NOTES ON ZALU MEETING OF 4/9/14

NOTES ON ZALU MEETING OF 4/9/14
LOCATION: OLD LOUISVILLE INFORMATION CENTER

 IN ATTENDANCE -
 CHUCK ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN
 LEAH STEWART,
 MARY MARTIN,
 CHRISTOPHER WHITE,
 HOWARD ROSENBERG (MEMBER EX OFFICIO)

CALLED TO ORDER-7:05P.M.

WHITE BELIEVED THAT THE RULE OF A QUORUM OF FIVE LEGAL MEMBERS 

WAS MET, AS STIPULATED IN THE ZALU CHARTER. 

ANDERSON AND ROSENBERG DISAGREED WITH THIS POINT BECAUSE THEY

BELIEVE THAT ROSENBERG'S ATTENDANCE DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD QUORUM.

THUS,  WITHOUT A QUORUM, NO BUSINESS COULD BE TRANSACTED, 

THOUGH A PUBLIC MEETING COULD STILL COMMENCE.

---
ORDER OF TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION PRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN ANDERSON.

NO MINUTES FROM MARCH 12 MEETING WERE READ.

---
REVISIONS TO THE ZALU CHARTER DISCUSSION OPENED.
CURRENTLY OPERATIVE VER. 5 OF CHARTER COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED 

REVISED VERSION OF MARCH 24, 2014.

PARAGRAPH 2 DISCUSSED.
CTWHITE PROMPTED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
 WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR LIMITING VOTING ZALU MEMBERSHIP TO
 NINE APPOINTED SEATS? WHY NOT STIPULATE ONLY "AT LEAST NINE SEATS"
 AND ALLOW FOR ALTERNATE WAYS TO FILL THE SEATS?
 WHY IS IT BELIEVED THAT THE PROPOSED APPOINTMENTS SERVE ZALU BETTER THAN THE CURRENT CHARTER'S CONTROLS? ROSENBERG OFFERED HIS THOUGHTS.
A MAJORITY IN ATTENDANCE STATED THAT THE CURRENT CONTROLS ARE NOT WORKING 

AND SOMETHING ELSE MUST BE TRIED, WHETHER THE PROPOSED CONTROLS WILL WORK 

IS ANYONE'S GUESS.

PARAGRAPH 4 OF PROPOSED REVISED CHARTER AND RELATED PARAGRAPH IN EARLIER 

CHARTER  VER. I.3  DISCUSSED.
WHITE ASKED IF ZALU WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY HAVING THE OLNC CHAIR
APPOINT SOMEONE FROM OUTSIDE OF ZALU AS A NON-VOTING SECRETARY FOR THE 

RECORDING AND PUBLISHING  OF ZALU BUSINESS AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS.  

LEAH STEWART ASKED IF THERE BE MONEY FOR SUCH AN APPOINTMENT IN THE ZALU BUDGET? DISCUSSION DEFERRED. IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT THIS WAS A SERIOUS ISSUE AND

NEEDED TO BE REVISITED LATER AND THAT SUCH AN APPOINTMENT SEEMED A USEFUL IDEA.

PARAGRAPH 3: WORDING ON ZALU CHAIR APPOINTMENT.
THE WORDING IN THE CURRENTLY OPERATIVE  VER. I.5 OF CHARTER EXPRESSES BETTER, 

THAN THE REVISED VERSION, HOW THE ZALU CHAIR IS SELECTED. 
THE OLDER LANGUAGE FROM CHARTER VER 5 WILL BE USED FOR THE REVISION.

---
 MEETING DAY OF ZALU DISCUSSED.
 HELGA ULRICH HAD REQUESTED BY E-MAIL THAT THE RECENT CHANGE (FEB 6) OF THE
 ZALU MEETING DAY FROM FIRST THURSDAYS TO SECOND WEDNESDAYS BE RECONSIDERED.  

NO CHANGE WAS ISSUED.
IT WAS SAID BY THE ZALU CHAIRMAN THAT THE RECENT CHANGE OF MONTHLY MEETING DAY 

TO SECOND WEDNESDAYS WAS DONE TO ACCOMMODATE LEAH STEWART'S SCHEDULE, 

THAT IT WAS RECONSIDERED AT THE MARCH 12, 2014 MEETING AND ALL AGREED TO LEAVE 

THE CHANGE IN PLACE.

WHITE ASKED LEAH STEWART, IN FRONT OF THE GROUP, IF ALL FIRST-THURSDAYS OF 

THE MONTH WERE INDEED IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER. SHE REPLIED THAT AFTER THIS MAY

SHE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH FIRST THURSDAYS AS OUR MEETING DAY. ANDERSON AND MARTIN,

HOWEVER, DID NOT WANT ANOTHER CHANGE; LEAVE THE CHANGE AS IS.

TNZD REVIEW DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED. A FINAL VERSION IS PENDING FROM CHUCK.

STATUS OF TNZD SIGNAGE RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSED.
---

JUST PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT, WHITE REQUESTED THAT SOMEONE IN ATTENDANCE SEND 

BY E-MAIL TO ZALU MEMBERSHIP THE REVISED CHARTER DOCUMENT ALONG WITH A 

SOLICITATION FOR A MOTION BY A ZALU MEMBER THAT THE REVISED CHARTER BE MOVED ON 

TO THE OLNC FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AT ITS UPCOMING APRIL MEETING. ONCE SECONDED, 

THE MOTION WOULD BE OPEN TO A VOTE WITHOUT FURTHER DEBATE. 

IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED SO TO DO.

CHAIRMAN ANDERSON WILL SEND OUT THE DOCUMENT AND PROMPT. 

MARTIN QUESTIONED WHO WOULD BE THE ZALU MEMBERSHIP COHORT TO RECEIVE THE EMAIL.

THE MEMBERSHIP WHO WILL RECEIVE THE DOCUMENT AND SOLICITATION ARE:
CHUCK ANDERSON, LEAH STEWART, MARY MARTIN,
JOE IMPELLIZZERI, HELGA ULRICH, STEPHEN PETERSON,
TIM BOTTORFF, CTWHITE, BOB BAJANDAS. (IT WAS STILL PRESUMED BY THE MAJORITY THAT HOWARD ROSENBERG DID NOT HAVE VOTING RIGHTS WITHIN ZALU.)

WHITE WILL GET A HARD COPY OF MATERIALS TO BOTTORFF WHO DOES NOT
USE AN E-MAIL SERVICE.

---
ADJOURNED AT 8 :05 P.M.

NOTES SUBMITTED BY IPAD, BY CTWHITE

Old Louisville ZALU meeting: Feb. 6, 2014

The first 45 mins. of the February 2014 ZALU meeting took up the project
on 1031 S. 6th St. from Old Louisville resident Nancy Cogan 
with Q&A following on the subject of her redevelopment
of Vault 1031 property. She is being advised by her lawyer and 
Metro PDS staff on the intricacies of the zoning issues and what is the 
most effective way to have zoning/mapping of property adapt to her vision for 
the Vault 1031.

ZALU had little to offer her at this time besides a listening ear and 
sounding board. Some members of ZALU  expressed
a) reservations about the precedent created by a remapping of a particular 
property to fit a developer's plan rather than the other way around
b) suggestions for alternative procedures that would have less long lasting 
impact on the area around her property
c) a request that Ms. Cogan inform the nearby residents of the 
impact of her plans, seek their support and come back to ZALU a.s.a.p.

ZALU will consult with Metro PDS about our suggestions for an alternative 
process having to do with changing the nonconforming uses of the property, 
especially if we can show neighborhood support for this alternative.

The next 30 minutes were taken up with a presentation by resident 
Wade Mattingly on his hopes to open a craft beer "brew pub" in a 600 sq ft 
space at 1207 S 6th St. His notion for a brew pub, commendably fueled by 
passion for both brewing and his newly adopted OL neighborhood, appears 
to have hit a wall and needs to be reformulated if it is going to work in 
Old Louisville. Mr. Mattingly disputed that his intended business fits the
definition of a"tavern". However, there is no definition for "brew pub" in 
the Metro Land Development Code.

Problems:
A) zoning codes pose a legal barrier to Mattingly's idea in its current form;
B) a tavern cannot operate at 1207 S 6th, a property zoned corner commercial;
C) a brewery, defined as a manufacturing enterprise, is allowed only in an area 
zoned for industry, if brewery is the primary enterprise of the business.

The business model that Mattingly might consider is the Beer Engine and its
successful effort to get the zoning changed for site of its Germantown location.

Other subjects: the regular monthly meeting day of ZALU may need to change.
The likely new meeting day will be the second Wednesday of each month.
Time will remain the same.

Notes submitted by CTWhite

Case ends. Judge rules in favor of BOZA.

In the first week of March, 2012, Judge Maze ruled in favor of the Metro Louisville Board of Zoning Adjustment [BOZA] in the case over non-conforming use rights granted to King Southern Bank for the property at 224 E. Oak St. 40203. He said that for all evidence showing abandonment,  there was presented countering evidence showing non-abandonment. In such a case, the Court would not impose itself on the local administrative body and so it upheld the ruling of the BOZA.

The appellants are grateful for the skillful work and support of their attorneys and, likewise, the support of the many individuals who have contributed money to help cover the legal expenses. We have remaining a about $2000 of unpaid billing and ask you, the reader, to consider helping us again to retire this debt.

Case of 224 E. Oak Street: Good News! The court says "No" to our opposition.

Last Friday, 2/17, word arrived that Judge Maze had entered into the record an important ruling in the case of 224 E. Oak St: Leah Stewart, Steve Zocklein and Christopher White v. King Southern Bank [KSB], DF Investment [DFI], and Louisville Metro Board of Zoning Adjustment [BOZA].

The court struck down the DF Investment/King Southern Bank request that it accept their belated filing of a reply to our final brief; they wanted more time, exception to the original filing order, and possibly to force us into oral arguments. Their attorneys missed the deadline of January 3, 2012, which was the date to end the filings. That this is ironical, I'm sure is not lost on you, the reader, if you have followed this case since its inception. The KSB/DRI initial attack on ZALU was timeliness. BOZA has quietly stayed out of the fray.

In his decision, Maze recognized that KSB, DF Investment, and BOZA were not complying with the filing order that all parties had originally agreed to adopt.

He struck our adversaries' late Reply Brief from the record.  

The case now stands submitted for a decision on the merits before the Court.  

However, we do not know what our opponents will try next. 

  

This current decision is consistent with Maze's mindset, so far.

He has effectively maintained the strength of our position in the face of the very aggressive litigation tactics by KSB/DFI. Judge Maze is under no deadline so there is no way to predict when his decision will be made. Our team will announce any news as we receive it. 

Please stay with us. Your continued interest and support is essential to this important neighborhood case.

What the new year has wrought for the case.

WE OBJECT! say the Appellants through our counsel to the Court when the combined counsel for King Southern Bank (KSB), DF Investment (DFI) & Louisville Metro Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) miss the court-ordered filing deadline by 10 days and certify a new Reply Brief in violation of the Court's opinion and order of last September 16, 2011. "Just a bit late", a reasonable person might think.  Back in September 2011, Judge Maze set the sequence of dates for the filing of briefs;         it was to end on Jan. 3, 2012 unless extensions were filed in advance of the deadlines.  No advance petitions were made; no doctor's note submitted by the slack student requesting to turn in due work late & for full credit. Ah!

Like the Aesop's fable, "The Grasshopper and the Ant", we the Appellants & our counsel, ant-like, cracked our backs and chafed our rumps from long hours sitting, arguing, and revising to get our homework done over the holidays just to meet the early new year court-ordered deadline of Jan. 3.  The opposition Appellees and their counsel (fiddling and dancing?) missed the due-date that was supposed to end the schedule of filings and missed the procedural requirements for requesting special exemption from the court-ordered filing schedule. We, the Appellants, have tried mightily to be disciplined and play by the rules. The opposition wants new rules.

A good word: "thank you for spear-heading this important cause"

A financial contribution to the legal defense of our case in Jefferson County Circuit Court arrived in today's mail with a letter expressing this encouraging word from its donor: "...THANK YOU FOR SPEAR-HEADING THIS IMPORTANT CAUSE.  I ALWAYS ENJOY A HARDY BATTLE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE STAKES ARE SO VITAL TO ALL OF US UNDERTAKING       PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION PROJECTS IN THE OLD LOUISVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT".

One stands up a bit straighter and taller after reading this note of support from neighbors.

Please consider a contribution to the legal costs of our case.
We really, REALLY, need your help.  We are paying the costs of litigation;
it is not free. Many citizens have stepped up to help us with the expense of pursuing this case in court but the case continues, and will so into the new year, and so our costs mount. We depend on your help.
Please consider a contribution to the legal defense of our case.


Donations in any amount should be sent to
Victorian Louisville, Inc.
119 West Ormsby Ave.
Louisville, KY  40203

Please note on the check "Legal Defense Fund."

Victorian Louisville is a 501 (c) 3 corporation.   Check with your tax advisor to verify tax deductibility for your individual situation.

This case is being filed on behalf of Old Louisville, and to help other historic neighborhoods as well.  The Appellants have taken a leap of faith that you will educate yourself on the seriousness of this case, and that you will be concerned enough to help.

Case of 224 E. Oak: FILED! Our most muscular Brief to date.

Pike Legal, the attorneys for Leah Stewart, Steve Zocklein and Christopher White, have filed on Jan. 3, 2012 our team's most muscular Reply Brief to date.  This is a document which, per process agreed to by all parties in mid-September, ought to be the final Brief required prior to a ruling by Judge Maze.  So much turns on the effectiveness and potency of this particular Brief.  As soon as it is possible to do so the contents of the December/January filings will be archived here, at <OldLouisvilleZoning.blogspot.com>.
Keep watching for updates on the case.