Council denies appeal by Guys 1 LLC, upholds historic-district fines totaling $138,600

The Hammond City Council on May 27 denied an appeal by Guys 1 LLC of fines assessed by the Hammond Historic District Commission for multiple maintenance violations, leaving the commission's fines in place.

Historic-district staff told the council the property had long-standing maintenance problems including vegetation, graffiti, boarded openings and roof leaks. Heather Dibble, speaking for the historic district, said fines were assessed for a cumulative 462 days of violation dating from February 20, 2024, and calculated at $100 per day per violation, totaling $138,600. "At this point, Mr. Smith is 462 days in violation, which equals a hundred and $38,600 in fines," Dibble told the council.

Owner Daryl Smith and his attorney asked the council to defer action to allow more time to resolve issues and to pursue plans to rebuild or substantially renovate the property downtown. Smith said he intended to demolish most of the rear structure and build a new, multi-story structure in the downtown core and asked the council to deny the fines to allow him to proceed with redevelopment plans.

Historic District Chair Jessica Shirey and other commission members said the fines were a last resort after repeated opportunities to bring the building into compliance. "A fine is an absolute last resort. Every ounce of leeway has been given," Shirey said, and explained that property stabilizing work — securing the roof and openings — had been requested and not completed.

Council members debated whether to grant a continuance but concluded that further delay would only extend the period for which fines could accrue. The council voted to deny the appeal. Roll call recorded Councilman Divitario: Abstain; Councilwoman Gonzales: Aye; Councilman Leon: Aye; Councilman Andrews: Aye. The mayor declared the appeal denied, effectively upholding the historic district commission's assessment.

Council discussion noted that the denial pertains to whether the commission properly imposed fines; because related litigation is pending about a certificate of appropriateness, the council framed its action narrowly on the fine-assessment question. Historic-district staff said the commission had attempted outreach and had authority under the Unified Development Code and state statute adopted into the UDC to assess fines for noncompliance.

The council did not order immediate enforcement of the fines owing to the ongoing litigation; staff said civil remedies and enforcement steps would follow appropriate legal processes.