutely offended that Mr. Staran told them what they

had to watch and what they had to do as she did not know of any Commissioner who

would ever violate the Open Meetings Act, noting she wanted that on the record.

Ms. Benbow stated she wanted to speak about the blight ordinance. She thought

Mr. Staran should remind people in the historic district that they needed to maintain

their property and the City did have a blight ordinance. That would be a better use of

Mr. Staran’s attorney abilities.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, stated she was concerned about the status of the

Dunn/O'Neill Pottery property. She believed the Commission had asked for a

resolution to send this to the attorney for court action to stop that property from

having any further deterioration. It looks like it's on its last legs. She would like the

Commission to send another resolution to the attorney. This body has the authority to

ask the attorney to go to court on a matter and have the issue taken care of versus

having it get stopped at the Mayor's office. She also had a concern with 1585 S.

Rochester Road, which was before the Study Committee this evening. There seemed

to be some talk about things going on with that property, and whether they had asked

for a delisting or not, she would like to see this board ask the City Attorney to take

action on that property. It is definitely a demolition by neglect case. She would like

some attention be paid to the property on Adams Road, that was part of the Lorna

Stone PUD. What is the status of that house - is it mothballed, secured, or demolition

by neglect. She felt there was. Part of this body’s obligation is to help protect

designated districts and it was very sad what's going on, especially in large

development-owned properties. They have the one that's coming up on Livernois as

well on that ten-acre parcel. As a quick aside, she thought it would be worth the

taxpayer's dollars to have Attorney Staran attend one of the meetings so everyone is

perfectly comfortable with the explanation about the Open Meetings Act and the use

of electronic devices. It was a very tough issue and a fine line to walk and it’s really

important for the public to feel that everything is being conducted in a very open

manner.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2010-0021

2010 Earl Borden Award

- Discussion / Nomination of Recipient(s)

Chairperson Dunphy stated the Commissioners had received some information in their

packet about the 2010 Earl Borden Award. He noted a request for public comment

had been made for this Agenda item.

Sue Thomasson, 999 E. Tienken Road, wanted to suggest that the Commission

consider Michelle Akers-Berg for the 2010 Earl Borden Award for preservation

leadership. She stated Ms. Akers-Berg was the archival specialist for the Rochester

Hills Museum for the past eight years, and worked tirelessly to preserve and protect

the archives, artifacts, buildings, and furnishings, all of which belonged to this

Community, not just to the Museum. She also worked to inform people of the history

of the Community. She explained Ms. Akers-Berg was no longer an employee and

she thought this would be a nice way to thank her for her years of preservation work.

Chairperson Dunphy stated under the Commission's process for the awards, they

could make the nominations and vote on them at this meeting or at the March meeting.

He did not see a reason to delay to March unless they were totally bereft of nominees

they could feel comfortable with. He opened the discussion to consider nominations.

Mr. Dziurman thought the Tienken Road organization had done an outstanding job

over the task they took upon themselves, specifically their efforts related to the Stoney

Creek Village. He thought they should be recognized for that effort, as they had been

very beneficial in saving the most important historic district in our Community.

Mr. Dunphy asked if the Commission had identified to whom the award would be

presented.

Mr. Dziurman stated there were two prime people, Dave and Joe, but he thought it

should go to the whole group.

Mr. Miller believed they had structured leadership and assumed the award would be

presented to the acting chairperson or president.

Dr. Stamps agreed the award be given to the group. He thought there was some

organization although he was not sure of the names but there was a Dave and

somebody else. He noted a former Historic Districts Commissioner was also closely

involved. He thought they could be contacted and asked about their leadership.

Chairperson Dunphy stated he was not in favor of the nomination and would not

support it. He was not sure he was convinced that the group's role in this process was

appropriate and merited this kind of recognition.

Dr. Stamps thought the reason he leaned towards giving them recognition was

because of the way they rallied the members of the Historic District; pulled them

together; held meetings, and generated an interest in historic preservation that the

Commission had not seen in a long time. They tried to work through all the

appropriate channels and he thought they accomplished something. Had they not

stepped forward, he did not think the Commission would have been able have come

up with the solution that was arrived at. He was in favor of it, although he liked Ms.

Thomasson's suggestion of Ms. Akers-Berg at the Museum as she was a very

deserving person also. Ms. Akers-Berg did her work for eight years or so, and the

Committee only did theirs for two years, but he thought the Committee did a lot that

was key and important.

Mr. Miller stated he was in favor of the nomination, noting it was the only nomination

made. The most outstanding reason for supporting it was this was first time that the

Road Commission had ever been before the Commission. He did not believe it would

have happened if the Friends of Tienken Road and the Village residents had not

insisted the way they did in the face of some pretty strong opposition in terms of the

"authorities". He thought it was significant because of the size of the contiguous district

and its historical importance. In terms of the original meaning of the award, this group

seemed to fall to the head of the list.

Mr. Thompson had some difficulty with this nomination and shared some of the

Chair's concerns. He noted in years past, Mr. Dziurman had always reminded the

Commission it was not always necessary or prudent to give this award if there was not

someone deserving. He could not support the nomination.

Chairperson Dunphy took issue with the assessment that it was that group's

involvement that got the Commission the outcome they did and that the Commission

would not have been able to approach it from the Commission without the urging of

the Tienken Road group. He took strong exception to that statement, and was part of

his reservation about the nomination.

Mr. Dziurman stated the selection criterion was very clear: "recognize individuals or

groups who have made outstanding efforts to support historic preservation in our

community". They certainly have done that, and they made headlines throughout the

whole City and probably the whole region for many, many months about the

importance of preservation. To him, the preservation award can be presented to

individuals and organizations for outstanding historic preservation efforts in the greater

Rochester Hills community and even efforts outside the City Limits would be

considered. He did not know of anybody that had had that much publicity, held

public meetings, been on television, and things like that talking about preservation. He

was against nominating Ms. Akers-Berg because she was an employee doing a good

job, and that was great, she should be doing a good job, but he did not think they

should get an award from the Commission for doing a good job. He looked at these

awards as people who give their time and effort and did not get paid for doing it. He

thought that was where the Commission should be going with this. These people put

in almost full time during this effort and he supported it, which is why he made the

nomination.

Ms. Cozzolino supported what Mr. Dziurman just indicated. She did not think Ms.

Akers-Berg is the right person since she was an employee, and she did support the

Tienken group receiving the award.

Mr. Miller said that never before had the County Road Commission, or the City,

come before the Historic Districts Commission in regard to any road construction. In

fact, with his limited knowledge, he could think of times where they not only did not,

but planned on demolishing a historically significant house that was actually the home

of Mr. Borden. It was only through the results of some individuals pushing for a

review and decision to be made that the Prairie House was even saved. The Tienken

Road Group made extremely intensive efforts to involve not only the Commission, but

the County and State groups resulting in a positive outcome for the Village. He

thought it was important. He referred to the stone shelter which was National Register

eligible. He commented the Commission represents the City, telling folks that come

before them with a designated house or in the contiguous district, what they can and

cannot do, and yet the City has a National Register eligible building in one of its public

parks that does not fall within the purview of the Commission. He hoped that "we

could all get on the same train car headed in the same direction". He thought the

award going to the Friends of Tienken Road group might actually help put us in that

car.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated he would be more comfortable if the Commissioners could name

the individuals that were involved. He acknowledged there were some individuals that

seemed to have been more active and involved, and if the Commission had a list of

them and their efforts, he would feel more comfortable with that. The reason he said

that was because he was happy with what they did, but he thought that group in and of

itself had some negative connotations. He thought if there were some individuals

beyond "Joe and Dave", and not to slight anyone, but an indication of what they did,

he might be more comfortable with the nomination.

Mr. Dziurman stated it was their steering committee. He did not want to tell the

names because he did not remember everyone. He thought that was probably more

appropriate.

Dr. Stamps thought it was appropriate to come up with the names of the steering

committee and the Commission could recognize the group and invite the steering

committee. He stated there was somebody from the schools, the land, and the historic

neighborhood. He thought if the Commission looked back over the past year and

took the guideline that said "recognizes individuals who have made outstanding efforts

to support historic preservation in our community," this really exemplified the thrust

and the spirit of that more than anything else that happened in the last year. He also

thought there was a value if the Commission came out and said they appreciated a

group of citizens who got together and accomplished something. He thought they

were very deserving and could not think of anything in the last year that could hold a

candle to it and he still supported it.

Mr. Miller agreed. He noted whether the Commission was talking about a

greenspace millage effort or historic preservation, without community involvement and

support, it was either a very hard uphill struggle or impossible. He thought it was

worthy of notice when there is a community group involved in issues; however, he also

understand that there probably were some individuals who really did provide the large

bulk of the footwork; the letter writing, and showing up at City Council. He suggested

if it would make a difference that somebody could contact that group. He did know

that Dave Tripp and Joe and others were significantly involved, not only in doing the

homework and the phone calls, but in hosting the community meetings and putting

those together. Perhaps instead of the group, or along with the group, it might be

better to recognize certain individuals who were key or crucial to that effort. He was

comfortable going with the decision of the Commission on how it wants to move on

this. He agreed that if there was no one that rises to level, then it's probably best that

the award not be given.

Chairperson Dunphy stated the Commission needed to figure out if they wanted to

vote on the nomination as is, or if they wanted to take this up at the next meeting

where they could have names they could put on the nomination. He recalled the

Commission did have names on the greenspace award, noting that Pam Wallace and

Andy Krupp were the awardees on behalf of the group. He stated the Commission

had precedent there for approaching it on that basis if the individuals can be identified.

Mr. Miller stated he was involved with the Greenspace Yes! and the "Save our Open

Space" groups from the very beginning and knew the key individuals that were

involved. There were others that felt slighted because their names were not

mentioned. It was hard to avoid offending anyone and he was not sure the

Commission should try to. He thought even though there were key individuals in this,

they operated under the aegis of Friends of Tienken Road and he was comfortable

giving the award to the group. He would also be comfortable voting the award to the

group with the key individuals to be discovered and named since there was time

before the invitations were printed and sent out and the award plaque ordered.

Mr. Miller believed a simple phone call could take care of that. Either one of the

Commissioners could call or the Staff Liaison could find out for them. He suggested

rather than making the presentation in conjunction with the City Council, perhaps the

Commission could come up with a more public venue to present this award, giving it

greater recognition Community-wise. He had noticed when the award is given at the

City Council meeting very few people were there because of the award.

Mr. Dziurman stated when the award first started, the Commission used to give the

award at the Museum. He happened to be the Chair at that time and gave the award

out, and they had a pretty good crowd there. He thought the advantage over time

was the television exposure and was why it was moved to a City Council meeting. He

noted that was quite an exposure that would be lost. The other way was an interesting

way to present the award and they used to have a pretty good crowd, including

people from the historical society and the Village, and obviously relatives attended. It

was moved to City Council because of television.

Mr. Dziurman stated that since he made the nomination, he supported what was said

about the names. He thought they should follow what they did with greenspace and

that was the way to handle it. As for the names, he thought the Commission could

figure that out and did not have to make that part of the motion.

Dr. Stamps suggested one phone call to former Commissioner, Melissa Luginski,

because she knew. She lived in the same household as one of them and was next

door neighbors with all the rest of them. The recording secretary could ask for a list

of the executive committee or the key people, and that could be brought back to the

Commission next month.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if the Recording Secretary would be okay with making the

call or whether a member of the Commission should handle that. The Recording

Secretary noted she was not sure she had current contact information for Ms.

Luginski, although her e-mail address may not have changed.

Dr. Stamps stated he would support a motion for the nomination.

Chairperson Dunphy stated procedurally the Commission had a nomination that was

supported and had held discussion, and asked if there was any additional discussion.

No additional discussion was held regarding the nomination.

Chairperson Dunphy called for a voice vote on the nomination of The Friends of

Tienken Road as the recipient of the 2010 Earl Borden Preservation Leadership

Award. The Commission voted in favor of the nomination, with nay votes from Mr.

Dunphy and Mr. Thompson. He noted for the record that the nomination carried.

A motion was made by Dziurman, seconded by Stamps, that this matter be

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Cozzolino, Dziurman, Miller, Stamps and Kilpatrick

5 -

Nay

Dunphy and Thompson

2 -

Absent

Franey

1 -

RESOLVED that The Friends of Tienken Road are nominated as the recipient

of the 2010 Earl Borden Preservation Leadership Award.

2010-0110

Bloomer Park Stone Shelter (HDSC 10-001)

Bloomer Park No. 2 Picnic Shelter

Mr. Dziurman referred to the comments about Bloomer Park, and stated he totally

agreed that there was no reason it should not be part of the historic districts. He

wanted to make a motion that the Rochester Hills Historic Districts Commission ask

the Rochester Hills Historic Districts Study Committee to look into and see if it would

be appropriate to nominate it as a resource in the local register. That would include

both the stone shelter and picnic shelter No. 2.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if the request would be made directly to the Study

Committee or to City Council to direct the Study Committee to conduct the study.

Mr. Dziurman believed anyone in the City could ask the Study Committee to do that

and it did not have to go through City Council.

Mr. Thompson stated the previous Ordinance permitted anyone to make the request,

but the revised Ordinance stated anyone could make the request of City Council but

Council had to direct the Study Committee to conduct the study. He stated the

Committee could discuss that at the next meeting.

Mr. Miller suggested the motion be revised to ask City Council to direct it to the

Study Committee if that was more appropriate.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if the motion maker was agreeable to changing his motion.

Mr. Dziurman stated that would be fine. Dr. Stamps stated he would second the

motion. Mr. Dziurman clarified the motion requested a study of the Bloomer Park

Stone Shelter and the No. 2 Picnic Shelter together.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Upon hearing

none, he called for a voice vote.

A motion was made by Dziurman, seconded by Stamps, that this matter be

Accepted. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Cozzolino, Dziurman, Miller, Stamps, Kilpatrick, Dunphy and Thompson

7 -

Absent

Franey

1 -

RESOLVED that the Rochester Hills Historic Districts Commission requests

that the Rochester Hills City Council request the Rochester Hills Historic

Districts Study Committee to conduct a study on the Stone Shelter at Bloomer

Park and also on the No. 2 Picnic Shelter at Bloomer Park to determine if it

would be appropriate to nominate those structures as resources in the local

register.

2010-0021

2010 Earl Borden Award

- Discussion / Nomination of Recipient(s)

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any other nominations the Commission

wanted to consider for the 2010 Earl Borden Award.

Dr. Stamps asked if there were any structures or rehabilitation activities, noting he

could not think of any.

Mr. Miller mentioned the Heritage Festival that was held in the Community, although

not within the City Limit. He stated it had been held in the Downtown Rochester

Municipal Park, but the location would be changing this year, and there had been

some talk that Bloomer Park or Rochester College might become future locations. He

suggested the festival could be a possible location for the award presentation, although

he realized television reached a large audience and may not be surpassed. He hoped

the festival could become more of a regional event, and certainly tied in with both

educating and raising awareness of the City's historic heritage and the historic districts,

structures and individuals within the Community.

Chairperson Dunphy stated he knew there had been discussion about where that

venue would be and who would be responsible for it, and there had been some

discussion about another group continuing to hold an event at the Rochester City

Park. He thought this had a way to go before it was settled, and cautioned the

Commission to be careful not jump in support of one group or another until they knew

where the process was likely to wind up. He thought anything that helped support

awareness of the local history was a plus.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business.

Mr. Dziurman mentioned the public comment received at the Study Committee

meeting in favor of preservation was gratifying and he appreciated it.

Dr. Stamps stated the Oakland County Historical Commission was also meeting this

evening. That group is recognizing the fact that next year will be the sesquicentennial

of the beginning of the Civil War. They would be discussing the types of things that

communities can do to remember, respect and learn from the Civil War experience,

such as speaker's groups, re-enactors groups, exhibits in local museums that would

rotate around the County, picnics, parades, publications of Civil War soldier's letters,

art gallery shows of Civil War photography, and song and dance from the Civil War

period, Civil War cemetery walks learning about the individuals buried in cemeteries

across Oakland County, and how it was a watershed event in our country's history.

The theme of the County-wide event would be "thank God for Michigan". The idea

was to encourage cities, townships, historical societies and other groups to take

advantage of this opportunity to educate, learn, and share so they will not have been

lost in vain. He encouraged the Commissioners to become involved in remembering

that watershed event in our history.

Mr. Miller stated the latest publication he received from the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) included a request for information in regards to awards,

which specifically mentioned historic landscapes. He realized that had not been much

of a focus locally, but thought the Commission could begin to take historic landscape

renovation or preservation into account. There were still small pieces of the original

landscape that survived, but he did not believe they were likely to survive unless they

got more attention. He thought that would fall under the Commission's purview since

it is historic landscape and is included in some of the Ordinances.

Dr. Stamps asked if there were any in the City.

Mr. Miller stated there were a few small pieces here and there on hillsides or along the

railroad tracks, but it would take some further investigation. There are traces of both

the tall grass prairie as well as oak barrens, although most of the vernal ponds have

been lost. He believed 1800s landscape still survived around some of the existing old

farms.

Mr. Dziurman thought that was a great idea. He knew the Museum at one time had

talked to a historic landscaper although he did not know if anything was done at the

Museum. He referred to Meadowbrook, because of the garden club and their

fantastic gardens, but he did not know if they were historic. He did not know if any of

the gardens featured in the garden tours were historic, but it was something the

Commission should look into.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business, noting the next meeting was

scheduled for March 11, 2010. No other business was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Dunphy adjourned the meeting at

8:12 PM.

__________________________________

Brian Dunphy, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Commission

_________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

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

Commission Meeting)