Court Opinion

ID: 9773485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:47:33.735321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.392954
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the Majority that Bradford Realty’s notice that this property was to be designated as located within a historic district comported with due process principles. I also agree that the trial court erred in concluding that Bradford had a claim for inverse condemnation. I respectfully dissent, however, from the conclusion that the trial court erred in ruling that Bradford was not required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) when it replaced the original siding with vinyl siding.
The Majority aptly notes that this question turns upon the interpretation of New Albany Ordinance § 151-06(A)(l)(e), and specifically upon the meaning of “conspicuous change.” Focusing on the term “conspicuous”, the Majority concludes that this phrase means “clearly visible or obvious.” I agree with that. Clearly, it refers to appearance. We cannot lose sight of the fact, however, that “conspicuous” modifies the term “change”. Therefore, I interpret Ordinance § 151-06(A)(l)(e) to mean that a COA is necessary if the owner seeks to do something that will effect a change that is clearly visible or obvious. In common terms, it would seem that the pertinent inquiry is whether the work in question effects a change from the way the structure looked before the work was performed. I note also that merely repainting a structure would not require a COA unless the new color is different than the old color. See Ordinance § 151-06(A)(l)(c) (a COA must be issued before a permit is issued for a “a conspicuous change in the exterior appearance of any historic building ... by ... maintenance involving exterior color changes”). Thus, for instance, although repainting a house using the same color will presumably result in a noticeable difference in appearance, such would not require a COA unless the new color is different from the old. This leads me to conclude that “conspicuous change” does not include any work that effects a perceptible result with respect to appearance, such as a fresh coat of paint that is the same color, but instead, considered in context, it can only mean a change in character with respect to appearance.
Turning now to the instant case, the question is whether the new vinyl siding installed by Bradford Realty effected a conspicuous change in appearance with respect to the character of the building in question. The Majority concludes that it did, citing Tourkow v. City of Fort Wayne, 563 N.E.2d 151 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), trans. denied. In so doing, the Majority cites Tourkow in a manner that seems to support the sweeping proposition that replacing wood siding with vinyl siding always constitutes a conspicuous change in appearance. See Op. at 88 (“Bradford’s modification of replacing the original wood siding with vinyl siding on his property lo*91cated in the historic district amounted to a visible change in the exterior of the building”). I acknowledge that there is language in Tourkow that would tend to support this generalization. (See Tourkow v. City of Fort Wayne, 568 N.E.2d at 153) (“[t]he addition of vinyl siding to the exterior of a house is clearly a ‘conspicuous change’ in appearance”). I note, however, that this conclusion in Tourkow was not drawn in a situation where, as here, wood clapboard siding was replaced with vinyl siding. Rather, in that case insulbrick was replaced with vinyl siding. Insulbrick consists of a fiberboard sheathing coated with tar and an embedded granular material, which is usually embossed and colored to look like brick or stone. Clearly, a change from insulbrick to vinyl siding, i.e., from simulated stone or brick to vinyl-covered clapboard siding, would result in a conspicuous change with respect to the character of the building’s appearance.
Be that as it may, I reject Tourkow as authority for the proposition that the application of vinyl siding to wood clapboard siding as a matter of law necessarily effects a “conspicuous change in appearance” within the meaning of Ordinance § 151-06(A)(l)(c). First, the original siding in Tourkow to which the vinyl siding replacement must be compared differed markedly from the original siding in the instant case. Second, even assuming Tourkow could be interpreted as having established that vinyl siding is, as a matter of law, conspicuously different in appearance from wood siding, I believe that determination is dated and therefore no longer valid. Tourkow was decided more than twenty years ago and the quality and appearance of artificial siding has advanced steadily and somewhat markedly. Perhaps there was a time when all vinyl siding was markedly different from wood in appearance, but that is no longer the case.
This leads me to conclude that the assessment of whether the vinyl siding installed by Bradford resulted in a “conspicuous change” within the meaning of Ordinance § 151 — 06(A)(1)(c) is one that must be made by reviewing the appearance of the home before and after the work was completed. The only way for this court to review the appearance on the home would be through photographs. Fortunately, the parties included photographs in the record that depict the home before, during, and after the work was completed. I reiterate that, in my view, these are the sole means by which we can evaluate the claim of “conspicuous change” with respect to appearance. These photos reflect that the exterior walls of the structure had what appears to be weathered and somewhat faded white clapboard siding before the work was performed. After the work was completed, it still appeared to have exterior walls made of white clapboard siding. The only difference between the two that can I perceive is that, although the house is the same color in the “after” photo as before, it is brighter — just as a house would look with a fresh coat of paint. So far as I can see, the house looks the same and is the same color, albeit with the appearance of being newly painted. This is not a conspicuous change in appearance with respect to the character of the building within the meaning of Ordinance § 151 — 06(A)(1)(c), and I would affirm the trial court on that basis.