HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter # 1 Charles PunoFrom:Charles B. Puno
To:Crediford, Maggie
Cc:Charles Puno
Subject:Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 23, 2016: Docket #16050010 V
Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2016 5:39:05 PM
Dear Ms. Crediford:
We are in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing and subsequently secured the information
packet of the above captioned docket for an appeal to the Carmel Board of Zoning. We
will unfortunately be unable to attend the meeting scheduled for May 23rd. As such, please
accept this correspondence as our formal response to the petitioner's appeal.
We are located on Lot #28 directly next to and west of the petitioner on Lot #27. The
petitioner's lot site was excavated late last summer with the dwelling built exactly at
the required minimum 10' side yard setback to our property line, making the home unusually
and uncomfortably close to us. The fact that the distance between most other homes and
driveways in both Windsor Grove I and II is quite generous, it is evident that the petitioner's
use of the minimum side yard setback was a rare occurrence since the inception of the
development close to 10 years ago. Unfortunately, we are the direct "beneficiaries" of this
rarity.
With that said, our family spends a lot of time on our driveway, deck and side yard
directly adjacent to the petitioner's property. At an area of 3' x 8' for their pool equipment, the
size of which is not insignificant, we believe that the location of the pool equipment as
proposed will have an added negative impact to the resale potential of our home, even if the
equipment is covered with grasses. With the petitioner's home at the 10' minimum side yard
setback already makes the house uncomfortably close, having the pool equipment and
screening landscaping would only bring the home that much closer. Lastly, there are two
central air condensers already installed on the same side of the house, which are clearly inside
the setback by at least 2 feet. Why weren't these presented as an appeal to the board?
There are plenty of alternative areas in the petitioner's back yard for their pool equipment that
will be covered by "thick landscaping". This includes the east side of their home towards Lot
#26, where there is ample room with no need for an appeal regarding the side yard setback at
that location. Though we understand the petitioner's desire to keep their pool equipment out
of their "backyard views", we would like to keep their pool equipment out of our view as well
as more importantly, help to keep the resale potential of our home high, which we believe
may have already been compromised by virtue of the use of the minimum side yard set back.
Given the above, we respectfully oppose the petitioners' proposal and appeal.
Sincerely,
Charles & Michelle Puno
10561 Iron Horse Ln
Windsor Grove
Lot 28