HomeMy WebLinkAboutDismissal Correspondence Page 1 of 3
Conn, Angelina V
From: John Molitor [jmolitor @prodigy.net]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:38 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Forwarding E -mail, Dierckman, Leo
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Okay, but I would like to discuss this matter with their attorney (Coots) before we present a resolution to the Commission.
John
Original Message
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov]
Sent: January 14, 2008 4:06 PM
To: jmolitor @prodigy.net
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Forwarding E -mail, Dierckman, Leo
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
John- Mike asked that I write up a plan commission resolution pertaining to Holiday Inn and dismissal of their
petitioner based on their lack of prosecution; I will run it by you in a few days for comments.
Angie
From: John Molitor [mailto:jmolitor prodigy.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:39 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'Dierckman, Leo'
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Our rules of procedure are a little fuzzy on dismissals. Article IX, Section 2 of the Rules states: "The
Commission may dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or lack of jurisdiction. When a petitioner has
failed to appear at two consecutive meetings, the case may be dismissed for lack of prosecution."
The first sentence seems to give the Commission complete discretion, while the second sentence seems to
require a failure to "appear" at two consecutive meetings. Regardless, in my opinion, if a case has been tabled
(delayed) for three months or more, the Commission should be able to dismiss it for "lack of prosecution Note
that the question may then arise, whether the Commission should direct the staff to waive new filing fees if the
petitioner decides to re -file the dismissed petition at a later date.
My recommendation: The Commission should, via motion, dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, but then
instruct the staff to waive filing fees if an identical petition is later re- filed. (Public notice would, of course, have to
be made before the re -filed petition could be heard.)
John
Original Message
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov]
Sent: January 8, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Dierckman, Leo
Cc: John Molitor
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Sounds good to me. Let me know if John M. or f need to prepare anything.
3/5/2009
Page l of 3
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:06 PM
To: 'jmolitor @prodigy.net'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Forwarding E -mail, Dierckman, Leo
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
John- Mike asked that I write up a plan commission resolution pertaining to Holiday Inn and dismissal of their petitioner
based on their lack of prosecution; I will run it by you in a few days for comments.
Angie
From: John Molitor [mailto:jmolitor @prodigy.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:39 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'Dierckman, Leo'
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Our rules of procedure are a little fuzzy on dismissals. Article IX, Section 2 of the Rules states: "The Commission may
dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or lack of jurisdiction. When a petitioner has failed to appear at two
consecutive meetings, the case may be dismissed for lack of prosecution."
The first sentence seems to give the Commission complete discretion, while the second sentence seems to require a
failure to "appear" at two consecutive meetings. Regardless, in my opinion, if a case has been tabled (delayed) for three
months or more, the Commission should be able to dismiss it for "lack of prosecution Note that the question may then
arise, whether the Commission should direct the staff to waive new filing fees if the petitioner decides to re -file the
dismissed petition at a later date.
My recommendation: The Commission should, via motion, dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, but then instruct the
staff to waive filing fees if an identical petition is later re- filed. (Public notice would, of course, have to be made before the
re -filed petition could be heard.)
John
Original Message
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov]
Sent: January 8, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Dierckman, Leo
Cc: John Molitor
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Sounds good to me. Let me know if John M. or I need to prepare anything.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services Planning Zoning
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:38 PM
To: Dierckman, Leo; Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
3/5/2009
Page 1 of 3
Conn, Angelina V
From: John Molitor [jmolitor @prodigy.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:39 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'Dierckman, Leo'
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Our rules of procedure are a little fuzzy on dismissals. Article IX, Section 2 of the Rules states: "The Commission may
dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or lack of jurisdiction. When a petitioner has failed to appear at two
consecutive meetings, the case may be dismissed for lack of prosecution."
The first sentence seems to give the Commission complete discretion, while the second sentence seems to require a
failure to "appear" at two consecutive meetings. Regardless, in my opinion, if a case has been tabled (delayed) for three
months or more, the Commission should be able to dismiss it for "lack of prosecution Note that the question may then
arise, whether the Commission should direct the staff to waive new filing fees if the petitioner decides to re -file the
dismissed petition at a later date.
My recommendation: The Commission should, via motion, dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, but then instruct the
staff to waive filing fees if an identical petition is later re- filed. (Public notice would, of course, have to be made before the
re -filed petition could be heard.)
John
Original Message
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn @carmel.in.gov]
Sent: January 8, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Dierckman, Leo
Cc: John Molitor
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Sounds good to me. Let me know if John M. or I need to prepare anything.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services Planning Zoning
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317- 571 -2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:38 PM
To: Dierckman, Leo; Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Ok. I was thinking of asking the Commission to put them on notice, with a resolution, perhaps, stating that next
month would be the dismissal if they don't' have their shit together...too easy?
From: Dierckman, Leo [mailto:Leo.Dierckman @opco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:40 PM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
I think at the next meeting we vote to remove this item. None of the membership will take issue with that. You
read my mind.. I was going to talk to you about this
3/5/2009
Page 2 of 3
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:34 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Dierckman, Leo
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Would like to talk over options for moving this along, do you have a little time tues morning?
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:25 AM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
It might be more than that!
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services Planning Zoning
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p. 317- 571 -2417 f. 317 571 -2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:11 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Angie is this three months?
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:47 AM
To: Stewart, Lisa M; Hancock, Ramona B; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B; Donahue -Woad, Alexia K
Cc: Tingley, Connie S; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: Holiday Inn tabled, again!
Regarding these two Holiday Inn items, they have been tabled to the Feb. 5 Special Studies Committee meeting:
1. Docket No. 07030035 DP: Pro -Med Lane Holiday Inn
The applicant seeks site plan approval for a proposed full service hotel. ADLS is under another docket no. below. The site is
located at 136t Street and Pro -Med Lane, and is zoned B -6 /Business within the US 31 /Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Stacey of
DeBoy Land Development Services, Inc.
2. Docket No. 07070009 ADLS: Holiday Inn at Pro Med Ln
The applicant seeks architecture /design approval for a proposed full service hotel.
The site is located at 136th Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B6, within the US 31 /Meridian Street
Overlay. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke Wheeler for Midwest Hospitality Group, Inc.
Thanks,
Angie
For more information about Oppenheimer's products and services, visit our website at
http: /www.opco.com This communication is for informational purposes only and nothing herein should
be construed as a solicitation, recommendation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or product. The
information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but we do not
guarantee accuracy or completeness. Oppenheimer Co. Inc and its affiliated companies, their officers,
directors and employees may have a position in or, make a market in any securities mentioned above
and, may act as an investment banker or advisor to such companies. Client account information or
transaction details do not supersede mailed confirmations or account statements which are the only
official records containing this information. As a matter of policy, orders are not accepted via e -mail or
voice mail and no responsibility shall accrue relating to any orders placed in this manner. If this
3/5/2009