Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #04 Rex BrownOctober 28, 2019 City of Carmel Attn: Joe Shestak, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Jason and Sarah Sprunger ("Petitioners") Docket No.19070011 V (the "Petition") Dear Members of the City of Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals: I, Rex Brown write on behalf of myself and my wife, Lizzette Brown, and Larry and Carrie Delia our immediate next -door neighbors. We own homes immediately adjacent to Petitioners' northern (rear) property line. You have received a letter from our attorney, David Shelton, making well sorted points, but we felt that additional insight from those directly impacted would be helpful. Because of our location, the subject Petition directly impacts both our families. For the reasons that follow, we oppose the Petition and respectfully ask that the Petition be denied. I own and operate a custom home building company. I started my home building career in 1994 and have built over 300 homes, primarily in Hamilton County and specialize in building spec homes where my company selects land, designs homes for the market, and sells finished custom homes. This experience makes me more familiar with residential development and building process than an average citizen. First, from a personal view, my wife and I built our home at 2167 Finchley Road in 2007, and along with all the neighbors along our street, we've watched and patiently waited to see what would finally be built behind each of our homes. We were obviously aware of the Towne Oak Estates subdivision (TOE) and of the corresponding development standards applicable to TOE. Before we purchased our lot, we reviewed these development standards and relied upon on them when making our considerable investment in our homes. Had we known that the City would later change these standards, we may have not made all the same costly decisions with our home. If the current petition is approved, the uncertainty surrounding the development of a flawed Lot 9 will diminish the value of both our home and the Delia's home. It seems highly inappropriate to approve development standards, enforce them on all the other owners in TOE, as well as on our neighborhood, The Village of West Clay, forcing all the owners to design and build to the approved standards, yet allow one owner to circumvent the standards at the expense of the surrounding neighbors when those legal standards are in place to protect and enhance property values. Unlike last year's approved petition that reduced the number of buildings on Lot 8 and Lot 9, this current City of Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2019 Page 2 Petition is for the exact opposite and serves to only benefit a flawed Lot 9 and ignores the surrounding properties. For the past 12 years, we've lived in our homes watching the TOE homes slowly be built behind our neighbors and now behind us. My experience in custom home building allows me to understand more than the average person as it relates to building. TOE was poorly developed and overpriced when first made available to the public. Seasoned builders and buyers knew that most of the lots were naturally low, wet, with poor drainage, heavily wooded, and in some cases, a number of the lots, including Lot 9, were oddly laid out and sized creating substantial building challenges. Each TOE lot that has been built upon has needed a near complete clearing of all trees to accommodate proper drainage, which will be the case for Lot 9. Yet some lots continue to have drainage issues. There have been many complaints by our surrounding neighbors that abut the homes in TOE. Eventually in 2018, 11 years after the subdivision was available, Lot 8 and Lot 9 were sold and plans made to build on them. The 2018 Petitioner's request to combine the lots into one building site was approved by all because their plans improved and enhanced the two lots as well as the surrounding properties, providing more distance, more natural trees, and more importantly, not building on a compromised Lot 9 which at the time was the specific reason to approve the 2018 petition. The Petitioners correctly pointed out in their 2018 petition that the lots were oddly shaped and difficult to build on. This was true for several obvious reasons but the petitioners now wish to undo the deal made with the City last year allowing a substantially more compromised Lot 9 to be buildable even though they have nearly finished their home and appurtenant driveway on Lot 8 and Lot 9 as planned with approved variances from the City. Lot 9 was not a great lot before the Petitioner's home was built but now with the practical building difficulties, added to the poor existing site conditions, as well as the added legal requirements for easements, possible shared driveway, reduction in the building size of Lot 9, the current petition should be denied. As a custom builder and immediate neighbor, I wish to point out the following practical issues presented by the Petition as well as the difficulties with Lot 9: 1. Lot 9 was approved as a lot that shared the same building standards as the other lots within TOE, with similar setbacks such as 10' side yards. It was designed and approved to have exclusive ingress and egress from Steffee Drive. However, as now situated: (a) Lot 9 must have a larger left/west side yard to maintain development standards; (b) the City added tree preservation areas reducing the buildable area on Lot 9; and (c) an easement must be granted to Lot 8 at a minimum to allow the driveway encroachment serving Lot 8 to access Steffee Drive. All of these hindrances make the buildable area on Lot 9 compromised in shape and size. The Lot 8 variances force a potential home on Lot 9 to be farther away from its west side yard, thereby pushing the potential home back farther toward our homes. City of Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2019 Page 3 2. The overall development plan for TOE was approved by the City based on certain size requirements such as number of lots per acre, making each lot an average approved size. With the proposed changes to Lot 9, the functional size, set back, ingress and egress are all greatly diminished. It's difficult to find a better example of diminished value vs. enhanced value of the surrounding properties if the current Petition is approved. The value of each surrounding home impacted by Lot 9 is over $1,000,000. It seems fiscally unwise to compromise the values of million dollar homes so as to force an awkward home on Lot 9, especially given that two of the three property owners oppose it, and that Petitioners were still able to build their home under the variances granted by the City made subject to commitments to prevent this exact occurrence. 3. Access onto Lot 9 is now compromised for the purpose of constructing a home. As mentioned, the development of Lot 9, just as all the other lots along that side of Steffee Drive will be difficult, and unlike the other lots, Lot 9 has added practical difficulties of an existing driveway, very narrow pathway back to site for construction and utilities ingress. All these factors lower the viability of realistically building a home on Lot 9. Moreover, when a possible future owner of Lot 8 and Lot 9 decide to make changes or build on Lot 9, what legal fights or issues may develop? It's likely that the Petitioners will not want a home awkwardly built next door while they live there, but when they decide to move, the Petitioners may decide to put Lot 9 up for sale. The new owners may not understand the complicated legal issues and easements that may lead to a legal kerfuffle. Why would the City wish to allow this possibility when it can simply deny the Petition now and avoid this disservice to future owners of these lots and of the adjacent properties? It seems that the City should consider the wellbeing of all the parties, including those in the future when administering its development standards. 4. Lot 8's sewer has connected to Lot 9's sewer lateral. It's not clear how one would connect Lot 9's sewer. This somewhat hidden fact may get missed along the way, only to appear in the future to an uninformed future Lot 9 owner. As time passes, details such as this get lost, and the current City and utility administrators may move on in their careers, leaving the lot owners to deal with the consequences. S. Lot 9 will be seriously compromised with tight spacing on the west and north sides, being closer to our homes than any other home along the street which will seem odd. The long driveway that must be either shared with Lot 8 or follow along side next to Lot 8's will appear wholly unusual within TOE. The high -end custom market will likely discount both properties for these reasons, as well as, our properties, if a home was built on Lot 9. Lot 8's home will also be negatively affected just like ours. It's difficult to understand how the Petitioners don't understand the negative impact on their own property, when they made the exact same arguments last year. City of Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2019 Page 4 6. I believe that the 2018 variances would not have been approved had the Petitioners not agreed to the commitments to not build on Lot 9. Otherwise, Petitioners' home could have been designed to fully comply with the development standards applicable to TOE. There was no other reason to approve the building of the home and improvements outside of the mandated requirements, just like every other owner in TOE, except for the fact that Lot 9 by itself was already a difficult lot on which to build. The variance was agreed to and approved based on Petitioners' promise to not build or offer to allow others to build on Lot 9. Petitioners' now wish to take advantage of the situation they've created and offer -up a compromised Lot 9 for the market and the neighbors to deal with in the future. 7. The Delias and my family have lived with the uncertainty of TOE for years. We've wondered what will be there and when. We made financial decisions based on what has slowly occurred and promised by the Petitioners and the City. Now, the current Petition adds even more uncertainty of an oddly placed home Lot 9, and the real possibility that, if granted, the values of our connecting properties will be adversely affected. It's difficult for me to understand the justification of granting the Petition based on the information provided in this letter. The parties agreed to the statements of fact and plans made last year. The issues were thoroughly presented, debated, agreed upon, and eventually approved by all. The Petitioners proceeded without delay in building the exact home they wanted and now can enjoy their home as they wished it to be. How can it make sense to now grant Petitioners the opposite of what was approved last year and now give them the right to sell and build on a compromised Lot 9? What has changed since last year that makes anything different from what was brought before the City for review last year? The Petitioners state the pool is no longer in their plans, yet the entire home and driveway required the approved 2018 variances, therefore the pool is a moot point and, in our opinion, a non -factor in upholding the Petitioners' commitments. For the above reasons, we again respectfully request that the Petitioners' request to vacate the Commitments be denied. Thank You, Rex Brown Homes By Rex Brown 2167 Finchley Road Carmel Indiana 46032 USA www.HomesByRexBrown.com RexBrown@HomesByRexBrown.com Main: 317-587-1388 (direct and mb)