Mark Delosse, administrator for the Carmel Historic Preservation Commission and a consultant with Indiana Landmarks, told residents at a community meeting that the commission approved additions to the Carmel Historic Architecture Survey that raise the inventory from about 546 properties to roughly 1,600.

Delosse said the updated survey — conducted in 2020 and finished in 2021 — is a more comprehensive, street‑by‑street catalog of buildings 50 years or older, and that the commission will present those recommended additions to the City Council for final action. “The commission approved the addition to the survey, but the council has not,” Delosse said, adding the council is the body that would review and adopt any additions.

Why this matters: being listed on the survey is an informational step, Delosse said, not a designation that automatically changes how owners use their property. “Being on the survey has no effect on changes or alterations,” he said. The immediate regulatory change that can follow an application is the city’s demolition‑delay ordinance: when an owner or buyer files for demolition, a 60‑day waiting period begins to explore alternatives such as relocation or negotiation.

Residents at the meeting raised concerns about fairness, property values and how addresses were chosen. One homeowner who said identical houses on her block were not included asked whether the survey’s selection seemed “random.” Delosse acknowledged variability in past surveys — the earlier 2013–2014 effort was a representative sample — and offered to perform a site visit to explain why a specific property was included.

Delosse also described incentives and limits tied to the survey and to designation: properties merely on the survey are eligible to apply for a façade grant of up to $10,000 per cycle, while properties that move forward to formal local designation and protection can apply for grants up to $20,000. He said the commission’s façade grant program has awarded just under $100,000 since 2016 and that those grants helped leverage about $445,000 in private investment.

On relocation and demolition: Delosse described relocation as technically possible but rarely practical in Carmel because vacant lots are scarce and costs are high. He cited a past example in which the nearest available lot for a relocation would have cost about $275,000 just to acquire, before moving and utility costs. He said the commission and its nonreverting fund sometimes look at relocation but that, for many contributing‑rated properties, demolition has ultimately been approved after the delay period.

Next steps: Delosse said the commission intends to gather more public feedback and anticipated bringing the matter to City Council for consideration in early 2026. He said the commission would notify property owners before the council hearing and encouraged residents to attend and submit input.

Residents asked whether being on the survey could reduce property values; the meeting included a comment that no evidence from the earlier survey indicated a decline in assessed values for included properties. Delosse emphasized that formal local protection typically proceeds only with property owner cooperation and that the survey itself is primarily a planning and informational tool.

The commission and its consultant urged property owners to review the online survey (searchable by address) and to contact staff with questions or to request a site visit. The meeting was recorded and live‑streamed.