IBJNews

Tentative settlement reached in lawsuit over historic church

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legal dispute over the future of an historic church on the east side that sits in the middle of a busy commercial district has been settled—at least temporarily.

A provisional settlement in a federal lawsuit filed last September against the city by St. John United Church of Christ gives parties in the case six months to find a buyer for the nearly 100-year-old church at the northeast corner of Washington Street and German Church Road.

In its lawsuit, the church said it had agreed to sell the property to Gershman Brown Crowley, a developer representing the CVS drugstore chain, but that the city’s emergency designation of the property as historic in 2009 scuttled the sale.

The church planned to use the proceeds of the sale to build a $3 million church at Prospect Street and Carroll Road that would have the amenities necessary to boost membership and lift the church out of financial distress. The shrinking congregation said it lacked the means to pay for $1.3 million in utility bills, maintenance and capital projects needed at the old church.

“There is a presumptive settlement under which the church could sell its property and build elsewhere and the preservationists could save the building,” said Roman P. Storzer, an attorney with Storzer & Greene, a Washington, D.C.-based firm that represents the church. The firm specializes in religious land-use cases.

“The church is working in good faith to find a solution that works for everybody.”

Storzer said either party could revive the case, filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, within a year if the dispute isn’t resolved.

City officials wouldn’t comment but provided a copy of the settlement agreement. It says the church will work with Indiana Landmarks, a local not-for-profit whose primary mission is to save historic places, to find a buyer. The clock started ticking on the settlement in April. If after six months there is no resolution, the city agreed in the settlement to begin the process of lifting the historic designation.

Marsh Davis, president of Indiana Landmarks, said the agreement to set the legal action aside has resulted in a positive dialogue with the church. He said he’s met with representatives of the congregation twice since the court case was closed and found they’re open to helping find a buyer or staying in the historic building if necessary improvements can be made.

Landmarks intends to pay a consultant from Partners for Sacred Places to help find a way to preserve the church that is acceptable to the congregation. Partners for Sacred Places is a Philadelphia-based not-for-profit that helps communities and congregations find ways to save architecturally significant church buildings.

St. John United Methodist, originally known as Deutsche Evangelische St. Johannes Kirche, features Tudor Gothic Revival architecture. The preservation plan adopted by the city called the church “significant…for its association with early rural community settlement in Marion County” and “for extraordinary stained glass windows found throughout the building.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT