Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Irvington owner asks commission to authorize work done without approval; staff recommends corrections, commission continues case
Summary
An Irvington homeowner asked the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission to authorize exterior work he completed without prior approval; staff recommended partial authorization but required removal or replacement of several elements, and the commission continued the case to July to allow further staff review and possible site visits.
Darryl Gunion asked the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission in June to authorize exterior work he completed at 5814 Beechwood Avenue in Irvington, saying he used “the best commercially available materials” and that removing his work would cause financial ruin. “If you rule against me, the things like tearing the things off and replacing them could be over $100,000,” Gunion said.
Gunion described replacing windows, installing new doors after a burglary, demolishing a greenhouse and constructing a framed sun porch with lap siding, repurposed hardwood floors and a painted brick interior wall. He said he consulted the city permits office and believed a permit was unnecessary because the foundation was not enlarged.
Neighbors and local supporters spoke in favor of Gunion’s work, submitting multiple letters and offering oral testimony that the house looked improved and that preservation of a maintained home is preferable to a vacant or deteriorating property. Andy Nielsen, the district city-county counselor, wrote the commission supporting authorization and warning that denial could lead to the property falling into disrepair.
Staff review and recommendation: Shelby Long and IHPC staff said the property’s prior “noncontributing” classification may have been assigned because of a later greenhouse addition and that, based on building features, the house may in fact be contributing. Staff recommended a two-part outcome:
- Part A (approved): authorize a railing on the west stoop and approve several items completed without prior IHPC approval, including new wood trim, removal of metal awnings, replacement of rear and west doors, dormer openings closed, and demolition of the greenhouse. Staff recommended approving Second Floor vinyl windows installed by a previous owner (staff found those inappropriate but noted they preceded the current owner).
- Part B (denied): require removal or correction of the front addition/sun porch, replacement of the first-floor windows and the front door, replacement of rough sawn fiber-cement dormer siding with smooth wood siding, and replacement of the octagonal dormer window. Staff said those items were inappropriate, used poor-quality materials, or changed the building’s character, and that the owner “continued to work on the property after violations and stop-work orders were issued.” Staff recommended required corrections by Aug. 6 and notified the city prosecutor and the listing realtor.
Commission response and disposition: Commissioners expressed frustration that work proceeded without prior approval and noted the hardship claims from the owner. Several commissioners said the house’s classification as “noncontributing” in the adopted plan requires a different review lens focused on neighborhood effect rather than the subject building alone; Commissioner David Baker described trying to separate designation language from the building’s architectural merits.
Commissioners asked staff to revisit the noncontributing/contributing classification and to provide guidance considering the district plan’s language. The applicant asked that commissioners visit the site; commissioners and staff said they would consider that. The applicant agreed not to sell the property before the next hearing.
The commission voted to continue the matter to the July 2 meeting so staff can re-evaluate the plan classification and commissioners can further review. Staff will work with the applicant on possible modifications to the porch base (a suggested repurposed-brick water table) and other changes that could reduce the visual impact.
Why it matters: The case illustrates enforcement challenges when owners undertake exterior work in a historic district without prior review, the commission’s role in balancing preservation standards with owner hardship claims, and how district classification (contributing vs. noncontributing) changes review standards.
Action summary: The commission continued 2024 COA 356 to the July 2 IHPC meeting; the applicant agreed not to sell the property in the interim.
