[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
AND START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> COULD WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE?
[D. Declaration of Quorum]
[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]
VICE-PRESIDENT JIM HAWKINS? >> PRESENT.
>> WE HAVE A QUORUM. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
PRIOR MEETING'S MINUTES? >> SO MOVED.
>> SECOND. >> IS THERE A SECOND?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE.
[F. Communications, Bills, and Expenditures]
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. MINUTES HAVE APPROVED.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO COMMUNICATION, BILLS, AND
EXPENDITURES, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE ONE SUSPENSION OF RULES REQUEST FOR THE MEYER OUTDOOR FIREPLACE VARIANCE REQUEST.
13-DAY PRIOR PUBLIC NOTICE WAS DONE IN THE NEWSPAPER RATHER THAN 20. THAT STILL MEETS THE STATE STATUTE OF THE TEN DAYS. AND IT WAS DUE TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. IT WAS THE FAULT OF THE NEWSPAPER OVERLOOKING THEIR LEGAL REQUEST.
ALSO I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW TWO ITEMS ARE TABLED.
SO ONE IS THE CRAZY KING BURRITO USE VARIANCE.
THAT WILL BE TABLED INDEFINITELY MOST LIKELY.
AND THEN THE WOODLAND COUNTRY CLUB TRANSPORTATION PLAN VARIANCE. THAT ONE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, ACTUALLY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY LEGAL COUNSEL
REPORT? >> MR. PRESIDENT, JUST A QUICK NOTE. I SEE THAT ITEM NUMBER 7 ON THE AGENDA IS GRAS MERCY WEST STONE% GRAVEL VARIANCE.
I HAVE DECIDED I WILL BE NOT REPRESENTING YOU FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. I HAPPEN TO LIVE IN GRAS MERCY WEST. DOMI-- GRAMERCY WEST.
[G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]
WE WILL GO THEN BACK TO ITEM-- ACTUALLY, G-1 #.IS THERE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO HEAR THE MEYER OUTDOOR
FIREPLACE VARIANCE? >> MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THAT ITEM.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> OKAY. ALL THOSE IF FAVOR, AYE.
[H.(UV, V) Rosie’s Gardens Expansion.]
OKAY. WE WILL HEAR THAT ONE.ALL RIGHTY. WE WILL GO ON AND START, THEN, WITH DOCKETS NUMBER 2, 3, AND 4 WHICH ARE THE USE VARIANCE AND TWO VARIANCES. ROSIE'S GARDEN EXPANSION.
PROHIBITED USES, STORAGE, AND/OR WAREHOUSING OUTDOOR PROHIBITED EXISTING AND PROPOSED REQUESTED. THEN PZ-2023-002.
NO PARKING ALLOWED IN THE FRONT. AND THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED.
ONE SIGN PER STREET FRONTAGE ALLOWED.
THROUGH YOUR EXISTING. FOUR TOTAL ARE REQUESTED.
>> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, I'M ANDY WERT, WITH THE LAW FIRM OF CHURCH, CHURCH, & ANTRUM.
WE REPRESENT THE HUGHES FAMILY. WE HAVE BEEN ASSISTING THEM IN THEIR EFFORTS TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND ROSIE'S GARDENS AT COLLEGE AVENUE. IN THE AUDIENCE WITH ME ARE KEVIN AND MARY BETH HUGHES AND DAUGHTERS EMMA AND ROSE.
WE ARE SEEKING THE BOARD'S ASSISTANCE TONIGHT WITH THREE VARIANCES. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF STEPS TO REACH THIS POINT. WE HAVE-- ROSIE'S, I'M SURE YOU KNOW, IS A RETAIL GARDEN CENTER. THEY HAVE BEEN AT THIS LOCATION SINCE 1982. OUR IMPROVEMENT PLANS INCLUDE A MUCH-NEEDED, PANGS OF THE PARKING LOT-- EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT. WE PLAN TO REPLACE THE EXISTING STORE WITH A LARGER ONE. WE HAVE SOME DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BE NE NEEDED.
WE WILL BE ADDING TO THE RETENTION AREA.
A COUPLE NEW STORAGE BUILDINGS. AND SOME LANDSCAPE BUFFERING, RATHER, TO THE SOUTH. THERE WILL BE SOME EXISTING DRIVE CUTS THAT WILL BE ELIMINATED WITH ONE NEW CUT PROPOSED. AND.
>> KEN: HAS BEEN COORDINATING THOSE CHANGES WITH THE ENGINEERS
[00:05:02]
OVERSEEING THE ONGOING COLLEGE AVENUE PROJECT.WE APPEAR BEFORE THE COUNCIL EARLIER THIS YEAR FOR A ZONING CHANGE. THIS EXERCISE PUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRES UNDER A B-3 ZONING.
WE ALSO RECEIVED APPROVAL, THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FROM THE PLAN COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF OUR REQUESTED VARIANCES AND THEN JUST LAST WEEK, RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE VACATION OF SOME OF THE LOTS IN PARK NORTH EDITION THAT HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE HUGHES FAMILY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. WE HAVE BEEN QUITE BUSY.
OUR THREE VARIANCES REQUESTS DEAL WITH THE CONTINUATION OF WHAT ROSIE'S GARDENS HAS BEEN DOING NOW FOR MANY YEARS.
I WILL TALK ABOUT THESE SEPARATELY.
THE OUTDOOR DISPLAY AREAS ARE VIEWED AS A SEPARATE USE AND NOT PERMITTED IN THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT.
THUS, WE WERE SEEKING A VARIANCE OF USE TO CONTINUE THAT IMPORTANT PART OF THE BUSINESS. THE PARKING LOT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT SET SETBACK.
WE ARE EXPANDING THAT. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN OUR CUSTOMERS SIMPLY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK.
ON-STREET PARKING IS PROBABLY NOT AN OPTION NOW.
IT NEVER REALLY WAS SAFE. THIS NEW PARKING LOT WILL CONTINUE TO ENCROACH ON THAT FRONT SETBACK.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU-- I BELIEVE WE DID INCLUDE A LANDSCAPE PLAN IN YOUR PACKET. WE WILL VIEW THIS.
IT SHOULD BE VERY ATTRACTIVE FROM THE VIEW OF THE COLLEGE AVENUE MOTORING PUBLIC. THEN LASTLY, WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND SIGN. WE HAVE ALREADY REMOVED THREE SIGNS FROM THE BUSINESS. WE WERE PROPOSING TO LEAVE ONE AND INSTALL A NEW ONE. THE EXISTING SIGN, WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP AS INCORPORATED INTO THE STONE WALL.
HERE IT IS. I'LL DECORATE-- ALL DECORATED FOR CHRISTMAS LAST YEAR. AS YOU SEE, ITS EFFECTIVENESS AS A BUSINESS SIGN IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED.
NEVERTHELESS, WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT.
TEARING IT OUT WOULD PRETTY MUCH RUIN THE WALL WICH IS AN IMPORTANT AESTHETIC ASPECT OF THE BUSINESS.
THIS IS OUR NEW SIGN. HOPEFULLY, YOU AGREE IT IS A VERY TASTEFUL SIGN. SIX FEET HIGH.
THE SIGN FACES APPROXIMATELY-- THE SIGN FACE IS APPROXIMATELY 7X4. IT WILL BE SPOT-LIT FROM THE GROUND. ONE SPOTLIGHT ON EACH SIDE THE.
IN SUMMARY, WE ARE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE SUPPORT WE HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
THE CITY STAFF, PLAN COMMISSION, COUNCIL.
I WILL CONCLUDE MY INTRODUCTION AT THIS POINT AND LET YOU ASK
FIRST OF ALL, I WILL ASK IF THERE IS ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OR NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONS.
OKAY. SEEING NO ONE, THEN WE WILL GO ON, CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT REPORT. >> THANK YOU.
AS THE PETITIONER STATED, THE PLAN COMMISSION APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED ALREADY FOR THE EXPANSION REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE PLANNING STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE USE VARIANCE AND THE VARIANCES. THE PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO REMOVE A FEW ADDITIONAL EXCESS SIGNS THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED, AND OVERALL, WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE USE VARIANCE AND THE VARIANCES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANGIE, I GUESS, INCORPORATED IN THE VARIANCE NUMBER 200, NO PARKING ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD, WHERE IS THE VARIANCE IN ONE IS NECESSARY, FOR PARKING ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK AREA?
>> I THINK THIS VARIANCE IS TO BASICALLY APPROVE WHAT ALREADY EXISTING TODAY ON SITE. BECAUSE THERE WAS A REZONE, AND THE-- THIS TRIGGERED THE SITE TO HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH TODAY'S STANDARDS. THIS VARIANCE IS KIND OF JUST COVERING THAT. SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS TODAY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> SO IT EXISTS TODAY, BUT IF IT ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, DOES IT ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK?
[00:10:02]
>> WELL, IT IS IN THE FRONT YARD.
>> NOT MEET THE SETBACK, RATHER. >> RIGHT.
IT IS IN THE FRONT YARD WHICH ISN'T ALLOWED WITH TODAY'S
SO ANDY, YOUR PACKAGE SAYS THAT A FRONT SETBACK REDUCTION IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANDED PARKING LOT, SO DOES THAT-- WILL THAT REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE? OR IT WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE, I GUESS, WHEN THIS PARKING LOT IS CONSTRUCTED?
ARE YOU ASKING FOR -- >> WELL, THE EXPANDED PARKING LOT WILL CONTINUE TO ENCROACH IN THE FRONT SETBACK.
>> THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. HAS THAT ENCROACHMENT EVER BEEN APPROVED OR A VARIANCE GRANTED FOR THAT, OR ARE WE IN EFFECT, DOING THAT AS A PART OF THIS VARIANCE?
>> YEAH. I THINK YOU ARE DOING IT AS PART
I DIDN'T WANT LATER ON THAT-- I MEAN, I SUPPORT THE REQUEST COMPLETELY. I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS BEHIND WITH RESPECT TO --
>> IT IS NOTED THAT THE NEW SIGN WILL BE SIX FEET TALL AND AROUND 27 SQUARE FEET. DOES THAT COMPLY WITH OUR SIGN
WE HAD OUR SIGN PERMITS PERSON REVIEW THE SIGN.
>> OKAY. THE OTHER THING IS, IT SAID IT WOULD BE LOCATED AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM THE STREET
THAT IS A REQUIREMENT BY THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
>> OKAY. THAT DOESN'T CAUSE ANY ISSUES AS FAR AS HAVING TO APPEAR ALSO AT THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
IT WOULD NOT NEED TO GO TO BOARD OF PUBLIC KRP WORKS.
>> OKAY, THANKS. >> I DO HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE SIGN ALSO. THE LOWER PORTION WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT SALES. THAT IS NOT AN LED OR ANYTHING, RIGHT? THAT IS JUST --
>> NO. I BELIEVE THAT IS CHANGEABLE
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE DOCKETS PZ2003-00198,
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, OF DOCKET PZ2023,-00198-UV, 00201V, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR, C SIGNIFY BY AY. >> AYE.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
[H.(V) Meyer Outdoor Fireplace Variance.]
>> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NUMBER 6.
WHICH IS DOCKET NUMBER PZ2023-20211-V.
MINIMUM FIVE-FOOT SIDE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS REQUIRED. ONE FOOT IS REQUESTED.
THAT IS 11179 WESTMINSTER WAY. KINGSWOOD.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JARED MEYER.
I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 11179 WESTMINSTER WAY.
MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY A YEAR AND A FEW MONTHS AGO. ON JULY, 2022.
ON THAT PROPERTY, THERE WAS AN EXTERIOR FIREPLACE THAT WAS BUILT BY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS. WITH THE SALE, THEY DISCLOSED THAT THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING A VARIANCE THROUGH THE CITY, AND THEY HAD CHOSEN NOT TO COMPLETE THAT VARIANCE PROCESS BEFORE THEY SOLD THE HOUSE. WE ARE TRYING TO COMPLETE THAT VARIANCE PROCESS TONIGHT. IT'S A MASONRY BRICK FIREPLACE THAT IS BUILT INTO THE LANDSCAPING AND PATIO THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED IN THIS BACKYARD. IT IS ENCLOSED BY A FENCE.
YOU HAVE PICTURES OF IT IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT.
THE THING THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO ADDRESS MOST IS WITHIN THE LAST DAY, THINGS HAVE GOTTEN MORE COMPLEX.
WHAT WAS DISCLOSED TO US AT THE SALE, WAS THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE REQUIRED WITH THE CITY. AND THAT THE HOA WAS NOT, NOT PURSUING ANY ACTION WITH THIS FIREPLACE.
THE HOA HAS WEIGHED IN JUST YESTERDAY THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT. WE, LIKE I SAID, WERE NOTIFIED
[00:15:04]
AT THE SALE THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE.SO WE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM THE HOA PRIOR TO YESTERDAY TO NOTIFY OF US OF THAT ISSUE. THEY CLAIMED THEY SENT US A LETTER IN MARCH OF 2023. I CAN CONFIRM THAT WE NEVER RECEIVED THAT LETTER. IT WAS AN EMAIL FROM A DOMAIN THAT WE ARE NOT SURE AND THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE THAT TODAY.
WE ARE ASKING THAT WE WORK THROUGH THIS WITH THE HOA BUT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ZONING VARIANCE SEPARATE FROM THAT HOA VIOLATION. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN OVER TO
THE BOARD FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PETITION.
I'M COUNTING ONE, TWO, THREE. THREE? OKAY. AND HOW MANY IS IT? 15 OR TEN MINUTES? I CAN'T RECALL OFF-HAND.
LET'S GO WITH 15, THEN. FIVE MINUTES EACH.
AND IF YOU COULD GO ON AND KIND OF LINE UP OVER HERE AT THE MICROPHONE. STATE YOUR NAME AND WHERE YOU-- YOUR RESIDENCE IS. AND EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS.
>> HEY, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS KEITH SIMS. THIS IS SHOWING UP. I WAS HERE A YEAR AGO, HELPING SOME SCOUTS TO GET THE MAYOR BADGE FOR COMMUNITY.
I DIDN'T THINK I WAS GOING TO BE BACK HERE SO SOON.
I DIDN'T THINK I WAS GOING TO GET THE MASTER'S DEGREE IN THE MERIT BADGE. I LIVE NEXT-DOOR TO JAIDE.
I DO WANT TO BRING UP, I CERTAINLY FOUND THAT SOME OF THIS STUFF THAT WAS PRESENTED IN HIS APPLICATION, I THOUGHT WAS INACCURATE. HERE IS ONE NEIGHBOR OPPOSING THE FEATURE WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL CONCERNS IDENTIFIED, OTHER THAN IT DOESN'T FOLLOW ZONING RULES. THEY HAVE BEEN THERE ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF. JARED'S FIRST CONVERSATION WITH ME RELATED TO THE FIREPLACE WAS THE 13TH, I THINK OF OCTOBER WHEN HE CAME TO GET ME TO SIGN THE VARIANCE NOTIFICATION.
THAT WAS THE FIRST CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT THE FIREPLACE IN A YEAR AND A HALF. AS A NEIGHBOR, CERTAINLY ONE THAT IS RIGHT NEXT-DOOR AND THE ONE MOST IMPACTED, I WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED MORE CONVERSATION FROM HIM.
AS WE LOOK THROUGH THIS, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE MEYERS HAVE MISCONSTRUED THIS SITUATION. I'M NOT SOME GRUMPY OLD MAN WHO IS JUST A NEIGHBOR THAT OPPOSED IT.
I GUESS AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY HAVE ALSO MADE ADDITIONAL APPLICATION. THERE WERE AT LEAST 7 VIOLATIONS. THEY INDICATED THAT THEY WEREN'T AWARE. NOW, I DIDN'T PROVIDE INFORMATION DIRECTLY TO THEM, BUT THE CITY WAS MADE AWARE.
ACTUALLY SENT THIS EMAIL TO BRENT LIGGETT ALONG WITH THE VIOLATION NOTICE AND THE MEETING MINUTES IN MARCH OF '23.
AS EARLY AS MARCH OF '23, THE STP CITY WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE AND DID HAVE DOCUMENTATION RELATED.
I HAVE COPIES OF THAT NOTICE. THAT NOTICE IS GOING TO BE HERE.
THIS IS THE NOTICE THAT I GAVE THEM A COPY OF.
AND THIS IS THE OUTDOOR FIREPLACE STRUCTURE.
THIS IS THE EMAIL SENT TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERS.
THIS WAS PROVIDED TO THE CITY AT MARCH 2 OF 2023.
SO I DO BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE.
MAYBE NOT SOUGHT OUT. SO IF I LOOK AT THIS, THE KEY THING I WANT TO BRING UP HERE IS WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT-- I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THE STRUCTURE.
RIGHT? AND IN THIS PICTURE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS EXTREMELY CLOSE TO OUR HOUSE.
IT IS ABOUT 14 FEET BY THE MEASURE OF THE CITY.
BY OUR MEASURE, IT IS ABOUT 13 FEET.
HERE IS SOME OTHER TELLING INFORMATION.
WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.
THIS IS THEIR BACKYARD AND MY HOUSE.
THE GREEN LINE REPRESENTS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN MY HOUSE AND-- FROM THEIR FIREPLACE TO MY HOUSE.
THAT WHITE RIGHT ON THE LINE, THAT WHITE ON THE LINE, THAT IS THE FIREPLACE. AND MY HOUSE IS RIGHT THERE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RED LINE, THAT IS THEIR BACKYARD.
THAT IS THE FOOTPRINT OF THEIR BACKYARD.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE IS NOT TOO MANY OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THIS FIREPLACE. WE HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT IN OUR OPPOSITION TO THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP
[00:20:02]
IS THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM BEFORE THE FIREPLACE WAS LAID,LY TELL YOU, WHEN THE FIRST BRICK WENT DOWN, I WALKED OUT AND TALKED TO MY NEIGHBOR. I WALKED OUT AND TALKED TO THEM.I SAID HEY, WHAT IS GOING ON? I CLEARLY DO NOT WANT A FIREPLACE THIS CLOSE TO OUR HOUSE.
WE WOULD BE COMPLETELY FINE IF YOU PUT IT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TH PATIO. AND HE TOLD US AT THAT TIME, THAT HE HAD GONE THROUGH THE HOA.
HE HAD ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL AND HE HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY AND HAD A BUILDING PERMIT THAT HE DIDN'T POST.
HE LIED TO US. THAT HELD US UP UNTIL ABOUT MARCH AND IN MARCH OF '22, WE STARTED ARDENTLY WORKING WITH THE CITY TRYING TO OPPOSE THIS. OUR OPPOSITION ISN'T ABOUT THIS BEING A RETAINING WALL OR ANYTHING RELATED TO THAT.
THIS IS NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURE.
IT IS NOT A HOT TUB. THIS IS A FIREPLACE.
IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN SOMEBODY PUTTING A PRIVACY FENCE AROUND THEIR PATIO, AND WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T OPPOSE THAT. I WILL TELL YOU OUR EXPERIENCE AND WHAT I HAVE PUT IN THE NOTES THAT I PRESENTED, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED AND WE HAVE WATCHED FIRE EMBERS LAND ON OUR ROOF.
THE BACK OF OUR HOUSE IS AROUND 14 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND.
THIS IS 14 FEET AWAY. AND THE TOP OF THE FIREPLACE IS 11 FEET. MOST OF THE TIME, WHEN THE WIND COMES THROUGH, IT COMES RIGHT ACROSS THE BACK OF OUR HOUSE.
WE HAVE ALSO HAD MOMENTS WHEN WE ARE IN OUR HOME AND THE FIREPLACE WAS LIT AFTER WE WENT TTO BED.
WE LEFT OUR WINDOWS OPEN. THE ENTIRE UPSTAIRS OF OUR HOUSE WAS FILLED WITH SMOKE. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WE ARE SOMEWHAT PASSIONATE ABOUT. THIS THE MEYERS ALSO, IF THEY KNEW IT OR NOT, THEY RECEIVED A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL DISCOUNT ON THE HOME. AT THE TIME, THIS IS ALSO A LETTER THAT I HAD SENT. THAT I HAD SENT.
ONE OF THE GUYS WHO MADE AN OFFER ON THE HOME.
DAVID CHARLES, HE ACTUALLY HAD PURSUED THE HOME, MADE A FAIRLY DECENT OFFER AND THEN BACKED OUT ONCE HE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE VARIANCE THAT WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED.
I REACHED OUT TO DAVID. HE GOT BACK TO ME AND LET ME KNOW THEIR OFFER WAS $680,000. THEY WITHDREW.
IN MY OPINION, THE MEYER FAMILY RECEIVED A $25,000 DISCOUNT ON THE MARKET BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE TO DELIVER AND DEAL WITH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, AND GENERALLY, TO MOVE THE FIREPLACE. THAT IS OUR PERCEPTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE REST OF MY TIME TO MY ATTORNEY SEAN BURKE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, MY POSITION REMAINS THE SAME. IT IS TOO CLOSE TO MY HOME.
IT CREATES A FIRE HAZARD. AT THE END OF THE DAY, ANY FOOT, IF IT IS FOUR FEET OR 11 FEET OR HOWEVER MANY FEET, EVERY FOOT YOU MOVE THIS OR ALLOW US TO HAVE THIS MOVED AWAY FROM OUR HOME IS VALUABLE TO ME AND MY FAMILY.
MY NAME IS SEAN BURKE OF THE LAW FIRM MATTINGLY, BURKE, & COHEN.
I WORKED WITH THE SIMS FAMILY ON THIS ISSUE.
I DID RAISE MY HAND. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MY FIVE MINUTES WAS ACCOUNTED FOR. VERY BRIEFLY, I WILL-- WE BELIEVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OPINION THAT WAS RECENTLY SUBMITTED AND OUTLAID WAS BASED UPON INACCURATE FACTS AND PERHAPS AN ENAT ANG INACCURATE READING OF THE LAW.
THERE MAY BE SOME LACK OF DISCLOSURE BY THE FORMER HOME OWNER AND THE CURRENT HOME OWNER, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, THE OPINION SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT ALL OF THE CODE ISSUES HAD BEEN ADDRESSED. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS ACCURATE. MR. SIMS HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH MR. LIGGETT. JUST IN THE PAST FEW DAYS.
AND HIS POSITION IS THAT THEY ARE NOT, THEY ARE NOT ADDRESSED.
RIGHT? AND THAT THEY SUPPORT PEOPLE APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE GENERALLY.
, BUT THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING THIS VARIANCE.
I THINK OUR POSITION IS EITHER NUMBER ONE, THIS VARIANCE NEEDS TO BE DENIED, OR AT A TWO, AT A MINIMUM, WE NEED TO HAVE A CONTINUANCE AND LET SOME OF THESE ADDITIONAL FACTS SORT OF COME TO LIGHT OF DAY AND COME BACK AT A LATER PLACE.
RIGHT? INCLUDING THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO FURTHER CLARIFY WHAT THE CITY'S CODE OFFICIALS BELIEVE THIS STRUCTURE TO BE. RIGHT? THAT IS NUMBER ONE. WE BELIEVE IT WAS BASED ON INACCURATE FACTS. NUMBER TWO, WE BELIEVE IT IS BASED ON POTENTIALLY AN INACCURATE VIEW OF THE LAW.
IN PARTICULAR, THE DEPARTMENT SAYS THAT THEY LOOKED AGO AT THIS ISSUE UNDER 5.02 OF THE UDO.
AND THAT DOES SAY THAT THERE IS A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK.
THAT IS ACCURATE. WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT GENERAL PROVISION NEEDS TO GIVE WAY TO THE MORE SPECIFIC BUILDING CODE. BURNING CODES.
EXCUSE ME. THAT DEAL WITH FIRE.
NOT JUST SHEDS OR SWINKING POOLS OR WHATEVER.
[00:25:01]
THE FIRE IS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS HERE.IT IS NOT THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FEW BRICKS.
RIGHT? THAT IS PUTTING ASHES ON THEIR CEILING AND SMOKE IN THEIR HOUSE.
THE PORTION OF THE CITY'S CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT FIRES IS WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY PORTION OF THE CODE.
RIGHT? SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE SIMPSONS ARE MAKING UP. THE CITY HAS RECOGNIZED THAT FIRE IS A SAFETY HAZARD AND SMOKE IS A HEALTH HAZARD.
RIGHT? AND IN THAT SECTION, SECTION 6145, THE CAMPFIRES. FIRES ARE PROHIBITED.
WITH SOME CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR CAMPFIRES.
THEY SAY IT IS 100 FEET. THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY THAT I'LL PUT OUT HERE FOR YOU.
WHICH IS ON THE CITY OF CARMEL FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION.
IT TALKS ABOUT CAMPFIRES BEING PROHIBITED UNLESS-- RIGHT? IIT IS UNLESS THEY ARE AT LEAST 25 FEET FROM ANY COMBUSTIBLE STRUCTURE WHICH I SUBMIT A HOUSE OBVIOUSLY IS.
AND IT IS CONTAINED WITHIN A PROFESSIONALLY DESIGNED FIREPLACE. WE ARE NOT TALKING, WE BELIEVE, ABOUT FOUR FOOT. THIS IS ONE FOOT OFF THE LINE.
THE CITY THINKS OUR POSITION IS WE WANT IT TO BE FOUR FEET TO COMPLY WITH THE FIVE-FOOT SETBACK.
WE BELIEVE THAT IS AN ERRONEOUS TAKE.
THE TAKE IS IT NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST 25 FEET.
THAT 11 FEET WILL COMPLY WITH-- IS PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE HOA GUIDELINES. MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE ARE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT. THAT THAT IS THE CITY CODE.
THE CITY CODE AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY SECTION OF OUR CODE.
RIGHT? SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT WELL TAKEN BECAUSE OF THIS ANALYSIS.
AT A MINIMUM. MY FINAL POINT WOULD BE IF WE LOOK AT THE EQUITIES OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE SIMSES ARE DEALING WITH A KNOWN RECOGNIZED ISSUE WITHIN THE CITY OF CARMEL. A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE.
RIGHT? THEY HAVE HAD THEIR DAUGHTERS' WINDOWS OPEN AND BREATHE SMOKE. THEY HAVE SEEN EMBERS ON THEIR ROOF. THIS IS NOT A MADE-UP EPHEMERAL THING. THIS IS REAL LIFE.
RIGHT? ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE A VERY SAD SITUATION WHERE THEY BOUGHT A HOUSE AND THEY MAY HAVE TO REMOVE THIS STRUCTURE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT IS NOTHING. THAT IS ECONOMIC.
RIGHT? WE ARE-- WE BELIEVE THAT THE ECONOMIC ISSUE WHICH THEY MAY HAVE GOT AN DISCOUNT FOR NEEDS TO YIELD IN FAVOR OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> HI.
MY NAME IS JOSH CORWIN. I LIVE AT 4969 KINGSWOOD DRIVE.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE HOA.
AND YOU WILL HAVE TO FORGIVE ME IF I DON'T PROVIDE A LOT OF TECHNICAL DETAIL HERE. THAT IS NOT MY FORTE.
AS FAR AS LAWS AND CODES. AGAIN, I'M REPRESENTING THE HOA.
AND I WILL PROVIDE A LITTLE BACKGROUND HERE.
THIS IS A ROTTEN SITUATION. THE HOME OWNER THAT BUILT THE FIREPLACE WAS AN ANGRY NEIGHBOR. TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST.
HE BUILT IT OUT OF ANGER AND JUST TRYING TO GET BACK AT EVERYBODY. AND WHEN IT WAS BUILT, THERE IS NO DOUBT IT IS A COVENANT VIOLATION WITH OUR HOA COVENANTS. IT IS TWICE THE HEIGHT IT IS ALLOWED TO BE. IT IS CLEARLY IN THE SETBACK.
IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE. AND IT IS THE WRONG COLOR.
IT DOESN'T EVEN MATCH THE HOUSE. SO AS WE ON THE HOA TRY AND PROTECT THE FUTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND-- IT IS NOT AN EASY THING FOR AN HOA TO DO, BUT WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF 221 HOME OWNERS. NOT JUST ONE.
WE ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOW, BACK TO THE SITUATION WHERE JARED PAYING THIS HOUSE FROM-- BUYING THIS HOUSE FROM THE PERSON WHO BUILT THE FIREPLACE.
THERE IS NO DOUBT IN ANYONE'S MIND THAT THE SELLER DECEIVED JARED. AND KYRA ON THE SITUATION.
OF COURSE, NO ONE KNEW THAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME.
BUT IT HAPPENED. THERE IS SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER JARED KNOWS OR KNEW THERE WAS A COVENANT VIOLATION WHEN HE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION.
I'LL ADMIT IT MIGHT BE A GRAY AREA AS TO WHETHER OR NOT JARED KNEW WHEN HE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION.
WHEN HE SAID ON HIS APPLICATION THERE IS NOT A VIOLATION.
I THINK ORIGINALLY, I THOUGHT HE WAS BEING INACCURATE.
I'M NOT SURE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
IT IS QUESTIONABLE, I THINK. I THINK IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT HE KNOWS THERE IS A COVENANT VIOLATON.
THE BIGGER ISSUE IS IF THE CITY ALLOWS THIS VARIANCE AND THE STRUCTURE TO BE WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPERTY LINE, I THINK IT SETS A PRECEDENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS NOT A PRECEDENT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS.
[00:30:01]
WE DON'T WANT THE PRECEDENT THAT SOMEONE CAN BUILD A MASSIVE STRUCTURE ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND THEN EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY.I THINK IT BECOMES A CRACK IN THE DAM.
IT COULD BE A PROBLEM. NOT OVERNIGHT, CERTAINLY.
BUT LONG-TERM. THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SAFETY IS A CONCERN.
SURE. BUT I'M NOT HERE TO TALK ON THAT TOPIC. THIS IS MERELY FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE 221 HOME OWNERS.
HONESTLY, THERE IS NOTHING PERSONAL AGAINST JARED AND KYRA.
NO ONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ANY PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THEM AT ALL. TO THE CONTRARY.
WE ARE ALL EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY SYMPATHETIC, AND IT IS LIKELY THAT THE REAL ISSUE IS BETWEEN JARED AND THE SELLER, AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE THE-- THE HOA WOULD HAVE HIS BACK ON THAT.
AS FAR AS ALLOWING THIS STRUCTURE TO BE A FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, DECAN'T GET BEHIND THAT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S POINT OF VIEW. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS THAT ARE FAVORABLE AT THIS TIME? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL, RESPOND TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED.
>> YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO TWO OF THE ACCUSATIONS FROM MR. SIMS. FIRST, AS WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I'M, AGAIN, NOT EXPERT IN CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS.
AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH MR. LIGGETT TO IDENTIFY WHAT THIS CODE VIOLATION WAS. AND THE SETBACK FROM THE SIDE YARD, THE FIVE FEET IS WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US AS WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE IS MORE. I'M NOT GOING TO DISPUTE WHAT WAS PRESENTED HERE. BUT IN ADDITION, MR. LIGGETT HAD INDICATED TO AVOID THIS VARIANCE PROCESS, ONE OPTION WAS TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE FIRE PIT OR FIREPLACE TO LESS THAN SIX FEET. AND WOULD STILL BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE LOCATION IT WAS. SO IN MY MIND, WE WERE TOLD BY THE CITY THAT A FIREPLACE, EVEN SHORTER WHICH WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, LESS PROTECTION FOR FROM EMBERS FLYING AROUND WAS ACCEPTABLE. SECONDLY, THE ACCUSATION ABOUT US GETTING A LARGE DISCOUNT, SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS VARIANCE IS COMPLETELY FALSE. THE OFFER THAT WE MADE ON THIS HOUSE WAS IN THE VERY-- THE QUICK CHANGING OF INTEREST RATES LAST SUMMER. AND HOME VALUES WERE DROPPING RAPIDLY. OUR OFFER WHICH OCCURRED FOUR WEEKS AFTER THE OFFER THAT HE HAD SHOWN FROM HIS ASSOCIATE WAS MORE THAN WHAT THE VALUE OF THE HOME WAS WHEN WE MADE OUR OFFER LATER. THAT IS WHAT THE REDUCTION REFLECTS. THERE WAS NEVER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT A FIREPLACE WITH THE SELLERS.
OR AN ACCOMMODATION FOR THE-- TAKING THIS THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.
THANK YOU, MR. MEYER. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING. WE WILL HAVE A DEPARTMENT
THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS FOR AN OUTDOOR FIREPLACE STRUCTURE. IT IS NOT AN OPEN FIRE PIT OR A CAMPFIRE WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOVERNED BY THE OPEN BURNING ORDINANCE. SO THAT WOULDN'T APPLY IN THIS INSTANCE. REGARDING THE VARIANCE FOR A FOUR-FOOT VARIANCE TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, PLANNING STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS PETITION AND IS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE. WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT HERE THIS EVENING.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ONGOING CASE WITH THE VIOLATION. AND IT ALSO-- WE WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT IT DOES SOUND LIKE THIS IS MORE OF AN ISSUE WHERE THE PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOOD COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AMONGST THE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT ALSO MAY BE THE CASE THAT THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER NEEDS TO PERHAPS HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER THAT SOLD IT TO HIM.
BUT WITH THAT, AGAIN, WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE-- EXCUSE ME.
POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR WHY WE ARE EVEN HEARING THIS.
I'LL TELL YOU WHY. I HAVE SERVED ON A COUPLE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATIONS OVER THE YEARS.
[00:35:01]
IT HAS BECOME CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT IS WHAT THIS IS.THIS IS A HOME OWNER'S-- THIS IS A SITUATION BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION.
AND SIR, MR. MEYER, HOW LONG AGO WAS IT THAT YOU BOUGHT-- CAN YOU PLEASE COME BACK UP TO THE MICROPHONE? HOW LONG AGO DID YOU PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY?
>> WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN JUNE OF 2022.
>> OKAY. SO IT HAS BEEN ABOUT A YEAR AGO.
>> WHEN YOU PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, WERE YOU GIVEN A COPY
DID YOU READ THE COVENANTS? >> I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WE DID
NOT READ THEM THOROUGHLY. >> DID SOMEBODY HELP REPRESENT
YOU AT THE TIME OF THE SALE? >> WE HAD A REAL ESTATE AGENT,
ALL RIGHT. MR. CORWIN, COULD YOU-- I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION.
I'M SORRY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP HERE.
>> YES. COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
>> IT IS A REAL QUICK QUESTION. I'M ASSUMING SINCE YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR
>> AND IS THIS USE THAT IS HERE TONIGHT A VIOLATION OF THOSE
>> OKAY. IF IT IS A VIOLATION OF THOSE COVENANTS, THIS IS AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU.
AND IF IT IS-- AND THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE.
AND THIS OTHERWISE-- IT IS THE CITY THAT IS NOW GOING TO BE BROUGHT INTO AN ISSUE THAT IS BETWEEN THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND A HOME OWNER. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IF THEY CAN'T COME INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE COVENANTS, THEN YOU NEED TO, ON BEHALF OF THE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, SEEK LEGAL GUIDANCE HERE. I JUST THINK THAT ONCE WE END UP GETTING INVOLVED IN A COVENANT SITUATION WHERE WE ARE DOING THAT AND WE WERE TO GRANT A VARIANCE, THEN WHAT DOES THAT DO TO ALL THE OTHER COVENANTS? ARE WE REWRITING THESE COVENANTS IF WE DID THAT? IS THAT GOING TO BE THE CASE, THEN? AND SO THAT IS WHY I SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE EVEN HEARING THIS.
IF IT ENDS UP COMING DOWN TO A VOTE, THERE IS NO WAY I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF.
AND IF MR. MEYERS WANTS TO DRAW IN THE PREVIOUS HOME OWNER AND SAY THAT WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE, AND YOU NEVER TOLD US ABOUT THIS, THAT IS BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.
THAT IS WAY I LOOK AT IT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT MATTERS.
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU AT ALL.
I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE COME TO OPPOSE THIS, HOWEVER.
>> NO. THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE.
>> OKAY. >> AS FAR AS WHAT ONE PERSON PAID FOR A HOUSE AND ONE PERSON DIDN'T PAY FOR A HOUSE OR SOMEBODY GOT THE HOUSE OR THEY DIDN'T GET THE HOUSE-- THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. THANKS, THOUGH.
>> BRAD? >> MR. CORWIN, WHILE YOU ARE STILL UP HERE, SORRY-- YOU DIDN'T COME HERE EXPECTING TO DO MOST OF THE TALKING. I'M SURE.
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME THAT THE FIREPLACE WAS FIRST CONSTRUCTED.
BUT WAS THERE ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM THE HOA TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER ABOUT THE FIREPLACE?
>> I WAS NOT ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME.
I SERVED FOR A DECADE. AS SOON AS I WENT OFF, THIS ALL WENT DOWN. I'M BACK ON THE BOARD TO TRY AND HELP OUT SOME THINGS. IF I CAN BE OF ANY VALUE.
ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
SHE COULD COME UP AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>> SURE. WHO CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION,
I BELIEVE THE QUESTION IS WHAT COMMUNICATION WENT FROM THE HOA TO THE ORIGINAL BUILDER OF THE FIREPLACE.
THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THIS MARCH, 2022,--
INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE. >> CHERYL WESSEL, I LIVE AT WOODBURY DRIVE IN KINGSWOOD. I'M SECRETARY OF THE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION. I BELIEVE IN MARCH, 2022, A VIOLATION NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE HOME OWNER THAT ORIGINALLY BUILT THE FIREPLACE, NOTING 7 VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING VIOLATION OF THE TEN-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN OUR COVENANTS AND YOU KNOW, A FEW OF THOSE VIOLATIONS WERE ALSO CITY CODE VIOLATIONS. OUR COVENANTS AS WELL.OVERED IN-
>> SO WAS THAT AN EMAIL? WAS THAT --
>> IT WAS SENT VIA ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION.
[00:40:01]
TO BOTH-- THE HOME OWNER AND HIS WIFE.TWO SEPARATE COMMUNICATIONS. >> IN WHAT FORM?
TELECOMMUNICATION. IT WAS DURING THE PANDEMIC.
>> ULTIMATELY, DID THE HOA LIEN THE PROPERTY OVER THESE
WE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND HOW-- WE DIDN'T WANT TO INVEST A LOT OF MONEY AND TIME IN PURSUING THIS UNTIL WE KNEW THE CITY WOULD SUPPORT US BECAUSE WE WERE AFRAID IF WE PURSUED IT AND THEN YOU GRANTED A VARIANCE, THAT IT WOULD TAKE THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER OUR BEING ABLE TO ENFORCE OUR FUTURE COVENANTS-- COVENANTS
IN THE FUTURE. >> SO THE PUBLIC RECORD REGARDING THIS PROPERTY IS NONCOMPLIANCE IN TERMS OF A VIOLATION NOTICE BEING RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER'S
OFFICE. >> WINOT WITH THE COUNTY.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN. >> A TITLE COMPANY FOR ANY
PROSPECTIVE BUYER WOULD HAVE -- >> IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TITLE COMPANY WAS PROVIDED THE VIOLATION NOTICE ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE-- THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT THAT WE PROVIDE TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THE HOME OWNER IS UP TO DATE ON THEIR HOME ENEAR ASSOC ASSOCIATION --
>> THE OFFICIAL NOTICE. >> THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE.
THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE. >> THANK YOU.
SEAN BURKE AGAIN. I WANTED TO CLARIFY, IN ADDITION TO WHAT I BELIEVE WAS JUST TESTIFIED TO, I CAN PROVIDE THIS AS WELL. AN EMAIL THAT WAS DELIVERED, JANUARY 18, OF 2022, TO THE PRIOR HOME OWNER.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE BOTTOM, FROM THE KINGSWOOD HOA BOARD.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS.
IT SAYS AND I HIGHLIGHTED HERE. EVEN IF YOU SOUGHT RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE STRUCTURE, APPROVAL CANNOT BE APPROVED IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION, APPEARANCE, FORM, OR SIZE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT TO THE PARTY.
>> THANK YOU. I SAW THAT IN THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE-- THAT IS PRIVATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE HOA AND SELLER. IT IS NOT PUTTING THE PUBLIC ON NOTICE OR A PROSPECTIVE BUYER ON NOTICE.
>> I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THAT, SIR.
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT QUESTION. OUR TREASURER DID SAY THAT UPON CLOSING, WHEN SHE GOT THE REQUEST FROM THE TITLE COMPANY TO CONFIRM THAT THE HOUSE WAS IN GOOD STANDING FINANCIALLY, SHE DID PROVIDE THE FACT THAT THE DUES ARE UP TO DATE BUT THERE IS AN OPEN COVENANT VIOLATION ON THE HOUSE.
I DON'T HAVE THAT INFO THAT WAS SENT TO THE TITLE AGENT.
ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER SAID SHE DID SEND IT.
WE GET ASKED THIS EVERY TIME THERE IS A TRANSACTION.
THE TITLE COMPANY ASKS FOR INFORMATION.
>> SO ALAN, I A EGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID WITH THE ADDITION THAT ONE, THERE IS ONE ISSUE THAT IS A ZONING ISSUE.
THAT IS THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK AREA.
I DON'T-- I AGREE THAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS BETWEEN THE HOA AND THE HOME OWNER. EXCEPT THAT WE HAVE THIS ONE
SETBACK ISSUE TO DEAL WITH. >> I DO HAVE-- MR. MEYER, I HAVE A QUESTION ALONG THE LINES OF MR. GRABOW'S QUESTION.
WE ARE BOTH BANKERS. WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT'S FILED WHEN AND SO FORTH. ON YOUR TITLE WORK, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THIS ANSWER. DID IT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT A COVENANT VIOLATION AND WHETHER THE TITLE INSURANCE WAS GOING TO
WE DID NOT SEE THAT WHEN WE CLOSED ON THE HOUSE.
>> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NOTHING ON THAT TITLE WORK THAT
WOULD SPEAK TO THAT. >> CORRECT.
>> TO THAT NOTICE -- >> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU. >> I BELIEVE SOME OF THE DISCLOSURE THAT MR. CORWIN AND OTHERS HAVE PROVIDED, WE HAVE ALREADY READ THAT. HAVE WE NOT IN OUR PACKETS? (INAUDIBLE) I'M SORRY. YEAH.
IF YOU CAN SUMMARIZE IT VERY QUICKLY.
I MEAN, VERY QUICKLY. >> BASICALLY, WE REACHED OUT, IF THERE WERE NO CONTINGENCIES. THESE ARE THE SITUATIONS WE ARE% TRYING TO AVOID. YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THE DISCLOSURE. BRENT GOT BACK TO US.
AND AGAIN, MADE IT CLEAR TO THE OWNER IN WRITING THE VIOLATION
[00:45:01]
NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED. WE SHARED THE SCENARIOS AND IDEAS OF HOW TO DO. THAT WE DISCUSSED THE LIABILITY.IT IS NOT ON THE CITY, YOU, OR THE HOA.
AND THEN FOLLOWING UP, THIS IS NOVEMBER, 2022, THEY HAD-- THE CITY HAD CONVERSATIONS ON THE PHONE AND IN EMAIL IN REGARDING TO SUGGESTING TO DISCLOSE. LEGAL ADVICE SO THE NEXT OWNER
IS NOT CAUGHT OFF-GUARD. >> OKAY.
>> WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD. >> THANK YOU.
>> ALAN? >> JUST ONE THING, BRAD.
I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE CRUX OF MINE WAS.
>> MR. MEYER, ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION.
THE PHOTOS OF THE FIREPLACE SHOW THAT IT HAS A CAP OF SOME KIND.
TO YOU KNOW-- DO YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT A FIREPLACE OR CHIMNEY WHETHER IT HAS A SPARK ARRESTER. INSTALLED AS PART OF THAT CAP?
>> I'M NOT AWARE-- I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU. >> AND MR. MEYER, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, TOO, THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A FOLLOW-UP.
YOU BOUGHT IT IN JUNE OF 2022. >> YES.
WE BOUGHT IT-- WE PUT THE OFFER IN IN JUNE.
AT THAT TIME, YOU KNEW THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE ISSUE WITH
THAT WAS THE DISCLOSURE, AND THAT IS IN YOUR PACKETS.
>> THEN I GUESS MY ONE QUESTION OR TWO, MAYBE.
TWO-PRONGED. WHY IS CODE ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE? WHY ARE YOU HERE IN 2023 IF YOU KNEW YOU HAD TO GET THAT? WHY WAS THIS NOT DONE MORE
PROMPTLY? >> MY WIFE HAS HAD SOME HEALTH ISSUES OVER THE SUMMER. IT SLOWED US DOWN FOR COMPLETING THAT. WE STARTED WORKING WITH THE CITY IN AUGUST. THEY CAME OUT IN, I BELIEVE FEBRUARY. TO TAKE SOME PICTURES AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE FIREPLACE. TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A VARIANCE. AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE REPORTING TO US THAT IT WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER THERE WAS REALLY A NEED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY.
IT TOOK A FEW WEEKS FOR US TO GET A RESPONSE BACK FROM THAT.
WE DID DROP THE BALL AND LET THAT-- AFTER THEY RESPONDED IN LATE MARCH OR MID-MARCH. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PROMPT IN GETTING THAT COMPLETED. BUT WE DID DELAY.
I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE IT. >> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER
QUESTIONS, IS THERE A MOTION? >> NO MOTION?
IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE? >> COUNSELOR, REMIND ME.
DO WE ALWAYS PHRASE THESE IN THE POSITIVE ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT?
>> YES. IT IS A RULE OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ADVERSE ACTION. HERE.
THE APPROVAL WOULD BE POSITIVE ACTION.
NOT APPROVING IT WOULD BE AN ADVERSE ACTION AND THEREFORE, A
DENIAL. >> LY TRY TO DO THIS IN THE
RIGHT WAY, THEN. >> IT IS A RULE THAT WE PROBABLY
SHOULD AMEND GOING FORWARD. >> MOVE TO APPROVE DOCKET
PZ-2002-0021V. >> IS THERE A SECOND?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING, PLEASE STATE AYE.
>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE
AND BRAD AND JOHN WERE THE TWO OR-- I GUESS, JIM, LEAH AND ALAN WERE THE THREE THAT VOTED AGAINST.
THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MOVE TO DENY
DOCKET PZ-2023-00211-V. >> OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND TO DENY THE ACTUAL DOCKET?
[00:50:08]
>> TO CLARIFY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS.
YOU COULD. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT AFFIRMATIVELY THIS WAY AS WELL. BUT AGAIN, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE STATE THAT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEALS WITH ADVERSE ACTIONS. NOT ADVERSE ACTIONS.
NOT APPROVAL WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ADVERSE CONNECTION AND CON CLUES THOIF MATTER. THEREFORE, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, PER YOUR VOTE, THE MOTION-- THE VARIANCE IS DENIED.
>> I'LL WITHDRAW THE MOTION. I WAS TRYING SO HARD TO GET IT
[H.(V) Gramercy West, Stone Gravel Variance.]
WITH EWILL MOVE ON, THEN, TO THE DOCKET NUMBER 7.PZ-2023-00212-V. GRAMERCY WEST PUD ORDINANCE Z-630. GRAVEL PROHIBITED IN FRONT AND SIDE YARDS. GRAVEL IN SIDE YARDS REQUESTED.
>> I GUESS I'M ON. I'M ED FREEMAN.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO BE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
I'M WITH DAVIE, WEEKLEY, HOMES. IN INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.
OUR GRAMERCY WEST NEIGHBORHOOD IN CARMEL.
WHEN WE CAME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLAN COMMISSION IN 2018, WITHIN THE PUD THAT WAS APPROVED, GRAVEL BETWEEN OUR C & D HOMES WAS PROHIBITED. THROUGH THE HISTORY OF THE LAST THREE, FOUR-- FIVE YEARS, WE HAVE INSTALLED AND TRIED TO MAINTAINED SO SOD BETWEEN THESE HOMES AND THE SIDE YARDS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE SOD DOES NOT THRIVE.
IT DOES NOT GET ENOUGH SUN. AND IF WE OVERWATER IT, IT BECOMES A DRAINAGE ISSUE BETWEEN OUR HOMES.
ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT JUST SO YOU HAVE THIS IN YOUR PACKET, IN THE WRITE-UP BY STAFF, IT SAYS THE HOMES AT GRAMERCY WEST, THE C HOMES ARE 28 FEET WIDE.
AS YOU LOOK AT THE DRAWING THAT I HAVE POSTED, JUST SO YOU KNOW, OR YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE MY HANDS HERE.
THESE HOMES ARE THE ACTUAL C HOMES.
THE REMAINDER O'. >> THESE HOMES ALONG THE THOROUGHFARE HERE ON BOTH SIDES ARE THE 3 #-FOOT D HOMES.
31-FOOT D HOMES. THIS IS PRETTY MUCH MY PRESENTATION. I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. I DO HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER
OUR REQUEST THIS EVENING. >> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS PETITION? IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FAVORABLY FOR THIS PETITION? OKAY. SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL GO ON AND HAVE THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. OVERALL, PLANNING STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE 46 LOTS.
WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
WITH THE CONDITION THAT SOME LANDSCAPING BE ADDED IN FRONT OF THE GRAVEL AREAS THAT ARE EVEN WITH THE FRONT FACE OF THE HOUSE. JUST TO KIND OF HELP SCREEN THOSE AREAS AS YOU LOOK DOWN EACH OF THE SIDES OF THE HOUSES.
BUT AGAIN, WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION.
>> YES. BEING SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THE GRAVEL BUSINESS, UNDER THE GRAVEL, ARE YOU PUTTING ANY
ANYHING? >> I BELIEVE OUR LANDSCAPER, AND IT SHOULD BE WITHIN YOUR PACKET, DID PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PLAN.
THERE WILL BE A LINER, I BELIEVE, PLACED BEFORE THE
GRAVEL IS ACTUALLY INSTALLED. >> OKAY.
>> I GOT A REAL BLACK THUMB. I'M GOING TO ASK THIS QUESTION.
>> YES, SIR. >> IF GRASS WON'T GROW THERE, WHY WOULD SHRUBS AND TALL GRASS GROW THERE?
TO HIDE THE GRAVEL. >> THE REQUEST FOR THE SHRUBS AND THE HIGH GRASS OR TALL GRASS IS A REQUEST FROM STAFF.
>> YEAH, RIGHT. >> OUR LANDSCAPER, AS I HAVE PUT INSIDE THE PACKET OR WITHIN OUR INFORMATION WE SENT, IS
[00:55:05]
CONCERNED THAT WHERE THAT WOULD BE INSTALLED WILL IMPEDE THE DRAINAGE BETWEEN OUR HOMES, SO IF WE CAN, CERTAINLY-- AGAIN, WE WILL FOLLOW STAFF RECOMM RECOMMENDATION, BUT ON THIS, WE PROBABLY COULD PUT IN SOME AMOUNT OF SHRUBS, BUT ONLY AT THE ENTRANCE AND NOT-- WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO-- OUR LANDSCAPER DOES NOT SUGGEST WE USE-- FILL IN THE WHOLE AREA.AGAIN, IT IS A DRAINAGE AREA BETWEEN THESE HOMES.
GO AHEAD. >> I THINK THEY HAVE ADDRESSED OUR REQUEST. IT IS ON PAGE NINE OF THE INFO PACKET. THE PLANTINGS WILL BE IN THE FRONT YARD, BUT IT WILL HELP SCREEN THE VIEW OF THE SIDES OF THE HOUSE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
THEY WILL STILL GET SUNLIGHT. >> IT IS ACTUALLY THE FACT THAT THE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES DOESN'T CAUSE THE SUN TO COME
>> WHERE THESE PLANTINGS ARE CONCERNED, THAT IS OUT IN THE
>> SO I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF OUR EVENTUALLY MOVING AWAY FROM OUR MANICURED LAWNS AND HIGH COST OF CHEMICALS AND FUEL AND MOWING EQUIPMENT TO MAINTAIN THEM, AND GRAVEL IS ONE OF THE WAYS WE CAN MAKE THAT TRANSITION, TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF MAINTAINED LAWNS.
I GUESS I DON'T SEE THE GRAVEL AS BEING WORSE THAN THE GRASS OR SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE SCREENED OR HIDDEN.
UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT IS ADAMANT ABOUT THAT REQUIREMENT, I DON'T
SEE AN AESTHETIC NEED FOR IT. >> I DON'T THINK WE ARE ADAMANT
ABOUT IT. >> MR. FREEMAN, AT THE FRONT ELEVATIONS OF THESE PROPERTIES, THERE IS LANDSCAPING, AND SOME OF IT KIND OF GOES TO END OF EACH OF THESE UNITS.
THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY FLOW OVER AND SCREEN SOME SOME OF IT
YES. AS PART OF THE PUD, WE WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE PLAN.
AND TODAY, FOR THE HOMES THAT HAVE SOD IN THE SIDE YARDS, WE SILL HAVE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONTS OF THE HOMES.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION?
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2023-00212.
>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, STATE
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THAT PASSES.
IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS? ANY OLD BUSINESS? THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.