Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 317-571-2417 Fax: 317-571-2426 FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER DATE: February 27, 2006 TO: Christopher Booher FAJ(: 814-1825 FROM: Connie Tingley 317-571-2419 Attached hereto are 2 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission. Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2419 and ask for Connie. NOTES: Attached is the Dept Report for the Policka property for the Monday, February 27, 2006 BZA meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the forwarded documents to us. o .. ~,: DONNA & CHRISTOPHER BOOHER 11134 WESTMINSTER WAY CARMEL, INDIANA 46033 .----. February 16, 2006 "- "" '1-, ~. '.,\ " ' RECEIVED \\ ,\ FEB \71006 ~J \\\'... . DD.OOCCSS... ",) ,..:.) '",,~~/ "-<:~~.- - ..:-~_/ / Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 RE: Docket #06010013 V Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: In response to the aforementioned petition, we are providing this written remonstrance to the application for a Development Standards Variance. The subject of the application is a 5-foot high stockade fence built in our neighbor's second front yard. This latest version replaces a shorter, more decorative version built in 1999. It has the resultant affect of dominating the view from our property, and has destroyed the open, park-like feel we formerly enjoyed, a concept supported by our neighborhood association's covenants (excerpts attached). Petitioners have raised several issues in their Findings of Fact in support of the fence. In response to them, we offer the following: Similar to other fences in the neighborhood The "other fences" referenced by petitioner are all backvard fences. The only other situation that is even remotely similar, relates to the intersection of Westminster Way and Westminster Court. In that situation, the home at 4494 Westminster Court has a front yard facing a corner lot (11202 Westminster Way). The latter lot has a front yard fence. However, that fence is 1) inside the build line of the house, and 2) has been completely camouflaged by landscaping. The net effect of the landscaping seeks to mitigate substantially the visual impact of the fence. Further, its location inside the build line creates adequate distance and openness such that the impact of their "green wall" is lessened. This is the only other location in our neighborhood where a lot's primary front yard faces another's front yard. Hence, the petitioner's assertion that their fence is consistent with other fences in our neighborhood is false. This situation is unique. Approval by neighborhood Board of Directors Despite any approval petitioner was granted, the existing fence violates our neighborhood Covenants (section 4.13, Fences, Walls and Screening) as follows: "Undue obstruction of view or other amenities from adjoining properties will be taken into consideration by the Developer when reviewing fences for approval." "The Developer discourages fencing of the entire backyard due to the feeling of spaciousness desired by other property owners." Page 1 of 3 ~ ~ "Height Restriction. The Developer is of the opinion that the environmental integrity of the community will be materially lessened if the open nature of the community is damaged by a proliferation of fences of excessive height. Developer will approve rear perimeter fences up to 4 feet in height which otherwise meet these guidelines. The Developer will give consideration, however, to a variance in this height limit where the rear line of a Lot abuts a major arterial roadway... With respect to these provisions, we have several comments. One, the fence obstructs our view and the park-like feeling we previously enjoyed. Whether from our front yard, our driveway, or simply looking out the window, it dominates the view from our property. Second, the fence does not abut a major arterial roadway (Westminster Way). Third, in voicing our disapproval of the petitioner's project, I spoke with the head of our neighborhood Board's Architectural Committee, Rex Weiper (himself a homebuilder). When we pointed out the "two front yards" condition, he admitted that he had neglected to consider that fact. Lastly, we were never happy with the initial fence. However, in the spirit of being good neighbors, we bit our tongues, because the initial version was at least tolerable. Namely, it was shorter and more decorative than the current version. At no time during either project were we consulted by the petitioners or even by our own Architectural Committee. We were only told after-the-fact in both instances when each project was already "signed, sealed, and (nearly) delivered." Aesthetically Acceptable Wood Picket Fence From an aesthetic standpoint, this fence is nothing like its predecessor. Comments we've heard from passers-by and other nearby neighbors have run the gamut. They range from the abrupt and pointed ("ugly", "hideous", and "eyesore'') to the more diplomatic ("We liked the other one better" and "It's popsicle sticks on cross pieces''). One couple passed by shortly after it was installed and commented to us, "That thing can't possibly have been approved." And these comments don't even factor in the chicken wire lining and its supporting beams on the inside. A Zionsville vendor with experience and knowledge in landscaping remarked that his work takes him all over Hamilton and northern Marion County and he's seen a lot of fences. He stated unequivocally that a fence such as this would never be approved anywhere else. Lastly, the fence suffers from several flaws. One, the northern side is uneven along the top and reflects poor installation (it's a sight line we clearly see). Two, it bows out in the back (north side) near a tree, looking as if it's already leaning. Lastly, the boards look cheap, splotchy, and uneven. Their raw, unfinished character looks cheap and tacky. Unnecessary financial expense to move We find their objection to the financial burden to be irrelevant. Petitioners pursued this option without conducting proper due diligence. Consequently, any financial burden is the risk they assume by moving ahead without a variance. Had they consulted our neighborhood covenants or the city's ordinance, they would have learned of their options before committing funds to any project. Page 2 of 3 ~ Final Comments Our home sits within a tight grouping of six homes. In the time we've lived here (since 1996), we've had a couple of new owners move in and have had various projects affect the park-like feel we enjoy back there. In all cases, consultation and consideration were paid to the other owners. To wit: · Before we erected a wood play set in our backyard, we consulted with our backyard neighbors to get their input before proceeding to allay any concerns they might have in the enjoyment of their property. Additionally, we asked a member of the Board to visit and inspect the site to get the Board's input and help us prepare our "presentation" to the neighbors. · When our neighbors to the north were considering a wooden fence for their dogs, they approached us and asked how we'd feel about it. We shared the same concern voiced here, and they elected to install an electric perimeter for their dog. · When our neighbors to the northwest, were going to put an addition onto their home, with the resultant structure decreasing the proximity between our two homes, they met with us to share their plans and illustrate the steps they were going to take to mitigate the impact it would have on the enjoyment of our property. Similarly, they approached us before the installation of a privacy fence in their "second front yard" (which abuts Kingswood Drive), and before they installed their pool, which required them to make modifications to their fence. These are examples that illustrate good neighbor-to-neighbor consideration. Making modifications to one's property should always take into regard the impact such changes have on the surrounding residences. We don't believe that approach was followed in this instance. We have a letter of support (attached) provided to us by our neighbors, Maris and Maurice Bluestein (11122 Westminster Way). Their home, though less so, is the next most directly affected home with respect to the petitioner's fence. Lastly, we've enclosed some pictures, though they are inadequate to the situation. The only way to truly appreciate the impact the petitioner's fence is having on our property is to see it first hand. There's no way to convey the closed-in feeling or the impact on spaciousness it is having from just a picture. Respectfully submitted, Donna & Christopher Booher 11134 Westminster Way Carmel 46033 Enclosures: . Pictures . Copy of relevant passages from neighborhood covenants . Letter from Maris and Maurice Bluestein, 11122 Westminster Way Page 3 of 3 r. f .~ r I ". i " / ~\ " '!' .~ "':;.". ~ l! .......-- - " '~ ../--'-~~;; ,. r /"" ~..: - " -..'.---r ~ '. . "J~ f"' \,/ - ,F ". ""~'\':r...t-.;..?-d.../, 1- ,-, ,\~" ~'r- J j;' ,,jo., ~"'ioiU".' Ii i ".<?....." 'v .~7'. ..' \ , .. ~~~..~~)...-v-...~~ ~ \.' ":'-;;" "c, "',_ .. 11 ~~ Section 4.10 "Prohibition of Used Structures and Modular Homes." An structures constructed or placed on any Lot shall be constructed with substantially all new materials and no used structures shall be relocated or placed on any such Lot. No modular or prefabricated structures (except trusses) may be places on any Lot. ~ectiolk 4.U. "Buildin, Completion." Unless a delay is caused y 5t" es, war. court Injunction. or acts of God. the exterior of any' dwellinl(or structure built URon any Lot shall be comp-Ieted within -one 1) year after'the elate of commencement of the buildinl process. No improvement which has partially or totally been destroyed by fire or otherwise, shall be allowed to remain in such state for more than three (3) months from the time of such destruction or damale. If saiit structure is not completed or repaired within such time. then the Developer may re-enter, take possession of said Lot. without notice. and .ell the same together with improvements, and after payment of liens and expenses, pay the balance of the sale proceeds to the owner of said Lot at tfie time of sale. ~. "Fire" No fire shall be permitted to burn upon any ~way in the subdivision. . .5.K.tkm..A..13. "Fences. Walls. and Screening.- It is the Joal of ~r to keep all fenclnK or screening as harmonious as possible With the architectural character of tile communit.Y. No fence or screen will be app.roved if its InstaDatlon will otistruct necessary sight lines for vehicular traffic. Undue obstruction of view or other amenities from adjoining properties will be taken into consideration by the Developer when reviewing fences for approval. Fences shall not be nearer to the front of a home than the rear foundation line of. a home exceRt decorative fences. Front fences may be placed parallel to the front foundation of a home only If they do not cause .unreasonable visual barriers and they are of identical materials as the main structure. The Developer discourages fencing of the entire back yard due to the effect that this fencing may nave on the feeling of spadousness desired by other property owners. Fences may 6e privatel!, installed but must lie constructed to professional levels of quality. Non-professionally installed fences will be inspected by., the Developer after completion in order to ensure that the fina product is of a professional quality and final app.roval of the fence. shall be deemed withheld until successful completion of this fina review. . 12 I'r-: A. Height restriction. The developer is of the op-inion that the environmental integrity of the community will be materially lessened if the open nature of the community is damajte(J bY a proliferation of fences of excessive height. The Developer. therefore, will approve rear perimeter fences up to 4 feet in height which otherwise meet these guidelines. The Develop-er will give consideration, however 10 to a variance in this height limit where the rear line 01 a Lot abuts a major arterial roadw~ or other clearly unique circumstances exist. The use of-6 foot fences around small patio areas of a backyard of . home in order to secure . privacy for the immediate patio or to enclose an inground pool. a~ea wiD be permitted. The specific fence neight restnctions are as follows: 1) Property fencinl and walls above grade shall not exceed 4 feet above Irade unless otherwise approved by the Developer. _ . 2) The Developer will not onlina"'y ap-prove any p'roposed fence which. exceed 4 feet in height unless the rear line of that Lot abuts a major arterial roadway or offers some other drcurristances clearly- unique to that lot. 3) Patio'screens/privacy fences shall not exceed 6 feet in ~ei.ht, ~cept for pools and recreational fences as provldeil herein. B. Materials and Finish. 1) Wood fencing or screening. will be allowed if the desiln is in c:onforrnity with the architectural design of the communaty. . 2) The installation of Ii chain Rnk or other plvanized metal fendn. will not be Rermitted unless at Is vinyl coated or covered with similar coated material. Black or dark green are pre-approved .11 other colors must be approved prior to construction. 3) AD fendn. of screening should preferabJy have finished matenal on both sides. If only one (1) side has linished materials, that side must face the public side of adjoining property. 4) Walls above grade should be constructed of natural stone, masonry. or attractive timber. r: r 11122 Westminster Way Carmel, IN 46033 November 2, 2005 Board of Zoning Appeals City Hall Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Sirs: We reside on the northwest comer of Westminster Way and Huntington Drive in the Kingswood subdivision. Directly across from us on the northeast comer resides the Policka family who recently erected. a high wooden fence along Westminster Way. We understand that this fence is in violation ofthe covenai1.1s-ofthe Kingswood Homeowners Association. While we are not hanned by this fence, it has been objected to by our neighbors to our north, the Boohers, whose front yard is directly across from the Policka's fence. We believe that when such a fence is objectionable to a neighbor and is in violation of the basic covenants it should not be permitted. If a variance is to be considered for such a fence, it should not be granted without first notifying all the affected neighbors. Homeowners rely on the covenants for protection against actions they would deem harmful and should not be overridden without extensive consideration of all the parties involved. Sincerely, Maurice Bluestein ~~ Maris W. Bluestein .'1' - ,"- ...-- 0' (,;) /\ " u December 29,2005 To: City of Carmel and Clay Township Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals This memo is in reference to the attached application for a Development Standards Variance requesting that a wood picket fence remain "as is" at my residence at 11125 Westminster Way, Lot #31, in the Kingswood Subdivision. I hope that the attached application is complete with the information requested for this application by the City of Carmel. Although I have outlined in the Findings of Fact document the reasons why this fence should remain, I would like to highlight the following for your consideration: 1. The location of this fence was first approved by the Kingswood Subdivision Board of Directors in 1999. At that time the fence to be erected was a 4-foot wood picket fence. 2. In the fall of2005, the fence was replaced and raised 1 foot with as-foot wood picket fence in the same location in order to contain our new dog, which for some reason possesses outstanding jumping ability. This fence was erected on the exact same footprint as the previous fence. This fence was also approved by the Kingswood Board of Directors. 3. We live on Westminster Way which is one of the busiest streets in our subdivision as it is close to the entrance of Kings wood. 4. I would like to request that the fence remain in its current location as it meets the safety needs of our dog as well as allowing our children to play in our backyard with the peace of mind knowing that they are safe. 5. This fence only projects from the side of my home a short distance. The reason this fence is in the current location is that it would require me to drastically change the landscaping of the backyard due to existing trees and planting beds, thus the reason for approval from the Kingswood Board. 6. I have spoken to Kevin Brennan, Code Enforcement Officer, who has inspected the fence and it's location. He has stated to me that the fence is not a safety or traffic hazard, it is well constructed and does not see it as a problem. 7. Finally, I would appreciate the consideration to have this application reviewed by the Hearing Officer for the City of Carmel. !} u (.;) , Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding this application. I look forward to working with you to answer any questions that you may have. GJW Greg Policka 11125 Westminster Way Carmel, IN 46033 Home: 317-580-1505 Cell: 317-752-1007 cc: Kevin Brennan, Code Enforcement Officer, DOCS r. o o NOTICE OF ZONING ORDINANCE VIOLATION DATE AND TIME OF ISSUANCE: WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 14. 2005 AT 8: 10 AM CITY OF CARMEL/CLAY TOWNSHIP DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 (317) 571-2444 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: OWNER OR TENANT: MAILING ADDRESS: NATURE OF VIOLATION: ORDINANCE SECTION VIOLATED: DATE/TIME OF VIOLATION: ABATEMENT PERIOD: FINE FOR UNABATED VIOLATION: COMMENTS: RECORD #: CE05100019 11125 Westminster Way Gregory M. & Gretchen C. Policka 11125 Westminster Way Cannel, IN 46033 Fence in front yard exceeds permitted height of 42 inches. Cannel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.02.01 On or before October 17, 2005 The above violation must be fully corrected and come into compliance with the Ordinance Sections set forth above within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this notice. Up to $100.00 - First Violation* Up to $200.00 - Second Violation* Up to $300.00 - Third Violation* Up to $400.00 - Fourth Violation* Up to $500.00 - Subsequent Violations* *Each day a violation remains uncorrected constitutes a separate violation that is subject to a separate fine. Please bring the fence into compliance or apply for a Vapance by December 31, 2005. DO NOT DISREGARD TmS NOTICE!! Please contact the inspector listed below at (~17J 571-2423 for questions or comments. J /-1 _. ..... _ IlL INSPECTOR: LV~'7 Kevin Brennan, Code Enforcement O.ffker , CERTIFIED NOTICE - RETURN RECEIPf REQUESTED IS:\Code Enforcement\ENFORCEMENT\2005 CASE$\October\CEQ5100019\ VlOLAnON NonCE1ence2.docl o u If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (317) 571-2423. Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, I~ Kevin Brennan Code Enforcement Officer Department of Community Services Cc: File: CE05100019 Enclosure ONE CMC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571-2417